Newegg has GTX 960's Listed and they start at $199!

[Ketchup]

Here's a 280x for $5 more than the cheapest 960

http://www.ncixus.com/products/?usa...vpn=R9-280X-TDFD&manufacture=XFX&promoid=1356

Oh sure, one can find one pretty close. My comparison was with the current price of the card used in the benchmark, as it is clocked higher than the card you linked.

 

[96Firebird]

I know, I always found it strange than an AMD game benches so much better on equivalent Nvidia cards.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU14/811

970 hammers 290x

760 beats 280

670/770 beats 280x

Much different results compared to TPU's latest testing...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_960_SSC_ACX_Cooler/12.html

970 is even with the regular 290...

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Much different results compared to TPU's latest testing...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_960_SSC_ACX_Cooler/12.html

970 is even with the regular 290...

Wow, AMD's last set of drivers must have made some major improvements.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

So, don't think that you can manipulate the reality with selective picks, the reality is this:

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_960_Gaming/images/perfrel_1920.gif

The 280X is better but not much better than GTX 960, but is more expensive than GTX 960, too. The 285 is the most similar card in price and performance, a little more expensive (a much more if you compare the MSRPs of both cards), the 280 is worse and cheaper.

Welcome to the reality. It isn't the main gpu builder the one that must take the effort of competitive prices, is its antagonist, AMD. And if AMD doesn't adjust prices... Why nvidia would do it?

Nvidia improves the relation performance/price ratio with the GTX 960, don't lie about the objective reality.

I think I'd pay the extra $5 more for the 15% better performance.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Still beats the R9 285

And besides a single card or 2. The 280X is 30-50$ more.

 

[Cerb]

I will give it this, looking at frame time results: they're among the best I've seen for 128-bit cards.
Example: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/01/22/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_video_card_review/6
At its worst, it matches the competition, when it can't manage good times: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/01/22/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_video_card_review/8
Then, power: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/01/22/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_video_card_review/9
Forget being a few cents per month, that's a comfortable room to be gaming in.

But, for the cost, it is lacking, unless you're after a very quiet stock card only, can fit a big card, and will not use multisampling AA (I don't know what Guru3D is up to--probably need to revisit their testing methods and/or gear--but TPU and others show the MSI and Asus as quieter than their GTX 970 counterparts, under load, with the same coolers). If the prices move towards $150, and the Ti offers better bang/buck, all will be well, I think. As it is, I think the prices are primarily banking on nVidia's superior reputation, rather than merit.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Still beats the R9 285

And besides a single card or 2. The 280X is 30-50$ more.

There are ten different models of 280x selling from $205-$243, while the 960 is $200-$240 on newegg (pcpartpicker doesn't have them listed yet so I can't go by their prices). So I think it's fair to consider them direct competitors, apples to apples. And as your graph shows, 280x wins big.

 

[ShintaiDK]

There are ten different models of 280x selling from $205-$243, while the 960 is $200-$240 on newegg (pcpartpicker doesn't have them listed yet so I can't go by their prices). So I think it's fair to consider them direct competitors, apples to apples. And as your graph shows, 280x wins big.

Stop manipulating the numbers.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CE&PageSize=30

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CE&PageSize=30

 

[wand3r3r]

Still beats the R9 285

And besides a single card or 2. The 280X is 30-50$ more.

Remember the 285 release?

TDP is 10W lower than 280. Its 1GB less. Its 256 vs 384bit bus. Memory is only 5.5Ghz. Clock is lower than a 280. And its priced higher.

Its really hard to see the logic behind this one.

Not to mention higher price, 1GB less, 2/3rds the memory bandwidth, lower clocks. Amazing progress, right?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Remember the 285 release?

I remember it fine.

Now tell me the similarities.

 

[Jhatfie]

I do not understand this card at $200. The 2GB is pathetic, plus I can get a vastly superior performing Asus DCII R9 290 for $239 AR. Shoot, I purchased my HD 7950 3 years ago for $269 that performs about the same as the 960, but at least the 7950 had 3GB ram. At $150, the 960 makes sense, at $200 it is a cash grab by Nvidia that sadly plenty of people will blindly pay.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I do not understand this card at $200. The 2GB is pathetic, plus I can get a vastly superior performing Asus DCII R9 290 for $239 AR. Shoot, I purchased my HD 7950 3 years ago for $269 that performs about the same as the 960, but at least the 7950 had 3GB ram. At $150, the 960 makes sense, at $200 it is a cash grab by Nvidia that sadly plenty of people will blindly pay.

I guess they're just scared of cannibalizing the 970's sales if they put out something competitive at the $200-$240 price range.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Wow, dont really understand the hate/bashing of this card. Granted it is not a great step forward, but it is very rare that a brand new card competes on performance/dollar with cards that have been on the market for 2 or 3 years. I would expect the price to adjust itself at some point to be in line with the performance. It probably is not a card I would buy right now, but gee guys, nVidia isnt putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy it either.

 

[JAG87]

God, I love watching red and green nerds butt heads over $20. Or even $50. Like that is going to change your life. Guys, chill out. We spend more than that on ONE friggen game.

Having said that, the card is overpriced for what it is. At $150 it would have been a much more attractive option. At $200 + change for various OEM editions, people will start to look at other cards in the $2-300 category, and the 960 doesn't look like a good deal in that slot.

Anyway, just wait a little bit for discounts and MIRs to start and you will get it for $150. If you must have something on launch day, you can't be complaining too much about pricing...

 

[Headfoot]

Wow, dont really understand the hate/bashing of this card.

It used to be that the midrange release was much cheaper and equal performance to the previous high end release.

This midrange release is almost as expensive as the high end release (R9 290 @ $260) and significantly slower. It's performance competitive and price competitive with the 280, a little faster and a little more expensive. That's not progress. That's more of the same. Enthusiasts like progress.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/520?vs=542
^^ that's how it used to be.

This is how it's going to go for a while as long as the new nodes take as long as they do to roll out

 

[RussianSensation]

Still beats the R9 285

And besides a single card or 2. The 280X is 30-50$ more.

Using other overpriced AMD cards in the marketplace to justify why some overpriced NV card is better/good is not an argument. Using 285's 2GB of crippled VRAM to justify that 960's 2GB is good enough for 1080P isn't sufficient either.

How about this:

$140 - HD7950 3GB
$150 - R9 280 3GB
$240 - Asus DCUII 290 4GB
$260 - Sapphire Tri-X 290 4GB

Already evidence that 2GB of VRAM is limiting, nevermind 2015-2016 games.

After-market R9 290 = reference 290X.

After marekt 290 ~ Reference 290X is 45-50% faster than an after-market GTX960 at 1080P.

This lead extends to 64% at 1440P.

Also, let me summarize this for you at 1080P

$200 - 960 = 103%
$240-260 290 = 155% (so $40-60 more for double the VRAM and 45-50% more performance)

vs.

$330-350 970 = 162% (so $80-100 more for 4.5% more performance and same VRAM)

$550 980 = 186% (so $300 or so above an after-market 290 for 20-25% more performance and same VRAM).

Which of these 4 cards stands out as the biggest outlier? The 960 is a huge pile. :thumbsdown: :sneaky:

Let me summarize:

$40-60 more for an AMD 290 card with 40-50% more performance, double the VRAM. You can't see this as amazing....for some reason....

vs.

Yet you go ahead and pay $300 for a 980 with 20-25% more performance, same VRAM.

Nvidia improves the relation performance/price ratio with the GTX 960, don't lie about the objective reality.

960 improving on price/performance of 760 is irrelevant when the market has completely changed since 760 was available. Focusing on overpriced 285/760/280X and ignoring price/performance and VRAM on R9 280/7950/after-market R9 290 in defense of the 960's poor performance and 2GB of VRAM is not an argument.

Name 1 time in the 20-year-history of ATI/NV/AMD when you could pay $40-60 USD more, get 40-50% faster gaming performance and DOUBLE the VRAM with a competitor's videocard.

Even if R9 280/HD7950/280X completely disappeared from the marketplace completely, both the $200 285/960 are horrible options against an after-market R9 290.

In Canada, the situation is EVEN more eye-popping/laughable.

GTX960 2GB - $249-269 CDN
vs.
After-market R9 290s going for $249-310 CDN.

So let me get this straight, in Canada a 40-50% faster R9 290 with double the VRAM goes for as low as the cheapest GTX960.
http://www.ncix.com/detail/powercolor-radeon-r9-290-turbo-24-104017-1356.htm

Is this forum serious, defending the GTX960? Look, it's perfectly fine if you LOVE NV, but if this forum truly defends the 960, it will be an ALL time low for the VC&G section.

 

[Mondozei]

The GTX 960 has been very illuminating. It shows who follows the stats and who follows the brand. And, sad to say, not everyone in this forum passed the test.

As Russian pointed out, the value proposition of a 960 is laughable everywhere but if you're in Canada and you buy a 960 over a card that costs just as much but is 50% faster and has 2x the VRAM then, dare I say it, you're a fanboy.

*takes cover*

 

[Ketchup]

As has been posted before, if you want a better card, spend more money.

If you want a card that runs cooler, user less power, and costs less, while still performing as well as the card it replaces, the 960 is a good card.

 

[RussianSensation]

God, I love watching red and green nerds butt heads over $20. Or even $50. Like that is going to change your life. Guys, chill out. We spend more than that on ONE friggen game.
....
Anyway, just wait a little bit for discounts and MIRs to start and you will get it for $150. If you must have something on launch day, you can't be complaining too much about pricing...

Agree with everything you said. Sometimes it's a good idea to save $40-60 for 5-10% less performance if you are super budget strapped. In this case, this $40-60 will cost you 40-50% less performance and half the VRAM. What a bad trade-off to save $50, and some are defending it! The ironic part is the same posters think $80-100 more over the 290 for a 970 is worth it for 5-6% more performance and $300 extra for the 980 is worth it for 20-25% more performance over the 290X. Talking about being a hypocrite / having an anti-AMD agenda. It seems no matter what some people will just find anything to justify their brand preference. Many of us had no problems recognizing the greatness of 8800GT/8800GTS 512MB/1GB and 8800GTX / Ultra but simultaneously recognized the failure that 8600GT/GTS were in their respective price segments. It seems some forum members on our boards can no longer judge SKUs vs. SKUs objectively without having the brand taint their judgement.

One really has to question if NV has viral marketers on our boards. Not even R*ll* would go as far as to recommend/defend an NV card with 40-50% less performance and half the VRAM to save $40-60. Gawd, when R*ll* sounds more reasonable than some people on this forum, that's just sad.

It used to be that the mid-range release was much cheaper and equal performance to the previous high end release.

This midrange release is almost as expensive as the high end release (R9 290 @ $260) and significantly slower. It's performance competitive and price competitive with the 280, a little faster and a little more expensive. That's not progress. That's more of the same. Enthusiasts like progress.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/520?vs=542
^^ that's how it used to be.

This is how it's going to go for a while as long as the new nodes take as long as they do to roll out

We as consumers can vote with our wallet, and with time the new card will have to be dropped in price to move. 750Ti also came out at $149, but with time it dropped to $90-120, a more reasonable price for that performance segment.

When 960 is $150 with rebates, a $230 R9 290 would still be a nearly linear improvement in price/performance and still have 2x the VRAM. That shows just how horribly overpriced 285/960 2GB are right now. Even if 960 had more performance, the risk of buying a 2GB of VRAM for 1080P gaming for the next 2 years cannot be overstated. I know myself having walked into a VRAM bomb that was the 8800GTS 320MB. Never again, no thanks.

As has been posted before, if you want a better card, spend more money.

If you want a card that runs cooler, user less power, and costs less, while still performing as well as the card it replaces, the 960 is a good card.

You ignored other factors such as performance not only in today's games but 2015-2016 games. I would presume a budget gamer is going to keep his/her card for 1.5-2 years, no?

Did you see Evolve's VRAM usage? That's coming Feb 10th. No review today can tell you how a 2GB might bomb in Evolve. No card with 2GB of VRAM can hit 60 fps in Evolve at 1080P, not even close.

280X = 60 fps

I think budget PC gamers who happen to be Battlefield fans/gamers ought to know just how awful the 960 is for Battlefield 4 against a $250 R9 290, with the latter leading by 55% at 1080P.

I guess anyone who wants to play BF4 Hardline, BF5, or any 2015-2016 Frostbite engine games, go ahead, walk into the performance bomb that is the 960. You've been warned.

 

[preslove]

Would this card work with a 430 watt power supply (coursair)? I'm looking for a lower power and quiet card for my htpc. This card seems to have pretty large wattage peaks under load...

What's on the horizon for AMD for single power cord cards that sip power?

 

[Ketchup]

You ignored other factors such as performance not only in today's games but 2015-2016 games. I would presume a budget gamer is going to keep his/her card for 1.5-2 years, no? ..

Sorry, I can't see into the future.

I know I don't speak for everyone, but I have had my 660 for close to 2.5 years (my build just happened to coincide with the day it was released) and I still have no need for anything faster.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Would this card work with a 430 watt power supply (coursair)? I'm looking for a lower power and quiet card for my htpc. This card seems to have pretty large wattage peaks under load...

What's on the horizon for AMD for single power cord cards that sip power?

Nvidia recommends a 400W PSU for it.

 

[preslove]

Nvidia recommends a 400W PSU for it.

Cool. And this outperforms the R9 270 by a lot, right?

 

[Erenhardt]

Cool. And this outperforms the R9 270 by a lot, right?

10-20% faster at the same power consumption.

A little faster, the same power consumption and 50% more expensive than 3 year old card.

 

[RussianSensation]

It would work fine with a 430W PSU, but I would say you'd be better off getting a GTX750Ti for an HTPC for $110. Unless you are gaming, I don't see why you need to spend $200 for an HTPC card.

Sorry, I can't see into the future.

You can't see that 2GB of VRAM is a bottleneck in Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein TWO, Titanfall, Shadow of Mordor and in beta testing in Evolve, a game coming out in 1 month? Do you not recall what happened to 8800GT 256MB, 8800GTS 320MB, 1.28GB 470/480 and 1.5GB 480/580? It doesn't take Nostradamus to be able to predict that in the next 2-2.5 years modern titles will exceed 2GB of VRAM because we'll get next generation PS4/XB1 wave of games.

I know I don't speak for everyone, but I have had my 660 for close to 2.5 years (my build just happened to coincide with the day it was released) and I still have no need for anything faster.

Then you don't play modern games at 1080P with AA and high quality settings. I don't understand how this is relevant to a 960. If 660 is good enough for you, how does that come into play when discussing 960 vs. R9 290?