So 750 Ti and 950 theoritically might be the same in power consumption if they are not being maxed out by a game?
In general all GFX cards will "clock down" when idle or only lightly loaded. Low-end cards will typically be 8-12w idle (vs no dGPU at all), higher cards up to 15-25w idle. When running a game, power depends on game, frame-rate and architectural efficiency of card. Maxwell's will typically draw less than AMD's of the same class, but one mid-range Maxwell (eg, GTX 960) may not draw massively more than a low-end 750Ti when only very lightly loaded (eg, a "light" game with VSync on capped to 60fps) as they will be using intermediate clock states more often. Eg, the "120w" GTX 960 was widely advertised as using barely 30w when playing DOTA style games. Most benchmarks don't show this as they all test with VSync off. I've tested a GTX 960 on a number of older games, and the fans don't even spin up. It's a great HTPC card despite the populist forum hate. Obviously the 950/960 will get more fps vs the 750Ti in more demanding games, and under those conditions they will obviously draw more power, but under lighter loads they will clock down a lot. Eg, when I did some low-end Maxwell power testing on a HTPC (whole system consumption measured at the wall):-
Furmark : VSync
Off. R7 260X = 145w
/ 750Ti = 119w
/ GTX 960 = 169w
Skyrim : VSync
On. R7 260X = 142w (55fps @ 100% GPU usage)
/ 750Ti = 114w (60fps @ 90-100% GPU usage)
/ GTX 960 = 119w (60fps @ 45-65% GPU usage).
A 750Ti is around +10-15% faster than an R7 260X and an GTX 960 is 100% faster than an R7 260X and around +80% faster than a 750Ti. If you're running a lot of lighter weight / older games that don't max the GPU out and normally play with VSync on, you'll probably see the same effect. The 950/960 will also draw less power than the 750Ti during HEVC/x265 playback due to a dedicated hardware decoder if that's important to you (you said you had a G3258?). If you're worried about maxing out a low wattage PSU, you can easily limit the power via "Power Target" settings in say MSI Afterburner. The "scale" isn't linear, ie, setting it to 80-85% doesn't mean it'll be clocked 15-20% slower, it may only run 2-4% slower because each frequency step down is matched with an undervolt where the power saving is the square of voltage (vs linear power drops of lowering frequencies alone), and since it's the highest "bins" that draw disproportionately more voltage, fewer frequency drops will be required to meet a certain power target setting during the first 10-20% reduction of lower power target savings (if that makes sense!).
Right now the GTX 950 is a bit overpriced especially due to "launch week premium". I can understand not wanting a upper-mid R9 290 card that pulls +100-150w more in a low powered box to be matched up with a G3258, but I really wouldn't bother worrying about 10w difference between a 950 vs 960 if that's what's holding you up deciding between them. Really you just have to decide what games you will be running, what you're budget is, what other constraints you have or want (lowest power / heat / noise / short card length / 0-1x PCI-E cables, other features (HDMI 2.0 + HDCP 2.2 / hardware HEVC), etc). Despite the "advice" given here by some obsessed over one single card model, there really isn't a single card that's "perfect" for everyone especially if you have other constraints. If you just run simple / older games or don't mind turning down the settings and just want the cheapest sub $100 card, you may as well buy a 750Ti now. But if you really want a GTX 950 card and if it's only $10-$20 less than a GTX 960 in your region, then you may as well buy the GTX 960 now rather than wait for the 950 to fall.
No big deal there. My apologies for being unclear on that. :$
Facebook
Twitter