GTX 950 vs GTX 750 Ti

[NTMBK]

Also, the coolers on those cards are ridiculous for a card like that. Look at this thing:

It's literally twice the length of the cooler on the 750ti you were looking at!

 

[SPBHM]

I'm sure we will see smaller PCB/cooler versions... they make those massive cards to appeal more for gamers, it looks more like a high end card...

 

[RussianSensation]

also as you can see the 270X is competitive, so when AMD launch the rebrand (370X) it will be good competition in terms of performance, but the 950 would take it easily for me because it's GM206 vs GCN 1.0

1. GCN 1.0 vs. Maxwell 2.0 in this case has hardly any relevance to actual gaming performance. Results speak for themselves as per my post -- 950 has worse price/performance to nearly every NV/AMD card in the $100-250 range.

2. My analysis put 950 in the absolute best light since I used after-market 950 performance and $159 MSRP when comparing 270X/285/280/280X/290/960 cards to it.

In reality, after-market 950 cards cost more than $159:

ZOTAC GTX 950 AMP! = $175

It's way too loud for a card of this type with 90W TDP.

Gigabyte GTX 950 OC = $170

That makes no sense when eVGA and MSI 960 cards are $175.

Again 35 dBA is not particularly amazing for a 90W card.

ASUS GTX 950 STRIX = $180

Absurd pricing, but at least it nailed the noise levels.

EVGA GTX950 SSC = $170

Great noise levels.

The problem is the after-market 950 cards are priced way too high relative to the 750Ti or the 960 and look absolutely horrendous against cards like the 280X or 290 in terms of bang-for-the-buck which is a big factor for someone trying to get as much performance as possible in the sub-$225 space.

Unless someone has a $5 OEM 300W PSU, one would have to be mad to spend $170-180 for gaming on a 950 vs. a 960 and an absurdly/ridiculously faster after-market $220-230 R9 290.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Also, the coolers on those cards are ridiculous for a card like that. Look at this thing:

It's literally twice the length of the cooler on the 750ti you were looking at!

"Normal" types exist too.

 

[iiiankiii]

Too expensive. $139 would have been a fine price. But, Nvidia just had to be Nvidia.

 

[SPBHM]

1. GCN 1.0 vs. Maxwell 2.0 in this case has hardly any relevance to actual gaming performance.

I mentioned GM206, because it's the latest Maxwell 2, with HEVC video decode, I already have a decent amount of HEVC videos and that's relevant enough for me,

also the card is more efficient for DX11 (DX11 MT), it would probably show with slower CPUs (like the one I have)

the 950 uses 20W less than the 270X for the same perf (same perf, unlike the 750 with much nicer power draw but also a lot lower perf)

I expect prices to decrease in time, just like they did with the 750 Ti...

even with a 20% inferior performance/$ compared to a GCN 1.0 product of similar price I think I would take the 950 for the reasons I mentioned, mainly Nvidia drivers (DX11 efficiency, better support for old products) and HEVC.

 

[NTMBK]

"Normal" types exist too.

Ah, much better. I hadn't seen them, thanks!

 

[mutantmagnet]

What? One thing I know that can be counted on on AT forums is how people keep defending NV's x50 series cards but gen after gen they offer the worst price/performance in NV's line-up at their MSRPs. This has been true for GTS450, GTX550, GTX650, 650Ti, 750 and 750Ti.

Let's look at the current market:

On the NV side, 950 looks like a poor value when 960 can be found for $175 with MGS. If someone is gaming on a budget, 750/750Ti have already gone as low as $50/80 US. GTX750Ti 2GB is $95 right now. In that context, 950 is a terrible value in NV's current line-up compared to 750Ti or 960.

LOL. Rebates. Most budget gamers don't bother counting in rebates. They're a crap shoot.

The 950 is better value than the 750 TI even at $120 which is the actual lowest price most people will see because they don't count rebates.

 

[RussianSensation]

LOL. Rebates. Most budget gamers don't bother counting in rebates. They're a crap shoot.

The 950 is better value than the 750 TI even at $120 which is the actual lowest price most people will see because they don't count rebates.

