GTX 960 is expected to launch next month.

[Erenhardt]

One other thing worth considering is that the AAA console ports really are a relatively small part of the set of games on Steam/GoG etc nowadays - you could very happily exist without ever playing one of them. They do tend to dominate benchmarks though.

Cringeworthy... I know people that exist without playing games at all...

My 7870 was ok for indie games - those with actual graphics. But nothing to write home about. 2GB of VRAM was a problem in most recent AAA games at 1080p.

GTX960 would be somewhat faster than 7870 but what's the point if it hits VRAM limit. I would rather have lower fps and max textures, than high fps and low textures

 

[SPBHM]

I thought this was an interesting review for comparing it directly with the 285 and 280, also the videos and showing the difference in textures quality on shadow of mordor caused by the 2 vs 3GB of vram

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-review

 

[Qwertilot]

It does seem to have been randomly slated. So lets try and be really fair/objective about it

With AAA console ports it'll just about cope at 1080, but obviously a sub optimal (bad) choice vs sundry other things from both companies if that's what you mostly do.

There is clearly a big market playing other stuff though. A huge majority on steam by hours, even taking Dota2/Counter Strike out. The efficiency also unarguably make the 750ti/960 at the very least attractive options for this sort of gaming.

The remaining question is then 'why a 960 vs a 750ti (or even a iGPU!)' for non console ports? The site benchmarks really aren't terribly helpful about that as they focus so strongly on console ports. Non console figures I saw for the 960:
4k WoW@60fps, 4k Civ beyond Earth @30fps, 1080 Rome total war 2 @60 fps, 1440 @40ish.

Rome not that compelling I guess, but the first two look like potentially entirely legitimate reasons to get one to me. Its a 4k Civ card Could really do with a chunk more data.

 

[voodoo7817]

I dont really see that many people trying to defend the card. In fact, quite the opposite. I have never seen so much venom direct at a product, although admittedly a medicore one.

I'm not about to call people out by name but even 1 person misconstruing information on a site as good as this is not healthy for the board, IMO, and they deserved to be shouted down with more accurate information. Fans of both sides are guilty of cherry picking benchmarks and promoting less-important features, but right now the argument that efficiency should be the most important factor in purchasing a videocard falls a *little* flat, especially when considering the recent past of the 560/6950 as Haserath pointed out (for the record, I bought a 560ti at that time).

I agree the vitriol is a bit much (it's just a videocard!) but I really do take offense when people try to persuade others against their best interest while claiming to be objective and helpful.

 

[Leyawiin]

There's exactly one thing wrong with this card - its priced too high. Knock $30 off and it would be a decent mid grade card for a decent price. That eventually happened with the GTX 750 Ti (which was too expensive at launch as well). Being none of these models are sold out on Newegg probably indicates it will happen with the 960 sooner rather than later (the 970 was cleaned out within hours and stayed that way for weeks).

 

[Qwertilot]

It isn't efficiency >> anything else, that'd be properly daft Its much more like 'work out which cards will do the most demanding game you're likely to really want to play then get the most efficient/quietest one'.

I'd actually expect that to be a minority position overall with more going for either the cheapest card that does what they'll need or getting as much power as they can for a given fixed budget.

It is however definitely a perfectly sane way to pick a graphics card and the sort of thinking NV is targeting with the 960/750ti.

That they've done a card targeting that does seem to really annoy a few people somehow. Not really sure why as tons of performance targeted cards out there/coming and really not many the other way round.

 

[Phynaz]

It isn't efficiency >> anything else, that'd be properly daft Its much more like 'work out which cards will do the most demanding game you're likely to really want to play then get the most efficient/quietest one'.

I'd actually expect that to be a minority position overall with more going for either the cheapest card that does what they'll need or getting as much power as they can for a given fixed budget.

It is however definitely a perfectly sane way to pick a graphics card and the sort of thinking NV is targeting with the 960/750ti.

That they've done a card targeting that does seem to really annoy a few people somehow. Not really sure why as tons of performance targeted cards out there/coming and really not many the other way round.

Well said.

 

[capita]

It isn't efficiency >> anything else, that'd be properly daft Its much more like 'work out which cards will do the most demanding game you're likely to really want to play then get the most efficient/quietest one'.

Actually that theory doesn't work. When buying a graphics card (for $200 & up) one is not just looking for games that are already out but games that will be released within next 2 years at least.

So 'the most demanding game you are likely to really want to play' won't even remain the most demanding within a year.


