GTX 960 is expected to launch next month.

Page 26 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
5,417
250
126
IMO with the recent 970 VRAM revelations, the 960 makes perfect sense. Price the top tier card at $600, then seriously gimp every card below it in some way so that people wanting reasonable performance have to step up to the halo product.
 

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,420
38
106
Looked rather considered to me.

"We would not hesitate to say that many people up in arms about the specifications are not in the target market that NVIDIA is targeting with the GTX 960."

Talking of target markets silent PC gave the (Strix) 960 a very nice review indeed ;) They're entirely unbiased but obviously very, very noise centric!

The people who keep their cards for 2-4 years won't worry if they're turning stuff down to get them to run well, especially not towards the end of that time.

Despite some recent 'stellar' porting efforts, surely there won't be anything that will have trouble running at semi sane settings on this at 1080 until the next next gen of consoles, when it'll be about time for them to replace anyway.
(60fps and/or maxed settings might be another matter!)
 
Oct 22, 2006
192
0
76
Looked rather considered to me.

"We would not hesitate to say that many people up in arms about the specifications are not in the target market that NVIDIA is targeting with the GTX 960."

Talking of target markets silent PC gave the (Strix) 960 a very nice review indeed ;) They're entirely unbiased but obviously very, very noise centric!

The people who keep their cards for 2-4 years won't worry if they're turning stuff down to get them to run well, especially not towards the end of that time.

Despite some recent 'stellar' porting efforts, surely there won't be anything that will have trouble running at semi sane settings on this at 1080 until the next next gen of consoles, when it'll be about time for them to replace anyway.
(60fps and/or maxed settings might be another matter!)
While this is reasonable, I'm not quite sure I agree as many games that have been released on the XBone and PS4 are still being released on the older systems. IMO, once developers are able to fully leave those old systems behind, the lowest common denominator of performance will increase, and only then will we have reached the new "performance plateau" you've described. Personally, I think this new plateau will include 4gb (or 3.5gb) of ram, but I'll admit that's just like my opinion man and I don't have much evidence to back that up. I suppose one could do a review on how 2GB vs 4GB cards work on games released for XB360/PS3/XBone/Ps4/PC compared to games released only for XBone/PS4/PC, but honestly I don't really care that much to do the research myself.

I will agree that most people who will buy this card are not "performance-focused" so they may be happy with whatever fps or textures they are able to get over the next few years, but that's not exactly a compliment! (Obvious exceptions apply, such as the SilentPC guys or a guy on the HardOCP forums who runs his house on solar energy and needs every bit of efficiency possible)
 
Last edited:

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,420
38
106
True about the guessing :)

About the only safe thing to say is that a considerable majority of PC gamers will be on 2gb vram (if that) for quite a long time to come so if anyone does release a port that needs 4+gb to run 'sensibly' they really won't have much of a market.

Could see someone doing it of course, but you'd think any of the really big sellers would put the effort in?!!?
 
Sep 5, 2003
19,460
0
126
They should rename the 970 to 960 and make the 960 the 950ti then the pricing would be ok.
Well they'd need to drop prices too as renaming the cards and keeping their high prices doesn't change their poor price/performance.

Look at the sales happening on after-market R9 290 cards:

XFX DD R9 290 = $220 on Newegg

Really?! $20 more for 45-50% more performance and 2x the VRAM of a 960.

As I said, to me a good price for a 960 is $149. It has no business whatsoever being a $200 card for 95% of DIY PC gamers who do research and are brand agnostic.

I realize these are not every day deals but anyone on a budget should be paying attention to GPU prices because in the budget space, sometimes spending a little bit more nets one A LOT more performance and future-proofing. R9 290 vs. 960 is one of those times.
 

n0x1ous

Platinum Member
Sep 9, 2010
2,462
38
106
Well they'd need to drop prices too as renaming the cards and keeping their high prices doesn't change their poor price/performance.

Look at the sales happening on after-market R9 290 cards:

XFX DD R9 290 = $220 on Newegg

Really?! $20 more for 45-50% more performance and 2x the VRAM of a 960.

As I said, to me a good price for a 960 is $149. It has no business whatsoever being a $200 card for 95% of DIY PC gamers who do research and are brand agnostic.

I realize these are not every day deals but anyone on a budget should be paying attention to GPU prices because in the budget space, sometimes spending a little bit more nets one A LOT more performance and future-proofing. R9 290 vs. 960 is one of those times.
Oh I fully agree. I meant shifting price down with the name change for that parts typical price range. As in 950ti (GM206 for $150) 960 (GM204 cut down for $200). 960ti (GM204 full for $250)

In reality, nothing makes sense other than 290/x right now. IF I were buying today, it would be 2- 290x lightning for sure.

However, I read a post in another thread I think that said something to the effect of imagine if Nvidia did price these maxwell parts traditionally (as in 980 = 960 for $250 and so on) If the gtx 980 was really $250 today and not $550 would AMD sell any cards at all with Nvidia's overwhelming mind and market share? Unfortunately, I don't think so. I mean if that really happened and we were about to get GM200 for $499 (as the true 980) AMD would be truly finished, sad to say.
 
Last edited:

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,420
38
106
You know, I know there's been some muttering about reviews here, but Hexus have just produced a review of the Gigabyte G1 960 which basically calls it utterly pointless overkill to try and put that sort of cooler/massive over clock on this sort of card :)

Well it manages to be quiet of course but unsurprisingly it ends up very pricey and hugely long compared to the much saner 960's out there.

While we're at it, the current 960 pricing makes perfect sense if they're picking off the people actively after efficiency/noise etc. They'll likely drop it in time of course.
 
Sep 5, 2003
19,460
0
126
Well it manages to be quiet of course but unsurprisingly it ends up very pricey and hugely long compared to the much saner 960's out there.

While we're at it, the current 960 pricing makes perfect sense if they're picking off the people actively after efficiency/noise etc. They'll likely drop it in time of course.
The problem is XFX DD R9 290 with lifetime warranty is uber quiet itself even at 80% fan speeds, it costs $240 - $20 Newegg GC and comes with free Civ BE:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-697-_-Product

HardOCP:

"The XFX Radeon R9 290 Double Dissipation Edition is a very quiet card at the desktop environment and cannot be heard over the sound of the rest of the review system. When placed under a full gaming load, the fans would spin faster, however, there were no perceived differences in noise output under that full load. When overclocking the XFX Radeon R9 290 Double Dissipation Edition, the fans had to spin noticeably faster in order to cool the card. The fans would routinely spin faster than 80% of the maximum speed but remained very quiet and through each OC."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...ble_dissipation_edition_review/9#.VNSivi71Isg

What makes this deal even more incredible is some gamers have been able to unlock the XFX 290 into a 290X. At just $20 over the 960, this card negates every single GPU choice option from $150-300. Only the MSI Lightning at 290X is somewhat a contender for e-peen but still on price/performance a $220 R9 290 simply cannot be beat considering how close it is to the 970.

This pretty much leaves the market to budget segment - $100-130 750Ti/R9 270, $150-160 280 and $220 R9 290 as the only viable cards under $280 I'd say, unless one is brand loyal.
 

PPB

Golden Member
Jul 5, 2013
1,118
31
106
Well they'd need to drop prices too as renaming the cards and keeping their high prices doesn't change their poor price/performance.

Look at the sales happening on after-market R9 290 cards:

XFX DD R9 290 = $220 on Newegg

Really?! $20 more for 45-50% more performance and 2x the VRAM of a 960.

As I said, to me a good price for a 960 is $149. It has no business whatsoever being a $200 card for 95% of DIY PC gamers who do research and are brand agnostic.

I realize these are not every day deals but anyone on a budget should be paying attention to GPU prices because in the budget space, sometimes spending a little bit more nets one A LOT more performance and future-proofing. R9 290 vs. 960 is one of those times.
What is so hard for you to grasp sometimes is that those prices arent available for the most of us. Here a good 290 cost as much as a Zotac/MSI 970. AMD needs to tighten up their pricing outside the Northamerica bubble.
 
Sep 5, 2003
19,460
0
126
What is so hard for you to grasp sometimes is that those prices arent available for the most of us. Here a good 290 cost as much as a Zotac/MSI 970. AMD needs to tighten up their pricing outside the Northamerica bubble.
That's fair enough. I never claimed that these prices are worldwide having said that AT is a U.S. based site and the North American market isn't exactly small. On a percentage basis, I bet US purchases a lot of the world's GPUs at $200+. It is no wonder companies like MS are so aggressive with XB deals in the US and the UK - 2 major markets worldwide.

