• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

GTX 960 is expected to launch next month.

Page 29 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hawtdawg

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2005
1,223
7
81
This is a picture from my watt meter, running BF4 at 120fps on my 4.3Ghz i5 2500k and GTX 970 G1.



Shave off around 100W when the HDDs will power down.

Don't think that performance comes at no cost.

Also don't forget that a 450W PSU does not give 450W of 12V power. There are 5V needs to be satisfied. Let alone the wear of time.

edit sorry I forgot to turn off the TV which is also connected on that power circuit so shave off another 100W.

Still at almost 400W you are pushing it thin.
I pull 400 at the wall with a 4.6ghz 3770k and a 1202mhz 780 playing BF4. somethings off about your setup.
 

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,670
437
126
www.facebook.com
I am sorry, but if you are serious about PC gaming, you need power, in all its forms, even for 1080p.

You are not going anywhere with 430 Watts PSU. You are only limiting yourself.
I've got a 450 watt PSU that ran an OC'd i7-4770k and OC'd GTX 780 just fine for over a year before I switched out video cards.
 

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,670
437
126
www.facebook.com
This is a picture from my watt meter, running BF4 at 120fps on my 4.3Ghz i5 2500k and GTX 970 G1.



Shave off around 100W when the HDDs will power down.

Don't think that performance comes at no cost.

Also don't forget that a 450W PSU does not give 450W of 12V power. There are 5V needs to be satisfied. Let alone the wear of time.

edit sorry I forgot to turn off the TV which is also connected on that power circuit so shave off another 100W.

Still at almost 400W you are pushing it thin.
You are doing it wrong then. My 4770k @ 4.1ghz + GTX 980 @ 1.48ghz + 1 HDD + 1 SSD + 3 case fans draws ~335 watts under benchmarking Metro LL with vsync off.

Like I said in my previous post, I had no issues whatsoever running a GTX 780 @ 1189 mhz and the above CPU on a 450 watt SFX PSU.
 

psolord

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2009
1,243
291
136
You are doing it wrong then. My 4770k @ 4.1ghz + GTX 980 @ 1.48ghz + 1 HDD + 1 SSD + 3 case fans draws ~335 watts under benchmarking Metro LL with vsync off.

Like I said in my previous post, I had no issues whatsoever running a GTX 780 @ 1189 mhz and the above CPU on a 450 watt SFX PSU.
I am not really doing it wrong, but I was wrong in that I missed some extra hardware I have installed, which is easy to forget I guess.

You are at 335W and I am at around 400, but with 16GB 2000MHz ram, two extra PCIe controllers inside, also the 2500k is 32nm, P67 is fairly old, maybe drawing a bit more power, plus I am using a HAF 932 with 5 case fans, if you count my Thermaltake HDD triple bay plus a 1000W psu which as mentioned earlier is not very efficient at low wattage and dual fans on my Noctua D14. So if you add all up, I can easily have more power draw.

To put this in perspective my idle never goes below 160W. And yes I know that's a lot. I have read reviews. My primary system is too complicated and that drove me off.

So in that new light, maybe a good 450W isn't too bad to sustain a good system. Me being the tinkerer I am, I just wouldn't trust it, that's all. I just processed the whole thing on a more enthusiastic level.

I just installed my 970 on my Q9550, which is a fairly simpler build, to see how a Yorkfield fairs with a Maxwell and I will do some power tests as well.

Peace.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,656
5
76
This is a picture from my watt meter, running BF4 at 120fps on my 4.3Ghz i5 2500k and GTX 970 G1.



Shave off around 100W when the HDDs will power down.

Don't think that performance comes at no cost.

Also don't forget that a 450W PSU does not give 450W of 12V power. There are 5V needs to be satisfied. Let alone the wear of time.

edit sorry I forgot to turn off the TV which is also connected on that power circuit so shave off another 100W.

Still at almost 400W you are pushing it thin.
Your wattage at the wall (AC) must be multiplied by the efficiency of your PSU at that wattage level (it's a curve). If it's like many 80+ PSUs then 585 x .8 = 468 watts power draw DC. A quality 500W PSU with most of its wattage available on the 12v rail can handle that, though you should really be at 550W+ for more safety cushion.

A quality 430W PSU is very capable of driving a good midrange system assuming modern components without overvolting. Something like an i5-3570K with GTX 660 and a few hard drives will be EASILY satisfied by a quality 430W PSU like the Corsair.
 

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
214
106
A quality 430W PSU is very capable of driving a good midrange system assuming modern components without overvolting. Something like an i5-3570K with GTX 660 and a few hard drives will be EASILY satisfied by a quality 430W PSU like the Corsair.
Indeed. My i5-3570 under prime doesn't even hit 100w even with a mild 4GHz OC. Idles around 37w (29w with no dGPU). Throw in a GTX960 and it barely hits 200w Prime + Furmark. Most real world gaming with VSync on / 60fps cap is around 40-70w lower (averaging 130-160w). Bioshock Infinite, Skyrim & Dishonored pull around 110-140w. Older games (Age of Mythology, Deus Ex, Thief 1-2, etc) are often down to 75w and in many cases run without the GPU fans spinning up. GTX 960 even works perfectly on a Seasonic G360 (90% efficient Gold 360w PSU) + Ivy Bridge i5 at barely 50% of the PSU's rated capacity for most games.

The very high 1000w PSU's, etc, often have poor efficiency at 5-10% loads giving them higher idle power draws which in turn gives the illusion that components suck up more power and need a higher PSU wattage rating than they actually do. The peak efficient "sweet spot" on many PSU's is typically 50-70% load, ie, if you're pulling 300w, a 550w Gold / Platinum PSU may give say 92% efficiency whereas a 400w Gold may give only say 86% efficiency or a 400w "vanilla 80 plus" only 80%. However given the "bell curve" nature of PSU efficiency if you go and buy a 1200w PSU, you'll find efficiency starts to fall off again and for sub 10% idle, starts to plummet (eg, a 25w idle DC load can easily = up to 70w AC load on a 1200w but only say 35w on a 360w).

As for the guy drawing 585w on a GTX 970 :eek:, the key issue there lies in this sentence : "To put this in perspective my idle never goes below 160W." It's probably a combination of high wattage PSU inefficiency at low draw + 32nm platform + overvolted OC'd CPU + other additional components. At 585w, the difference between a "good" 92% and "bad" 80% PSU even at the same wattage could be one is wasting up to 50w whilst the other is wasting up to 110w (energy turned into heat inside the PSU in the process of generating a 500w or so DC current). When your idle power draw is about 60w higher than my i5's fully loaded 4T Prime, then it really isn't about a GTX 960 card running on a 400w PSU, but rather the whole platform efficiency measured as a whole.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,064
1,882
126
I am not really doing it wrong, but I was wrong in that I missed some extra hardware I have installed, which is easy to forget I guess.

You are at 335W and I am at around 400, but with 16GB 2000MHz ram, two extra PCIe controllers inside, also the 2500k is 32nm, P67 is fairly old, maybe drawing a bit more power, plus I am using a HAF 932 with 5 case fans, if you count my Thermaltake HDD triple bay plus a 1000W psu which as mentioned earlier is not very efficient at low wattage and dual fans on my Noctua D14. So if you add all up, I can easily have more power draw.

To put this in perspective my idle never goes below 160W. And yes I know that's a lot. I have read reviews. My primary system is too complicated and that drove me off.

So in that new light, maybe a good 450W isn't too bad to sustain a good system. Me being the tinkerer I am, I just wouldn't trust it, that's all. I just processed the whole thing on a more enthusiastic level.

I just installed my 970 on my Q9550, which is a fairly simpler build, to see how a Yorkfield fairs with a Maxwell and I will do some power tests as well.

Peace.
I have measured the FX8350 @ 4.6GHz (AMDs water Cooler) on ASUS M5A97 R2.0 paired with MSI GTX480 with 1TB HDD with a 1000W 80%+ PSU playing BF4 and the maximum peak power consumption at the wall was 380W.
 

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,670
437
126
www.facebook.com
Noticed there's a 4gb gtx960 from EVGA on Newegg for $239,$30 cheaper then the Sapphire 290 Tri-x.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487128&cm_re=evga_gtx960-_-14-487-128-_-Product

Honestly curious if this is a true 4gb card.
It has to be true 4gb. The card is full functioning and the bus width (128 bit) matches up perectly with 1, 2, 4, 8 etc. gb of vram.