So the right forumla is to get the most bang for the buck card within your budget that your PSU can handle. Cuz even if a particular card is the best one for the game you want to play, if its not in your budget then its not an option.

And if a particular card is best bang of buck within your budget but an overkill for a game you will really play, its still a better choice unless you aren't going to play any new games for rest of your life

 

[dn7309]

I don't like the current NVidia release. When GTX 660 (non ti) was release it trade blows with the last gen flagship, the GTX 580. At the minimum I expect the 960 to be between the 770 and 780, not below the 770.

 

[Leyawiin]

I don't like the current NVidia release. When GTX 660 (non ti) was release it trade blows with the last gen flagship, the GTX 580. At the minimum I expect the 960 to be between the 770 and 780, not below the 770.

Things may be slowly down performance-wise (just as they have with CPUs).

 

[exar333]

Will the 960 have 2GB of 'full-speed' memory or is this a 1.5GB part with 512MB lower-speed VRAM tacked-on?

(had to ask...)

 

[SPBHM]

Will the 960 have 2GB of 'full-speed' memory or is this a 1.5GB part with 512MB lower-speed VRAM tacked-on?

(had to ask...)

the card is basically half a 980, so it's "full 2GB", no funny stuff with disabled l2/ROP while keeping the memory controller that should be connected to it active.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Will the 960 have 2GB of 'full-speed' memory or is this a 1.5GB part with 512MB lower-speed VRAM tacked-on?

(had to ask...)

Oh god,as silly as this sounds its actually a very serious statement at the same time.:awe:

That would be a big fail,its not as if any serious gamer who knows the market is buying this but someone who makes the mistake of getting it getting stuck with a 1.5gb card.

I think performance is gonna suck ass before the card runs out of 2gb anyways,its the case for my 770 enough times so i wouldn't be surprised honestly.

 

[Magic Carpet]

the card is basically half a 980, so it's "full 2GB", no funny stuff with disabled l2/ROP while keeping the memory controller that should be connected to it active.

This makes for a perfect 960 TI with 192 bit bus and 3gb of RAM. With the right price, it could sell really well, imo.

 

[Rvenger]

3gb 960ti at the price of the 960 would be very nice. 3gb is still acceptable IMO.

 

[Magic Carpet]

3gb 960ti at the price of the 960 would be very nice. 3gb is still acceptable IMO.

Especially, if it retains the single 6-pin power connector. That could be a perfect "mid-range" card, actually, if it turns out like that.

 

[exar333]

Oh god,as silly as this sounds its actually a very serious statement at the same time.:awe:

That would be a big fail,its not as if any serious gamer who knows the market is buying this but someone who makes the mistake of getting it getting stuck with a 1.5gb card.

I think performance is gonna suck ass before the card runs out of 2gb anyways,its the case for my 770 enough times so i wouldn't be surprised honestly.

It definitely raises questions about how other cut-down GM20x cards will perform, depending on the shader/memory configuration. I am betting any further Maxwell cards will get a lot more scrutiny from this aspect...and rightfully so.

Also makes you wonder if that's why the 960 is much below 970/980 and is just 1/2 everything. Based on what we see on the 970, middle-ground SKUs between the 960 and 980 might all (or most) suffer from the same issues we are seeing on the 970, or at the very least add unneeded complexity...

 

[SPBHM]

It definitely raises questions about how other cut-down GM20x cards will perform, depending on the shader/memory configuration. I am betting any further Maxwell cards will get a lot more scrutiny from this aspect...and rightfully so.

Also makes you wonder if that's why the 960 is much below 970/980 and is just 1/2 everything. Based on what we see on the 970, middle-ground SKUs between the 960 and 980 might all (or most) suffer from the same issues we are seeing on the 970, or at the very least add unneeded complexity...

it will only happen if they disable the l2/ROP and keep the memory controller active with strange combinations like 56ROPs and 256bit memory physically (970), if they reduce the memory bus to 192bit/3GB with 48 ROPs (like the 970M) this problem is not going to happen,

 

[Qwertilot]

Ummm, you just cater for the expected growth in gaming requirements over the planned lifespan of your card. That really isn't that hard since gaming requirements don't magically jump for no reason
(~4 years is the average for people targeted by the 960 don't forget.).

The next gen of consoles have of course caused a spike for the ports but that'll plateau in ~ a years time then stay fairly steady for a few years. Entirely possible to pick target resolution/FPS etc and work out what you'll need to be happy until the next next gen consoles roll round.

In the case of games targeting steam/all PC, the developers are dealing with a massive installed user base who don't upgrade at all often. So the requirements for those games only move up quite steadily.

Take the total war games. I hope no one wants to claim they're not graphically ambitious A 750ti copes very nicely with Rome II at 1080.

I've had ~3 years at this (750ti ish) performance level and the only reason I'd move soon would be to jump to 4k. Which is awfully tempting, but needs a lot more than a small bit of graphical headroom!

 

[TheRealSintel]

Did anandtech stop reviewing GPUs?

The 285 review was also royally late.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Did anandtech stop reviewing GPUs?

The 285 review was also royally late.

I thought the reviewer had some kind of personal issue delaying the article. Sometimes life gets in the way.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I understand personal issues delaying the review, but cant they hand it off to someone else? Reviewing a gpu could be time consuming, but it seems like anyone working for a tech site like this should be able to do it.

I mean we have had two mini PC reviews in the same timeframe since the 960 came out, as well as sundry reviews of motherboards, SSDs, etc. Same with Devil's Canyon and a lot of other PC hardware. By the time the reviews come out, nobody cares anymore.

 

[notty22]

A positive review of high resolution gaming with the 960 at H.
Tested against 280x 770 760 gtx varieties.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015..._gaming_high_resolution_review/9#.VMqL5mfQM-0

Summary

Our Conclusion may differ from other website's final conclusions, especially after this evaluation. The GeForce GTX 960 looks much better from a performance versus price perspective after looking at these high resolution and higher-end card comparisons.
We wanted to find out to which video card the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 swings closest to; the GeForce GTX 760 or GeForce GTX 770? The GTX 960 performs in-between these video cards, but where exactly does it fit? According to our testing it swings closer to the performance of the GeForce GTX 770. The GeForce GTX 960 seems to perform upwards of 20% faster than a GeForce GTX 760. In some instances it is dead even with the GTX 770 on performance, in others it is trailing it, but trailing it closely, within 10%.
This is rather remarkable for a $209 (after $30 MIR) video card, which is comparing so closely to a video card that debuted at $399. The true nature of Maxwell's PPW (Performance Per Watt) is shining through and couldn't be any more evident with the GeForce GTX 960.

When we look at the comparison to the AMD Radeon R9 280X we find that the GTX 960 does quite well in comparison to that as well. There are some instances where the R9 280X will be faster, depending on the game. In BF4 the GTX 960 has the leg up and appears to be much faster than the AMD Radeon R9 280X. At least for this game, an overclocked GTX 960 may be the way to go. In FC4 the R9 280X is faster, until you turn on Enhanced Godrays, then it falls behind. In Watch Dogs both cards are about even. Even though AMD Radeon R9 280X video cards have fallen in price, if you can pick up a highly overclocked GTX 960 for less money (all cards linked here have in-game clocks of ~1300MHz+), it could suit you well at 1080p compared to the R9 280X

 

[RussianSensation]

^ Review misses some key titles that cream 2GB of VRAM:

- Titanfall
- Shadow of Mordor
- AC Unity
- Wolfenstein NWO

The article is yet another fail coverage on the 960. It misses the whole point about the existing market by comparing a 960 to 760/285/280X/770 style cards. First, it doesn't analyze frame times, which makes conclusions dubious as TechSpot proved in about twice as many games tested that 960's frame times against 280X are crap. Second, it uses all outdated, overpriced, and bad value cards to justify 960's existence, while failing to realize that for $40 more you can get a solid after-market 290 with 45-50% more performance:

Impressively cool and quiet PowerColor PCS+ 290 = $250
http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=14-131-549

His ICEQ2 290 = $250
http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=14-161-459

Thirdly, the reviewer does mention that 2GB may become a serious problem moving forward. Just because 2GB is good enough for 95% of games doesn't mean anything because based on NV's own comments, the average x60 owner keeps his card for 2-4 years! With games like Dying Light eating VRAM for breakfast, Skyrim, GTA mods, and the games I mentioned above, the 960 only makes sense for those who never will buy AMD, those who are too cheap to spend $50 on a new PSU, the uninformed, and casuals. But even casuals are probably better off just buying an R9 270/750Ti.

Like I said, the 960 sits in no man'a land. It's too fast for less demanding games and too slow for modern GPU demanding games. Only $40-50 US more takes one to a way faster card with double the VRAM.

In Canada, things are WAY worse for the 960 as most are selling for $250-280 CDN but an R9 290 is $280-300 while R9 290X can be found for $330 CDN.

960 needs a major price drop, at least $50.

 

[n0x1ous]

They should rename the 970 to 960 and make the 960 the 950ti then the pricing would be ok.