Low end Maxwell 2 coming? 950/950ti

[ElFenix]

nvidia pricing has seemed too high until recently for the 900 cards (970 has just recently fallen below $300 and 960 just below $200), and this seems to continue it.

can this SLI?

 

[LTC8K6]

What features exactly does it offer that justifies its launch MSRP over a $175 GTX960 with a free MGS game?

Asus GTX950 = $170 + shipping, no game.
vs.
EVGA SC GTX960 = $175 + free shipping, free game (at least $15 value).

At computerbase, an after-market GTX960 is 23% faster at 1080P against the Asus Strix 950. That means the most 950 should cost is $175 / 1.23% = $142 and if we assign some value to the game, $142 - $15 = $127 US.

GTX770 can be bought for $180 and that card is 27% faster than the Asus Strix 950. And if we look $200 XFX R9 280X, that card is 31% faster than the Asus Strix 950.

$160-180 for a 950 is a crazy rip-off. The card needs to be $129 to make any sense.

I meant over the 750/750ti, of course.

 

[Beer4Me]

IMHO, this is a waste. Just price drop the 960 (as it needs to be) and be done with it...

 

[LTC8K6]

I expect the 950 price will drop as it becomes more readily available.

 

[LTC8K6]

nvidia pricing has seemed too high until recently for the 900 cards (970 has just recently fallen below $300 and 960 just below $200), and this seems to continue it.

can this SLI?

Apparently so, though I don't know why.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...eqo3wojJzf2-og_R42c4tBoCQcfw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

[cholley]

What features exactly does it offer that justifies its launch MSRP over a $175 GTX960 with a free MGS game?

Asus GTX950 = $170 + shipping, no game.
vs.
EVGA SC GTX960 = $175 + free shipping, free game (at least $15 value).

At computerbase, an after-market GTX960 is 23% faster at 1080P against the Asus Strix 950. That means the most 950 should cost is $175 / 1.23% = $142 and if we assign some value to the game, $142 - $15 = $127 US.

GTX770 can be bought for $180 and that card is 27% faster than the Asus Strix 950. And if we look $200 XFX R9 280X, that card is 31% faster than the Asus Strix 950.

$160-180 for a 950 is a crazy rip-off. The card needs to be $129 to make any sense.

why do you continue to pick extremes in prices to prove your point?

you pick the most expensive 950 and post the after rebate price of the 960.
you really can't say what the 950 will sell for until it's in stock and the retailers start to compete.

we don't even know what the impact will be on the market.

now i do absolutely agree that at MSRP of $159 looks stupid in the face of current promotional offers on the 960, but let the retailers and NV decide how to move product.

lets wait to see what happens across the market and where pricing settles in the coming months to see where price and performance lie for the mid stream budget gamer.

 

[RussianSensation]

why do you continue to pick extremes in prices to prove your point?

I don't. I use current US market pricing for both AMD and NV cards. Whether it's looking at 285, 280X, 960, 270X, 290, in all cases at current US market prices, 950 is a bad buy for DIY gaming. If this changes in the future, my opinion will change. For example, is GTX750 worth recommending for $50? Yes. Would I have recommended a $119 MSRP 750? Never, because it was a waste of $ at that price. Since forums like these are supposed to help gamers share their experiences and opinions on what's wroth buying and what is not, I am sharing my opinion and substantiating it with data that as it stands 950 is a bad product at current prices.

My extensive post here goes into greater detail on how at today's prices, 950 is a waste of $ against both AMD and NV alternatives. If you do not agree, please feel free to provide an alternative explanation. Since the market is dynamic and prices change in the months to come as you said, our opinions on where cards stand will also change. If and when 950 starts to have rebates and price drops to make it viable, gamers' opinions on it will change accordingly and fairly. As it stands right now, the card has $159 MSRP and after-market versions cost $160-180 in the US, $250+ Canadian (absurd!).

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I thought this was a really exciting release when it was supposed to come out at $150, since you know some retailer is going to start offering it with a $20 rebate in a month. You pretty much have to go Nvidia at the low end since AMD's DirectX11 driver overhead is such a problem when using a low end CPU (see Eurogamer's testing with an i3; and who buys a 50-series card with an i5 or better?). But at $170 when you can get an EVGA GTX 960 SSC for $175 like RS showed?

 

[LTC8K6]

I thought this was a really exciting release when it was supposed to come out at $150, since you know some retailer is going to start offering it with a $20 rebate in a month. You pretty much have to go Nvidia at the low end since AMD's DirectX11 driver overhead is such a problem when using a low end CPU (see Eurogamer's testing with an i3; and who buys a 50-series card with an i5 or better?). But at $170 when you can get an EVGA GTX 960 SSC for $175 like RS showed?

It pretty much has to come down some in price.

 

[cholley]

prices starting to move 960 $180 no rebate involved

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125770

 

[cholley]

i was interested in the 950 if the price was right, newegg had some open box (already?) for $154.99, i was just able to snag a NIB gigabyte 960 on fleabay for $168 shipped.

my opinion on price is the 950 should shove the 960 to $150ish and the 950 should be $129

 

[cholley]

looks like MSI is the first to apply price pressure
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127844

 

[Zodiark1593]

i was interested in the 950 if the price was right, newegg had some open box (already?) for $154.99, i was just able to snag a NIB gigabyte 960 on fleabay for $168 shipped.

my opinion on price is the 950 should shove the 960 to $150ish and the 950 should be $129

I got my EVGA SSC GTX 960 for $165 open box. Was a nice score and performance seems to be around 2/3 of a stock GTX 970. When did 2 GB suddenly become low end though? Barely a year or so ago, 2 GB meant you were doing very well.

 

[alcoholbob]

looks like MSI is the first to apply price pressure
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127844

Seems like it's hard to find the mini ITX ones on sale. Just the ginormous cards. 960 IMO with the single 6 pin is a great candidate for a mini ITX build with a fanless PSU.

I got my EVGA SSC GTX 960 for $165 open box. Was a nice score and performance seems to be around 2/3 of a stock GTX 970. When did 2 GB suddenly become low end though? Barely a year or so ago, 2 GB meant you were doing very well.

It isn't low end at all, it's just there's a slight performance gap today between 4GB and 2GB at 1080p (like 10%) and people are extrapolating that it's going to be a huge difference in a few years in console ports. We'll see. I think it's overblown mainly because these cards are too weak anyway. In a few years a 4GB card might be 30-40% faster but we're talking about 30fps vs 21fps. In other words you would want to be upgrading anyway. It's just the resale value of the 4GB card will be much higher.

 

[lehtv]

I got my EVGA SSC GTX 960 for $165 open box. Was a nice score and performance seems to be around 2/3 of a stock GTX 970. When did 2 GB suddenly become low end though? Barely a year or so ago, 2 GB meant you were doing very well.

Did it? 3GB made sense already when 7950 was released in 2012.

 

[shady28]

Seems like it's hard to find the mini ITX ones on sale. Just the ginormous cards. 960 IMO with the single 6 pin is a great candidate for a mini ITX build with a fanless PSU.



It isn't low end at all, it's just there's a slight performance gap today between 4GB and 2GB at 1080p (like 10%) and people are extrapolating that it's going to be a huge difference in a few years in console ports. We'll see. I think it's overblown mainly because these cards are too weak anyway. In a few years a 4GB card might be 30-40% faster but we're talking about 30fps vs 21fps. In other words you would want to be upgrading anyway. It's just the resale value of the 4GB card will be much higher.

It's been pretty well proven that the 960 can and does make use of 4GB in scenarios where > 2GB is needed. If <= 2GB is needed, it doesn't matter, and that does describe 99% of the games on the market right now.

When it matters, it matters, and the 960 is perfectly capable of using it.

Observe :

 

[alcoholbob]

It's been pretty well proven that the 960 can and does make use of 4GB in scenarios where > 2GB is needed. If <= 2GB is needed, it doesn't matter, and that does describe 99% of the games on the market right now.

When it matters, it matters, and the 960 is perfectly capable of using it.

Observe :

Ya, I've seen those benchmarks. Like I said, poor fps 4GB or 2GB. I wouldn't want to play on either of those cards at those settings with those framerate numbers. Turn the settings down to medium and both cards will be indistinguishable. The price difference isn't worth it IMO; I could see an argument if you were going SLI with two 4GB cards though.

The 2GB cards are now down to $150 range AR, while the 4GB ones are still around $200-210 ish AR with the Phantom Pain game promition. The 2GB cards pre-premotion have gone down as low as $130 whereas the lowest the 4GB cards have gone is $180. I don't think it's worth a $50-60 premium when at that price range you should be looking at other options anyway. The 2GB card actually has a place in the market at its price range in the low power/cost segment, the 4GB card really doesn't and there are much better options at its price point.

 

[arandomguy]

Testing with set presets doesn't really show the exact issue with VRAM (or lack of). Texture quality is one setting that is extremely dependent upon VRAM but has very negligible performance impact otherwise.

If you look at Farcry 4 and AC: Unity 2GB vs 4GB is the difference between running textures at ultra high (max) vs low -

http://international.download.nvidi...e-quality-comparison-3-ultra-high-vs-low.html
http://international.download.nvidi...e-quality-comparison-2-ultra-high-vs-low.html
http://international.download.nvidi...exture-quality-comparison-1-ultra-vs-low.html
http://international.download.nvidi...exture-quality-comparison-2-ultra-vs-low.html

One issue with 2GB cards, whether it be Pitcarin, Tonga or GM206, is that you can't actually run at settings equal to the consoles (PS4) due to the lack of VRAM while the 4GB versions can. Tonga would be the best example of this, it is more powerful and advanced than the PS4s GPU in every aspect other than VRAM if it is the 2GB version.

So while the lower end cards cannot play with everything at maximum the higher memory versions can at least use textures on maximum and match higher end cards with that single setting.

Of course how important texture differences are will vary individual to individual much like every other graphics setting.