EDIT:

I can't believe Anandtech still hasn't bothered to put up a review. What is becoming of this site?
 
Last edited:

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,187
0
0
It has to be true 4gb. The card is full functioning and the bus width (128 bit) matches up perectly with 1, 2, 4, 8 etc. gb of vram.
Well isn't the 970 labeled as a 256 bit card which matches up perfectly with 1,2,4,8 GB of VRAM as well, at least one would think based on bus width alone.
 

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,670
437
126
www.facebook.com
Well isn't the 970 labeled as a 256 bit card which matches up perfectly with 1,2,4,8 GB of VRAM as well, at least one would think based on bus width alone.
Are you trolling? As we all know now, gtx970 is not a true 256-bit card regardless of how it's labeled. GTX 960 is a true 128-bit card, which means that it can access all of it's memory (in portions of 1, 2, 4, 8, etc.) at full speed and without partitioning.
 

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
5,037
0
71
Hoping at least EVGA and other people could perhaps bring out some "8gb" 970 and 980 cards.I asked about the 4gb 960 simply as i feel it would be extremely silly the 960 can use every bit of its memory while the 970 ends up gimped with 3.5gb.Reminds me of the 8800gt 1gb card.:p

2 of them in sli would cost damn near what a 980 would,without a 8gb 970 or 980 released i feel its one hell of a odd card.Single 960 isn't all that powerful to take advantage of 4gb of vram anyways lol.
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,187
0
0
Are you trolling? As we all know now, gtx970 is not a true 256-bit card regardless of how it's labeled. GTX 960 is a true 128-bit card, which means that it can access all of it's memory (in portions of 1, 2, 4, 8, etc.) at full speed and without partitioning.
Nope, just mentioning that the bus width doesn't tell the full story anymore. You have to know more than that.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,460
737
126
Noticed there's a 4gb gtx960 from EVGA on Newegg for $239,$30 cheaper then the Sapphire 290 Tri-x.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487128&cm_re=evga_gtx960-_-14-487-128-_-Product

Honestly curious if this is a true 4gb card.
Wow, that's terribly overpriced. A stock 960 should be $149 and the 4GB version $179. 280X levels it and regularly sells for $190-200 on Newegg.

In the latest reviews with newer games 960 continues to perform worse and worse, much closer to a 760 and further away from a 280X.

280X is now 21% faster at 1080P


While neither 280X nor 960 is good enough for 1440p gaming, 1440p demands are a good indication of how these cards will fair at 1080P once newer demanding games come out (i.e., because it allows us to simulate what would happen under even more strenuous workloads).

Not surprisingly, 960 gets crushed by 30% compared to a 280X once graphical demands increase on the GPU.



What makes things worse is that a stock reference R9 290 is 53% faster at 1080P and an astounding 61% faster at 1440p. However, one can purchase after-market 290s which are as fast as a 290X (Uber):

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290 @ Newegg for $240 after $10 off and MIR
Asus DirectCUII R9 290 @ NCIXUS for $260

That's up to 75% more performance for just $50-70 more and double the VRAM. Insane, absolutely insane value!

I've never seen a mid-range $200-230 NV being such an awful price/performance value compared to $180-270 AMD/ATI cards! Seriously even getting a new $50 PSU and an after-market 290 still makes it a better deal than a $200 960 or a $240 960 4GB. :thumbsdown:

It's insane at the power of branding when NV charges absurd premiums for 8-15% more performance for a 980 over 290X and for Titan X over 290X but gamers are unwilling to pay $50-70 extra for a card 50-60% faster than a 960 in an after-market 290! :confused:

As I have said from 960's launch, if one has to have an NV card, pay extra for a 970.
 
Last edited:

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
5,942
151
106
Although if you want a low powered GPU for a 4K TV the only option is the 960 right now because no AMD card has HDMI 2.0.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,460
737
126
Although if you want a low powered GPU for a 4K TV the only option is the 960 right now because no AMD card has HDMI 2.0.
But 960 can't play games at 4K, so how is that relevant? You are going to view 4K content on that TV and play games at 1080P? Also, imagine how long it takes to download/stream 4K content. 4K media is still in its infancy so I am not sure it's a big feature right now, while for 4K gaming 960 is too slow.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
5,942
151
106
There's plenty of games you can play at 4k on a 960 and if you read my post I said "if you are looking for a low powered gpu". I'm not aware of people who want a cheap card to play F2P and emulators that also insist on benching Crysis 3 at 60fps.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,460
737
126
There's plenty of games you can play at 4k on a 960 and if you read my post I said "if you are looking for a low powered gpu".
I doubt that unless you are talking about ancient games or playing at Medium settings. Ultra/VH at 1080P > Low/medium at 4K on a 50-60" 4K TV. That's because the human eye itself has trouble distinguishing the extra pixels above 1080P on such a smaller sized TV in the living room but you can distinguish the differences in textures/lighting/shadows/polygon complexity more easily. Now if afford a 4K $1500+ TV and then why not pay $125 for a 970? Doesn't sound like in practice your example would work.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
5,942
151
106
I doubt that unless you are talking about ancient games or playing at Medium settings. Ultra/VH at 1080P > Low/medium at 4K on a 50-60" 4K TV. That's because the human eye itself has trouble distinguishing the extra pixels above 1080P on such a smaller sized TV in the living room but you can distinguish the differences in textures/lighting/shadows/polygon complexity more easily. Now if afford a 4K $1500+ TV and then why not pay $125 for a 970? Doesn't sound like in practice your example would work.
Even a GTX 670 can hit 50+ fps in Diablo 3 ROS at 4k and that's more challenging to run than most MOBAs. Your doubts are not necessary.
 

snorge

Member
Dec 30, 2011
32
0
0
Keep in mind there is meant to be a GTX 960/965 ti launching soon which is 3 GB and a more cut down version of the 980. It will probably fill the price gap between the 960 and 970 and the leaked benchmarks show it being much faster than the regular 960.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
98,521
1,497
126
I doubt that unless you are talking about ancient games or playing at Medium settings. Ultra/VH at 1080P > Low/medium at 4K on a 50-60" 4K TV. That's because the human eye itself has trouble distinguishing the extra pixels above 1080P on such a smaller sized TV in the living room but you can distinguish the differences in textures/lighting/shadows/polygon complexity more easily. Now if afford a 4K $1500+ TV and then why not pay $125 for a 970? Doesn't sound like in practice your example would work.
it'd probably run league plenty fast at 4k and high settings.
 

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
214
106
Wow, that's terribly overpriced. A stock 960 should be $149 and the 4GB version $179. 280X levels it and regularly sells for $190-200 on Newegg.
Lucky you. In the UK, R9 280X's are typically £170-£220 and most GTX 960's typically £150-£180. Like for like (same brand) an Asus R9 280X is "only" £200 but an Asus GTX 960 is "only" £180. $149 (£100) is more like the average 750Ti. Same with CPU's - at time of build I bought my i5-3570 for same listed price as an FX-8350. It may depend on location, but I'm really not seeing this "AMD are always massively better value" thing where I live. Nor seeing any mid-range R9 28x / GTX 960 anywhere near £100 / $150. In fact I often wonder how much of the "nvidia price problem" is more to do with AMD's "slash & burn" drastic price cut policy leading to a flood of abnormally cheap cards to try and clear stock / inventory before the 300 series?

But 960 can't play games at 4K, so how is that relevant? You are going to view 4K content on that TV and play games at 1080P?
Ironically, the GTX 960 makes a perfect 4K HTPC card due to the ability to play 4K H264/H265 in as little as 3 watts above idle with 1% CPU load and GPU clocks locked at 135MHz idle without the fans spinning up once due to being the only Maxwell with a full H265 fixed-function-decoder (as opposed to the usual "assisted" part hardware / part software playback). The GTX 960 also supports HDCP 2.2 (4K content protection over HDMI 2.0) and has 2/3rds of the power consumption (115w vs 185w), both ideal for higher end HTPC rigs (most of whom probably aren't going to argue over $30 if they can afford a giant 4K TV).

Hopefully AMD's 300 series will give better competition in the perf-per-watt area, as the high-end HTPC market tends to be one where "cheap room heaters" doesn't cut it as a metric by itself.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
EXCellR8 Nvidia 14

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS