Low end Maxwell 2 coming? 950/950ti

[Flapdrol1337]

3/4 of a 960, could be worse.

 

[happy medium]

Perfect card for people still running Phenom II chip clocked @3.4 or so.

 

[nvgpu]

http://videocardz.com/57267/nvidia-geforce-gtx-950-specifications-leaked

 

[coolpurplefan]

I've been waiting for this for a long while (even though I calculated my budget and figured out I have to wait until December to buy one, lol).

I'd prefer the 4GB model at stock speeds with heatpipes. (I know people wonder why heatpipes for a lower-end model. This is just in case of fan failure. Besides, I once added a heatpipe cooler on a video card that eventually bent the card after several years. Now I'd prefer buying one with the heatpipe cooler already on it that runs the length of the card.)

Anywhoo, I like lower power cards because electricity isn't included in my rent. I can already play the new Unreal Tournament pre-alpha demo with my GT 640 (and i5-4570) on medium. I should be able to run it on high with a 4GB GTX 950.

I'm just hoping they won't jack up the price too high. I find more than $175 CAD a bit heavy for a lower end card.

 

[LTC8K6]

4gb can't possibly be useful, or worth any extra $ on the 960/950/750 cards, imo.

I think the 950 may be a shot at intel's faster igp, to ensure that NV low end remains superior.

 

[coolpurplefan]

4gb can't possibly be useful, or worth any extra $ on the 960/950/750 cards, imo.

I think the 950 may be a shot at intel's faster igp, to ensure that NV low end remains superior.

I'm not the expert on these topics, just that 4GB is what I saw recommended on Hardforum.

 

[Seba]

4GB of VRAM is recommended, but on much more powerful cards (much more powerful GPUs).

 

[coolpurplefan]

4GB of VRAM is recommended, but on much more powerful cards (much more powerful GPUs).

How could that make a difference? I mean, RAM is RAM right?

EDIT: OK, I just watched this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utv144XeHag on VRAM. At one point in the video, he says not enough VRAM can be detrimental. However, he did say a lot of VRAM requires the horsepower to use it. The odd thing is, the consumer would be left deciding how much horsepower they need for a certain amount of VRAM. But, he says manufacturers use some common sense in determining the amount of VRAM used. So since I saw a rumor saying the GTX 950 (Ti) will be available with 4GB of VRAM, I'm assuming it's powerful enough.

 

[shady28]

This talk about VRAM and card horsepower is nonsense.

With a smaller bus and weaker GPU, your maximum FPS will be limited, sure. If you don't have sufficient VRAM though your minimum FPS will be lower, and you'll get FPS lows more frequently (stutters).

It becomes most apparent in a chart like the one below.

Here's what to pay attention to - Far Cry 4 graph

@1440p the 960 2GB minimum FPS is 17 and that occurs < 0.1% (or 1 in every 1000 frames).
< 1% of the time (1/100) the frame time drops to 25FPS.

The 4GB version the minimum is 29 FPS and occurs < 0.1% or 1 in every 1000 frames.
< 1% of the time the FPS drops to 31FPS.

Those minimums are significant - 4GB gives a 24% boost at <1% and 70% boost at < 0.1%.

What this means is smoother, more consistent game play without stutters when using high resolution textures.

The reviewers/sites/people who say that 4GB can't be used or is useless are the ones that only look at averages. The average FPS for a 2GB card was 36 vs 38 for the 4GB card.

No it is not going to give you higher average FPS. It is definitely noticeable when a card starts swapping to main system RAM over the PCI-e bus though. How powerful your GPU is or how wide its VRAM bus is has absolutely nothing to do with that (swapping textures to/from main memory) happening.

 

[LTC8K6]

Are people really going to use a 960 for Far Cry on Ultra, as your chart shows?

I stand by what I said. 4GB of VRAM is overall, not going to be useful on this level of GPU.

Let's let people read the whole review and decide. Keeping in mind the system that was used, also.

And that we are referencing a 950, a lesser card than a 960.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1888-evga-supersc-4gb-960-benchmark-vs-2gb

 

[coolpurplefan]

From the video link above, it says it can be detrimental to not have enough VRAM. Is there actual harm from having "too much"?

I'll wait for GTX 950 (Ti) reviews because I have a hard time believing there can be "too much" VRAM.

 

[Wookiestick]

I ended up snagging a 960 with 4 GB of vRAM last week. I went back and forth on whether to get 2 or 4 GB, and I ultimately decided with 4. I don't do over 1080p gaming but I felt since I am going to be sticking with this card for 3 or more years (as I did with my 660) that I wanted to make it future proof. Plus as the current console generation matures and the last one fades out we will see more cutting edge stuff that uses more memory on cross platform games. As of right now there are few games that push it but it may very well change.

 

[LTC8K6]

I ended up snagging a 960 with 4 GB of vRAM last week. I went back and forth on whether to get 2 or 4 GB, and I ultimately decided with 4. I don't do over 1080p gaming but I felt since I am going to be sticking with this card for 3 or more years (as I did with my 660) that I wanted to make it future proof. Plus as the current console generation matures and the last one fades out we will see more cutting edge stuff that uses more memory on cross platform games. As of right now there are few games that push it but it may very well change.

There's very little chance of a 4GB GTX960 being future proof, imo.

I think the 128bit memory bus will forever hold it back.

 

[LTC8K6]

From the video link above, it says it can be detrimental to not have enough VRAM. Is there actual harm from having "too much"?

I'll wait for GTX 950 (Ti) reviews because I have a hard time believing there can be "too much" VRAM.

Well, you have to have a GPU and memory bus capable of putting the extra VRAM to good use.

A 960 can barely use 4GB of VRAM in some limited situations, iirc.

4GB of VRAM on a GTX960 is questionable at best, I think.

If you are looking to do things that need more VRAM, then you should probably fork out a little more for a higher level card.

 

[FearfulSPARTAN]

Yes there may be limited use for 4gb on these cards but im with shady, its not detrimental and if someone is going to keep the card for more than 2 years than it may be more useful in the long run. Even if it isnt then you at least will still get better minimum frame rates now whether thats worth an extra 20 dollars is the question anymore and I would say probably not but the cheapest 4gb versions of the 960 are only 20 dollars more than the base 960 2gb price so its up to you to decide if its worth it or not.

 

[Leyawiin]

A 960 can barely use 4GB of VRAM in some limited situations, iirc.

4GB of VRAM on a GTX960 is questionable at best, I think.

It can consistently use over 2GB in many situations. It doesn't have to use the full 4GB for the excess of 2GB to be useful.

 

[Seba]

Lowest price on newegg for a new GTX 960 2GB: $185 ($165 after $20 rebate).

Lowest price on newegg for a new GTX 960 4GB: $220 ($200 after $20 rebate).

There is no point in paying that much extra for 4GB version of GTX 960, when in most situations (using settings with playable framerates) you will not see any difference.

If you are willing to spend extra, you are much better off with a GTX 970. The performance difference will be very noticeable to say the least.

 

[LTC8K6]

It can consistently use over 2GB in many situations. It doesn't have to use the full 4GB for the excess of 2GB to be useful.

I disagree that it's useful.

Now what? :biggrin:

 

[poofyhairguy]

It can consistently use over 2GB in many situations. It doesn't have to use the full 4GB for the excess of 2GB to be useful.

I think that is a good point. I think tests with games already released show that right now at 1080p (which is all these cards can do) the "good enough" line is 3GB as we don't see the 780 and 780 Ti jump off the min rate cliff like the 2GB cards do. So even if the 4GB of VRAM never "fully" gets used because of the bus or because of some other limit just having more than 2GB is useful.

 

[shady28]

I disagree that it's useful.

Now what? :biggrin:

This turned into a bit of a wandering rant, but I'm leaving it because I think too many people make bad assumptions about memory bus speed and its impact, and in so doing tend to lump the 960s into a low-end category they don't deserve to be in.


The argument you're making is like saying "Adding more RAM to your computer won't make your computer faster because you have a weak CPU, so you don't need more than 4GB". That's a half-truth at best, and hopefully you know why. Just ask the folks stuck with 2GB RAM on a Win 8 Bay Trail based tablet. The analogy is exact - swap to disk on your PC is just like 'swap' to PCI-e bus on a video card.

Take a look at the VRAM usage for these 4 games - Unity, BF 4 Hardline, Far Cry 4, and Grid Autosport.

One of these games uses < 4GB of VRAM - and there's no significant difference in 2 vs 4GB performance.

The other 3 do use > 2GB VRAM.

BF 4: Hardline - uses more than 2GB of VRAM.

10-20% avg FPS increase. The mins must be horrible on the 2GB card to make that much difference on avg fps.

Unity - uses > 2GB VRAM. This is a 600% increase in min fps and a 20% increase in avg FPS for 2 vs 4GB.

Far Cry 4 - uses > 2GB VRAM. At 1080p the min FPS is 33% higher with 4GB vs 2GB. The avg is +10%.

At 1440p you could frame rate lock at 30FPS with the 4GB 960 and never see less than 29fps. But with the 2GB 960, you'll drop all the way to 17fps. That's a 40% difference.

Grid Autosport - only uses > 2GB VRAM at 4K resolution, so not much difference here :

As far as this 128 bit bus idea...

Realize that the 256 bit GTX 970 and 980 generally beat their 512 bit bus competitors (R9 390 / 390 X). Moreover the 384 bit bus 980 Ti also beats its 4096 bit bus HBM competitor Fury / Fury X everywhere except 4K.

And no-one mentions that 384 bit bus vs the 512 bit bus R9 390 / 390X?

Does anyone think a memory bus limited game would allow a 256bit bus card to beat a 512 bit bus card? Or a 384 bit 980 Ti? Yet, I never see that comparison. The 980 Ti spanks those two cards in all use cases, despite the 33% bus 'handicap', and most of the time the 970 and 980 spank their counterparts despite the 256bit vs 512 bit bus "handicap".

Why people would think that same technology wouldn't allow a 128 bit bus GPU to defeat a 256 bit bus GPU is beyond me. For some reason with the 960, forum runners say 'oh, 128 bit bus, move along'. People need to stop looking at specs and look at actual performance, it's clear there is far more to 'specs' than people are able to comprehend, results are much easier to understand and more meaningful.

And I'll say this - the 960 is definitely an enthusiast's enthusiast card.

For an enthusiast who doesn't want to spend wads of cash - what's better than a GPU that can reliably OC by 30%? I mean, these are 1127Mhz reference core clock cards. That's what we usually see in the benchmark comparisons with say a 380, a reference 960.

Look at what they offer those willing to OC though :

And the result -

From the Manufacturer - these are mostly overclocked 5-10% to start with :

Overclocked - and keep in mind these were OC to start with from the mfr :

PCPer did the same thing with 13 cards. They all got over 1500Mhz :

And the memory too! The slowest VRAM OC was 1927 vs 1750 stock.

In other words, with a 960 you're going to win the GPU lottery. The only question is by how much.

So why the heck do people who call themselves enthusiasts constantly rec the 380 over the 960 here? Is it just because of this 256 bit vs 128 bit mentality? Are they not factoring in the anemic 1375mhz memory bus speed of the 380? Not factoring in texture compression? And how often do cards go memory bus limited in the first place?

Obvious answer is, once they saw 128bit bus they looked no farther. Their loss.

 

[LTC8K6]

That was neat, but I am not making an argument. I am giving an opinion.

I don't think the extra VRAM is useful on the 960 or lesser cards.

I also don't think those VRAM charts are necessarily useful in showing that the extra VRAM is necessary.

It's not the first time the subject of more VRAM has come up.

 

[LTC8K6]

If I'm gaming at above 1080P, I'm going to get a higher level card than a GTX960.

 

[nvgpu]

http://videocardz.com/57286/nvidia-geforce-gtx-950-listed-and-pictured

 

[poofyhairguy]

So why the heck do people who call themselves enthusiasts constantly rec the 380 over the 960 here?

To be fair I haven't seen that a lot. Seeing as how the 4GB 380s are more than 4GB 960s it would be a bad recommendation. What I have seen more on here is "why in the heck would you consider the 960 when the 290 is a little bit more? The 290 destroys even an overclocked 960 in gaming!"

For the same reason the 290 is such a good value (last gen card with stocks that are being cleared out) I think if you are ONLY going to consider a 2GB 960 a R9 285 can also be a good value play for competition as it is also being cleared out. Here is one for $155 AR with a game:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131595

But then again in the sub-$200 segment a $180 AR 280x would beat a 2GB 960 and a 285 in many many cases:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131533

There are almost too many options around that price point, $150-$210 is an absolute dogfight.

 

[shady28]

To be fair I haven't seen that a lot. Seeing as how the 4GB 380s are more than 4GB 960s it would be a bad recommendation. What I have seen more on here is "why in the heck would you consider the 960 when the 290 is a little bit more? The 290 destroys even an overclocked 960 in gaming!"

For the same reason the 290 is such a good value (last gen card with stocks that are being cleared out) I think if you are ONLY going to consider a 2GB 960 a R9 285 can also be a good value play for competition as it is also being cleared out. Here is one for $155 AR with a game:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131595

But then again in the sub-$200 segment a $180 AR 280x would beat a 2GB 960 and a 285 in many many cases:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131533

There are almost too many options around that price point, $150-$210 is an absolute dogfight.

Main issue with the R9 290 deals has to do with power, size, and heat - not the price/performance equation.

If someone is an enthusiast, has a rig capable of powering a 300W 290 and the size to install it, and doesn't mind the extra heat output / power consumption / noise - then sure that is complete steal. And in many cases they're not aware that it's out there at bargain prices (I saw one recently for $205).

But that is a long list of odd requirements in a world where most people are moving to smaller / quieter / less power-hungry systems. And that is exactly why it sells slowly.

The vast majority of folks who ask what's the best for their use case are asking for quiet / cool running cards, for rigs with relatively low power capabilities (ie <=500W PSUs), often for a PC running double duty as an office workhorse, and not in a monster case.

Then there are other practical limits. R9 290s are long - usually 11" +. That will not even fit in my case without first removing the CPU Fan, RAM, possibly my PSU, even then I may have to bend or cut some drive bays. Yet that gets rec'd with no-one asking any pertinent questions.

Or you could just get a 960 and save $30-$70 vs 290 while getting less heat, less noise, and more features. Or spend $60-$90 more for a 970 and get the same or better performance, less heat, less noise.

Unless you're really strapped for cash, even to an enthusiast I would think that a no-brainer. If Steam HW stats are accurate, looks like the vast majority of people buying GPUs agree. 970 is the #1 gainer last month and 960 is #2, and they've held those growth slots for the last 3-4 months.