You can't consider yourself a true budget gamer seeking max price/performance and ignore deals/sales and/or rebates. A properly and timely filled out rebate is free $. If someone who is on a budget doesn't want to bother maximizing their return on investment, then they deserve to get ripped off by a 950 vs. far superior 285/960 and sometimes 280/280X/750Ti deals and especially insane $200-220 R9 290 deals which make a $170-180 after-market 950 look pathetic.

Even TPU which often lets NV slide when it comes to price/performance has noted that 950 at $159 for reference and $170-180 for after-market cards is a garbage deal against 285/960.

But I am used to people defending overpriced x50 series cards over the last 7+ years so I am not at all surprised at your weak rebuttal in dismissing rebates or ignoring after-market prices of 950 vs. 285/960 even without rebates. Not to mention a $180 card with only 2GB of VRAM is in itself a big joke in 2015.

 

[ganons]

well, if he is not gaming and don't need HEVC/HDMI 2.0 I guess... but when not gaming the power usage difference is probably irrelevant anyway;
I think the extra perf is worth the extra 40W, even if the 750 ti is better perf/W

So when Im not gaming, its not gonna use 90 watts? What wattage will it be then when doing basic work/browsing/playing videos?

 

[nvgpu]

Techpowerup has 4 GTX 950 reviews, the cards are 8-10W at idle.

Also always ignore anyone that mentions the 290/290X, even AMD doesn't want to subsidize the low prices on those and jacked up the prices on 390/390X rebrands by $100+ nor does anyone want 290W of heat blasted into their rooms.

 

[RussianSensation]

Too expensive. $139 would have been a fine price. But, Nvidia just had to be Nvidia.

The sad part is the loyalist consumers don't care and they will line-up to pay $170-180 for a 950. Taking time value into account, someone could have enjoyed HDMI 2.0, HVEC and 8 months of gaming with a $199 960 2GB. NV isn't even trying anymore since so many gamers who buy their cards seem to be totally oblivious to basic concepts like the total cost of ownership, time value, price/performance, etc.

It's very interesting how 970/980Ti are such great cards but everything in between has been an overpriced offering from NV this generation. It's no wonder so many gamers are gravitating towards higher-end cards since the sub-$199 segment offers very poor value. Perhaps this is NV's goal to get gamers to move up to $300-350 as the sweet spot.

I still remember how so many gamers on here viciously defended overpriced turds like GTS450, GTX550/650/650Ti but looking back in time, all of those cards were not worth buying at their MSRPs until they started dropping to $100-110.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So when Im not gaming, its not gonna use 90 watts? What wattage will it be then when doing basic work/browsing/playing videos?

Not much, 10-15W or so.

 

[mutantmagnet]

The sad part is the loyalist consumers don't care and they will line-up to pay $170-180 for a 950. Taking time value into account, someone could have enjoyed HDMI 2.0, HVEC and 8 months of gaming with a $199 960 2GB. NV isn't even trying anymore since so many gamers who buy their cards seem to be totally oblivious to basic concepts like the total cost of ownership, time value, price/performance, etc.

It's amazing you keep comparing an aftermarket version with the reference GPU. On top of that the $170 aftermarkets offer better performance per dollar than the reference 960 at $200 (though if you shop around you can actually find reference cards for $185 right now)

 

[LTC8K6]

Also, the coolers on those cards are ridiculous for a card like that. Look at this thing:

It's literally twice the length of the cooler on the 750ti you were looking at!

Not much longer than the 750 and 750ti high perf coolers:

http://www.evga.com/products/images/gallery/02G-P4-2758-KR_XL_7.jpg

http://www.evga.com/products/images/gallery/02G-P4-3757-KR_XL_7.jpg

 

[DustinBrowder]

Expected it to debut at $140 with $150 highly overclocked custom versions, but at $160 reference price and pretty much $175 on average for custom models this is yet another Nvidia turd!

Why would anyone bother to buy a $175 or $180 low end care, when you can get a 280 or 280x for $170 and $180, you can even get a $180 GTX 960 on sale, so why would anyone waste cash on this useless overpriced turd?

The GTX 960 should be $150, with the 4GB version at $170, the GTX 950 should be $130 with a 4GB version at $150. But once again Nvidia being Nvidia and overpricing their useless low end, can barely run minecraft turds at absurd prices!

 

[BSim500]

gen after gen they offer the worst price/performance in NV's line-up at their MSRPs. This has been true for GTS450, GTX550, GTX650, 650Ti, 750 and 750Ti.

Low end cards have never had the best perf/$ (same with the HD5570 / HD7730/7770, etc), but that's nothing new. The 750Ti's premium is that it's the fastest card with no cables required and therefore the only usable one for the millions of OEM pre-built's typically coming with 300w PSU's & no cables. Cards are not necessarily "total junk" just because they're don't exactly hit the peak pinnacle of the perf-per-$ curve down to the last 0.1% each time. Some people just don't need an R9 290 for their choice of games at any price. That's precisely why they were looking at low end cards in the first place instead of the GTX 970... Some cards "play different roles", eg, mid / upper-mid range R9 290 / GTX 970 play the "perf per $ role", yet not every single card in every single bracket "has to" do the same. That's why different tranches of dGPU exist in the first place, why smaller sized SSD's & HDD's exist even though 128-256GB SSD's have "rubbish capacity / perf per $" vs +512GB ones, why Celeron's & Pentium's exist, etc.

But most shocking of all, an after-market R9 290...

We all know you have a "thing" for the R9 290, but some of these comparisons are getting ridiculous and "stretched" to comical extremes (R9 290 vs 750Ti class cards. Seriously?). Where I live the cheapest 750Ti is £89, the cheapest GTX 950 is £127, the cheapest GTX 960 & R9 285 are both £150, the cheapest R9 290 is £218, and the cheapest GTX 970 is £230. The R9 290 is only £12 ($19) cheaper than a GTX 970, £68 ($106) more than the GTX 960, £91 ($142) more than a GTX 950 and £129 ($202) more than the 750Ti. And a lot of those nVidia 900 cards came with Witcher 3 vs a "bare" 290 card-only. The closest nVidia card to the R9 290 is the GTX 970 and the closest card to the GTX 960 is the R9 285. Comparing cards across brands with up to $150-200 price disparities in completely different price & performance brackets & sub-markets with a straight face makes about as much sense as declaring "an Intel i7-4790K is 'shockingly' faster than an AMD X4 750K", or "a 1TB Crucial SSD has 'surprisingly' more room than a 256GB Samsung SSD"...

In reality, after-market 950 cards cost more than $159

Of course prices are high on launch day. The only sensible thing is to wait and see what price it settles down to afterwards. If the 950 ends up consistently priced too close to the 960 in 3 months time, then yes, it's rubbish. But if it falls to nearer 750Ti's average price, then it'll actually be pretty good. Launch day prices alone don't mean a thing. See the +$799 FX-9590. If it doesn't sell, it'll soon fall in price simply to shift units. And if it does sell then like the 750Ti, it proves those obsessed solely with perf-per-$ curves who "don't understand why x card is selling" or label everyone "stupid sheep" for not buying a 290 are simply persistently misreading the low-end market... A lot of us who bought the 750Ti aren't poverty stricken or "clueless" as to the better perf-per-$ of mid-range cards, we bought one for a multitude of different reasons (HTPC, OEM PC, retro gaming rig, dedicated PhysX card, etc). In my case it was a combination of a hybrid HTPC / retro rig + unending problems with AMD +14.x drivers breaking older OpenGL games and eliminating the absurd need to hunt down and "splice in" different older driver versions of "atioglxx.dll" as pseudo-workarounds (plus find specific versions of "binkw32.dll" to get in-game 'Bink' movies to work with modern "ATI" cards).

It's way too loud for a card of this type with 90W TDP.

Two fans shifting the same air are usually quieter than one as they spin slower. And some brands (Asus & MSI) have far better default fan curves than others (eg, EVGA's 40% min on single fan cards). Can't believe people who post a ton about GFX cards are suddenly "surprised" that single fan Zotac's are louder than dual-fan MSI Twin Frozr V's? Even on very low wattage cards, eg, HD7730, you'll get noisy single fans due to stupid default fan curves in general.

 

[Leyawiin]

A properly and timely filled out rebate is free $.

I haven't had a rebate go through in years (last was an EVGA one like six years ago). My current card is a PNY GTX 780 with a supposed $30 MIR. Filled it out to the letter and mailed it in two weeks before the deadline. Nothing. They claim to have not received it. Sent in copies. Same excuse. Last year I had a $30 rebate on an ECS motherboard. Same song and dance about not receiving it. Rebates (for me) have been a complete ripoff and waste of time the last two I've done. I don't even bother anymore with the $10 to $15 ones. Of course YMMV, but MIRs are one of the biggest consumer complaints.

 

[freeskier93]

For that money you can get a 2nd hand R9 280 that would destroy any gtx 750ti or 950.

Doesn't even need to be second hand, the Sapphire R9 280 regularly drops to $150 after MIR.

 

[frozentundra123456]

@ Russian

The 750 and 750Ti somewhat justified their prices because they offered much faster performance than the competition with no six pin connector.

The 950 doesnt offer that advantage, so seems like moving up to the 960 at current prices is the obvious choice.

 

[alexruiz]

Am I the only noticing than in most of the reviews the R9 270X is NOT included?

Techpower included the R9 270X, but its numbers are with catalyst 15.5b, not 15.7 or 15.7.1. Other reviews I have seen have only the R7 370 and the R9 270. Incidentally, the R9 270 and R7 370 are very close to each performance wise, surprising to me at first, but then made sense given the clocks.

BTW, some shill sites are giving the GTX 950 "must have" rating
The R9 285 at $155 surely looks good

 

[SPBHM]

Am I the only noticing than in most of the reviews the R9 270X is NOT included?

Techpower included the R9 270X, but its numbers are with catalyst 15.5b, not 15.7 or 15.7.1. Other reviews I have seen have only the R7 370 and the R9 270. Incidentally, the R9 270 and R7 370 are very close to each performance wise, surprising to me at first, but then made sense given the clocks.

BTW, some shill sites are giving the GTX 950 "must have" rating
The R9 285 at $155 surely looks good

not including the 270X is kind of acceptable because AMD launched the 300 series with the 370, but including the 270 is kind of weird but it can be explained by the cards they have in hands, in any case, TPU included the 270X and on average it's basically the same as the 950.

I think the 950 is far from bad, it's understandable that it gets positive reviews, specially because those deals like you mentioned are not for everyone and the official price is always important, better deals for the 950 will also happen

 

[ganons]

Well I guess £130+ means no purchase from me

Guess I'll pick up the EVGA GTX 750 Ti for £83 (new) instead for my budget emulation PC

Asus Maximus VI Impact (£46 - Bought from ebay as untested but works)
Pentium G3258
HyperX FURY Series 8GB (2x 4GB) DDR3 1866MHz CL10 DIMM
Be Quiet Pure Power L8-CM 430W PSU

 

[alexruiz]

not including the 270X is kind of acceptable because AMD launched the 300 series with the 370, but including the 270 is kind of weird but it can be explained by the cards they have in hands, in any case, TPU included the 270X and on average it's basically the same as the 950.

I think the 950 is far from bad, it's understandable that it gets positive reviews, specially because those deals like you mentioned are not for everyone and the official price is always important, better deals for the 950 will also happen

I understand, my point is that very often the review sites follow the nvidia script for testing to the letter, and I was speculating that maybe part of the script this time was to pit the GTX 950 against the R7 370 and not against the superior R9 270X. The R9 270x has no replacement yet, so officially has to be the closest competitor to the GTX 950 based on MSRP. TPU tested it, showing basically a wash, but I have not seen any other site showing it.

I agree that the 950 is not a bad card, it is just priced badly. If the R9 Fury would be priced at $450 or the R9 390X at $350, the general consensus would be much different about those cards.

 

[LTC8K6]

Let's wait and see what the prices are when we can actually buy them.