Even in the UK, prices of 290 cards are very attractive vs. 960/970.
 
Last edited:

erwendigo

Junior Member
Jun 2, 2008
2
0
0
Where is the "anandtech review" of this card? Seriously Ryan Smith? What are your excuse?

Anandtech are going from the top of techsites to be the bottom one. Amazing that this site is yet alive.
 
Sep 5, 2003
19,460
0
126
Where is the "anandtech review" of this card? Seriously Ryan Smith? What are your excuse?

Anandtech are going from the top of techsites to be the bottom one. Amazing that this site is yet alive.
What do you need AT's review on the 960 for, to re-iterate that the card is already falling apart in modern games due to 2GB of VRAM limit, that it's a stutter-fest in frame times against a 280X and it gets clobbered by an R9 290 for not much more $?

What do you think is going to happen to this card at 1080P when more demanding 2015-2016 games start arriving that use > 2GB of VRAM and are very texture, pixel and shader intensive? It's gonna die.


The awful frame times have already been investigated in many games here:
http://www.techspot.com/review/948-geforce-gtx-960-sli-performance/page3.html

What could AT possibly add to a 960 review that we already don't know?

Here a good 290 cost as much as a Zotac/MSI 970.
What country do you live in? Have prices on 290/290X cards dropped at all since 960 launched in your country? What does an after-market 290/970 go for vs. 960?

What do used 290s cost in your country? It's all relative. I believe if one wants great value, it's possible to find it if you look long enough. 960 is gimped from day 1 with low performance and 2GB of VRAM. If you want a stop-gap card until 14nm but are on a budget, might as well get a used HD7970/7970Ghz or try to find a used GTX670/680/770 4GB/GTX780 3GB.
 
Last edited:

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,910
7
91
Vram is a problem but frametimes are perfect. Frametimes are proportional to 1/framerate; lower framerate higher frametimes. The 960 in that review is the slowest card so it has the highest frametimes. It would be problematic if it had really high frametimes and high fps (lot of stutter for 95% percentile) but it doesn't.
 
Feb 11, 2015
140
0
0
Vram is a problem but frametimes are perfect. Frametimes are proportional to 1/framerate; lower framerate higher frametimes. The 960 in that review is the slowest card so it has the highest frametimes. It would be problematic if it had really high frametimes and high fps (lot of stutter for 95% percentile) but it doesn't.
I still find it funny that some people have not figured out that frame time in just another way as saying framerate LOL.
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
3,999
34
136
Vram is a problem but frametimes are perfect. Frametimes are proportional to 1/framerate; lower framerate higher frametimes. The 960 in that review is the slowest card so it has the highest frametimes. It would be problematic if it had really high frametimes and high fps (lot of stutter for 95% percentile) but it doesn't.
first read up on frametimes and how their uneven distribution affects gameplay experience :D

http://techreport.com/review/21516/inside-the-second-a-new-look-at-game-benchmarking

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...ils-Capture-based-Graphics-Performance-Testin
 

Shehriazad

Senior member
Nov 3, 2014
555
0
46
Is the GTX 960 a pricing and tech failure? Yes!

Will it sell thousands of units regardless? Hell yes.

The 960 would have been a total winner if it came with 3GB Vram and a 192Bit bus...but at least I can rest well...knowing that ALL the big companies seem to lack common sense nowadays.
 
Feb 11, 2015
140
0
0
first read up on frametimes and how their uneven distribution affects gameplay experience :D
Sigh when you say uneven frame times you are saying uneven framerate. Frame time and frame rate scale exactly alongside each other always.
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,910
7
91
But its not uneven distribution of frametimes. Its simply the 95% frametime. The frametime on that chart has almost nothing to do with unevenness.

That would be the differences in successive frametimes (or variance).
 
Jul 26, 2013
98
0
16
I bought a evga GTX 760 for ~200 after rebate over 1.5 years ago and haven't looked at any GPUs since then. When I saw Nvidia released their new $200 card I was excited...then I looked at the reviews. It is better than my GTX 760, but only marginally so, for the same price...in over 1.5 years.

Sad
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
3,999
34
136
But its not uneven distribution of frametimes. Its simply the 95% frametime. The frametime on that chart has almost nothing to do with unevenness.

That would be the differences in successive frametimes (or variance).
At 60 fps and perfect frame delivery every frame arrives at 33ms gap. But when that does not happen and you have uneven frametimes then you get microstutter For eg: If frame 2 arrived 61 ms after frame 1 and frame 3 arrived 5ms after frame 2 thats called uneven frametimes. In both cases , perfect frames at 33ms and the uneven case 3 frames would have arrived after 99 ms but the second uneven case will manifest as reduced animation smoothness. When frametimes exceed 100ms you will see them as clearly visible stutters. :thumbsup:
 
Apr 22, 2012
20,395
0
106
What do you need AT's review on the 960 for, to re-iterate that the card is already falling apart in modern games due to 2GB of VRAM limit, that it's a stutter-fest in frame times against a 280X and it gets clobbered by an R9 290 for not much more $?

What do you think is going to happen to this card at 1080P when more demanding 2015-2016 games start arriving that use > 2GB of VRAM and are very texture, pixel and shader intensive? It's gonna die.


*blabla*
I assume you missed the 285 in your graph. Not to mention its an AMD optimized title. Before making the usual nonsense about VRAM.

And 280X is more expensive than GTX960.
http://geizhals.at/?fs=280X&in=
http://geizhals.at/?fs=GTX960&in=
 
Last edited:

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,664
27
91
At 60 fps and perfect frame delivery every frame arrives at 33ms gap. But when that does not happen and you have uneven frametimes then you get microstutter For eg: If frame 2 arrived 61 ms after frame 1 and frame 3 arrived 5ms after frame 2 thats called uneven frametimes. In both cases , perfect frames at 33ms and the uneven case 3 frames would have arrived after 99 ms but the second uneven case will manifest as reduced animation smoothness. When frametimes exceed 100ms you will see them as clearly visible stutters. :thumbsup:
What does that have to do with what he said?

And as others have said increased frametimes is just decreased fps.
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,910
7
91
At 60 fps and perfect frame delivery every frame arrives at 33ms gap. But when that does not happen and you have uneven frametimes then you get microstutter For eg: If frame 2 arrived 61 ms after frame 1 and frame 3 arrived 5ms after frame 2 thats called uneven frametimes. In both cases , perfect frames at 33ms and the uneven case 3 frames would have arrived after 99 ms but the second uneven case will manifest as reduced animation smoothness. When frametimes exceed 100ms you will see them as clearly visible stutters. :thumbsup:
Which of course is true but that is NOT what that chart is measuring. It is giving the frametime which 95% of the individual frametimes fall under. While an uneven distribution of frametimes will cause stutter that chart will only catch it if it falls under the 95% percentile. In other words you could have tons of spikes but the 95% frametime would not show anything UNLESS there were enough spikes to affect more than 5% of the frametimes.

In this case frametime is primarily a measure of fps.





Here techreport gives the 99% percentile frametime which is the time on the second graph where 99% hits. Notice that the shape of the graph above the cutoff does not matter.

You can see on the 960 vs. the 770 that the 770, with slightly higher fps spikes quickly at the end giving the 770 and 960 equivalent 99% frametimes. You can also see it with the 560 TI and the 660 where the 560 Ti has more spikes giving it a much higher 99% frametime compared with the 660 despite the same fps. Notice too that if you took the 95% frametime, the 660 would be behind the 560 Ti - the shape of the graph above the region you are looking at does not matter for frametime percentiles.
 

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,420
38
106
Coming back to something the 960 might do rather well - has anyone seen any reviews of the very short mini itx style 960's? Mostly vs noise of course, as performance will be very similar.
(The Strix 960 is shorter than the 970 and super quiet but there's still the odd worthwhile case where it would be a bit of a squeeze to fit it in.).

All I can see is a couple of (iirc) newegg user reviews for the EVGA one, suggesting it turns its fans off at idle. Don't think the short 970's manage that.
 
Sep 10, 2003
16,756
1
91
I've been thinking about getting a short 960 for my mini itx case, but have just been playing brawlers like towfall and isometric RPGs with my i3 4150. Low noise, low power, and not being to long are important. Is there anything on the horizon that might be better?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS