NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Launch Date Revealed

[RussianSensation]

Lets just hope they could do this with their 960/960ti as well.The 970 does look spectacular.Haven't seen a gpu look that great since the gtx570 in that segment which has been a while.

Not sure I follow that comparison. The main commonality between the 970 and a 570 is the price. However, during the Fermi NV generation, the 570 was a high end card, and by the end of Fermi/Cayman/Cypress generation, it was near flagship status until Tahiti/Kepler came out. This is completely different to a 970 which is a mid-range product in the next 2 year Maxwell generation. The 570 completely owned AMD's 5850, but an after-market 970 is more or less equal to a year old 290. One can project that a 970 will not be 90% as fast as the best cards of this "September 2014 - September 2016" generation. However, 570 was more or less near flagship status.

Been quite a while since someone could upgrade a 2+ year old gpu to something cheaper that is overall faster,has lower power consumption and has double the vram.:thumbsup: The 580 to 680 movement wasn't nearly as dramatic i think.

February 2011, HD6970/570 cost $350. By February 2013, one could buy a 1Ghz HD7970 that is 60-75% faster for $300-350. Alternatively 290 came out 2 years after 7970Ghz with 30% more performance for $150 less. Similarly, 2 years after $500 680 came out, one could buy a faster 780 for $450. The only thing in your point is power usage but I'd take the performance increases of 7970Ghz over 6970/570, 780 over 680, etc, over a 100W reduction in power and just 6% more performance that 970 brought over the 290 one year later. 7970, 780, were all far more impressive as graphics cards vs. the 970. I mean I care about performance and price/performance. From that point, 970 barely moved the mark and 980 completely flopped historically speaking. Right now these cards mostly look good because they are competing in the absence of next gen AMD competiton and lack of GM200. Believe me by end of 2015 you will look back at a $550 980 and at a $350 970 and realize they were just mid-range next gen cards.

Honestly people on our foruma were disappointed by the improvements 7970/680 brought but 970/980 are a total joke compared to those cards. Are you kidding, an air OC 980 can't dream of beating an OC 780Ti/290X on average by 35%. 7970/680 OC stomped 580/6970 OC like toys in comparison. 970 6% faster than an after-market 1 year old 290 for $50 less. This might be crazy exciting for a tree hugger and mostly NV loyal upgrader, but not much else for brand agnostic user who skipped 290. Put it this way, waiting 1 year to get 6% more performance and identical performance at 1440p for just $50 less is a giant slap in the face in terms of opportunity cost of waiting. That's like if 390 beats a 1 year old 970 by 6% for $300 by September 2015?! People would honestly laugh at that but NVgets a pass Cuz well NV.

It's kinda like the new Cadillac CTS-V looks awesome against now ancient current gen M5/E63AMG. The press hyped it up like crazy but those Euro models are near EOL and the real competition are 2016-2017 M5/E63. The press loves jumping on the latest and greatest hype bang wagon but one often has to take a step back and look at the overall picture. I mean 7970 at $550 didn't look so hot after the $400 670 launched, nor did the $1000 Titan or the $650 780 when the $400 290 dropped. Sure fair enough a 5850/5870 stomped the 275/285 cards but objectively speaking most gamers would agree that the fair comparison is to 470/480 because it makes sense to compare alike generations when discussing fair comparisons when looking back in time.

what? the 285 is a new GPU (Tonga) and its mission was to replace the 280.
with 256bit and 2GB.

I'm using it because it's probably whats going to remain on the market for a while (and the Tahiti based stuff should be going away soon), and it was a more recent release from AMD at this price/performance range...

285 is junk though. Using a garbage card to justify that a competitor's card should follow its footsteps isn't ground breaking. Other than iMac Retina design win, and using Tonga as a test-bed for some new features and architectural enhancement testing, 285 itself is overpriced crap. Considering one could have bought an HD7950 V2/670 for $280-300 1.5 years ago, a $250 Tonga was a fail from day one.

Sorry for misspellings and mistakes as typing this from my phone.

 

[mindbomb]

they also might just be rebranding the 750ti into the 900 series as well. Although that wouldn't require a 6 pin unless they are overclocking it.

 

[HumblePie]

Uhh... the GTX 970 is more than 6% performance increase over the 290. Hell even passmark has it at 30% increase over it. Many real world game benchmarks I've seen put the 970 at around 15-20% performance increase over the 290. The 290 goes for around $300 before rebates and deals, and usually ends up at $270 lately after rebates (I hate rebates). The 970 goes for around $330 before deals and has been around $300 after deals without rebates (yay!!!).

So considering even with the deal price comparison between the two cards, you are getting a significant performance for the price upgrade with a gtx 970 over the r9 290. Which is the reason I finally switched to NV this time for my video card upgrade. There was a reason ATI had to drop the price for the r9 290 from $400 to sub $300 right after the GTX 970 came out. In many games the GTX 970 competes head to head with the 290x which is still priced higher than it.

 

[tviceman]

Uhh... the GTX 970 is more than 6% performance increase over the 290. Hell even passmark has it at 30% increase over it. Many real world game benchmarks I've seen put the 970 at around 15-20% performance increase over the 290. The 290 goes for around $300 before rebates and deals, and usually ends up at $270 lately after rebates (I hate rebates). The 970 goes for around $330 before deals and has been around $300 after deals without rebates (yay!!!).

So considering even with the deal price comparison between the two cards, you are getting a significant performance for the price upgrade with a gtx 970 over the r9 290. Which is the reason I finally switched to NV this time for my video card upgrade. There was a reason ATI had to drop the price for the r9 290 from $400 to sub $300 right after the GTX 970 came out. In many games the GTX 970 competes head to head with the 290x which is still priced higher than it.

In real world games, on average it's about 10% faster at 1080p and 6% faster at 1440p, but it does have more OC headroom and consumes way less power.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/27.html

Those three things going for it (slightly to moderately faster, OC, power consumption) allows for price premium over both the 290 and 290x.

 

[Headfoot]

Uhh... the GTX 970 is more than 6% performance increase over the 290. Hell even passmark has it at 30% increase over it. Many real world game benchmarks I've seen put the 970 at around 15-20% performance increase over the 290. The 290 goes for around $300 before rebates and deals, and usually ends up at $270 lately after rebates (I hate rebates). The 970 goes for around $330 before deals and has been around $300 after deals without rebates (yay!!!).

So considering even with the deal price comparison between the two cards, you are getting a significant performance for the price upgrade with a gtx 970 over the r9 290. Which is the reason I finally switched to NV this time for my video card upgrade. There was a reason ATI had to drop the price for the r9 290 from $400 to sub $300 right after the GTX 970 came out. In many games the GTX 970 competes head to head with the 290x which is still priced higher than it.

970 is maybe 5% faster when you compare to 290s people actually buy and use; e.g. aftermarket ones that don't throttle. These sites continue to use stock 290 performance even though there is a noticeable difference between stock and aftermarket and there are fewer new ones with stock coolers (not that you'd want to choose stock). Basically, aftermarket 290 performance = stock 290x performance when it comes to reading the charts.

In any case, aftermarket to aftermarket they are so close as to be virtually indistinguishable from a performance perspective so the choice is really down to do I want the cheaper one or the one that uses less power? You'd only really choose one over the other for performance reasons if there is a particular game you have in mind, or if you plan on going multiple cards

 

[Keysplayr]

LOL. 30%..... 10%.... 6%.... 5%....
Yeah, if you look hard enough you'll find reviews that put them closer together than further apart. 970 is a 290X competitor, not 290.

 

[Temuka]

Uhh... the GTX 970 is more than 6% performance increase over the 290. Hell even passmark has it at 30% increase over it. Many real world game benchmarks I've seen put the 970 at around 15-20% performance increase over the 290. The 290 goes for around $300 before rebates and deals, and usually ends up at $270 lately after rebates (I hate rebates). The 970 goes for around $330 before deals and has been around $300 after deals without rebates (yay!!!).

So considering even with the deal price comparison between the two cards, you are getting a significant performance for the price upgrade with a gtx 970 over the r9 290. Which is the reason I finally switched to NV this time for my video card upgrade. There was a reason ATI had to drop the price for the r9 290 from $400 to sub $300 right after the GTX 970 came out. In many games the GTX 970 competes head to head with the 290x which is still priced higher than it.

I will stop you. All real world game tests show that 970 and 290 show almost same performance in games + without any rebates you can get 290 tri-x for 270$,while 970 g1 is always around 360$

 

[HumblePie]

I will stop you. All real world game tests show that 970 and 290 show almost same performance in games + without any rebates you can get 290 tri-x for 270$,while 970 g1 is always around 360$

Really? Why not just look at the Anandtech review of the GTX 970. They use a stock GTX 970 along with a GTX 970 FTW. Then they use stock and aftermarket 290's and 290x's for the review. In almost every game a stock 970 = stock 290x and aftermarket OC'd 970 = aftermarket OC'd 290x. Which is far more than 6-10% gain over the comparable 290. There are some games that favor the ATI line such as Company of Heroes. Most of the sites I read all show the same.

So what are you stopping me over again?

Just incase you hadn't looked at a review here's a link to one.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga

Also the GTX 970s without rebates have been showing up as deals for $300 lately. I bought mine for $298 a pop new with the pick your path games for each. I even have been posting a few of those deals in the hot deals forum on this site. Go look! These are even aftermarket cards too!

Don't get me wrong, any GTX card priced at $360 or more is just dumb to buy. Around the $300 mark or so, the price gap between the r9 290 and the GTX 970 puts the performance to price ratio in favor of the GTX 970. That isn't saying the ATI cards are bad, or even badly priced. Well the 290x I feel is badly priced for it's performance, but the r9 290 isn't really if you don't mind the rebate deals when they pop up. My point was to counter what RS said in his post that was fairly disparaging of the price to performance ratio of the GTX 970 when bought at $360 versus the r9 290 when bought at $250 after rebate. Just pointing out that's a dumb comparison considering that GTX 970s have been going as a deal for $300 lately for various brands (Zotac, MSI, EVGA, and PNY to name a few) and not using that $300 deal price to the better r9 290 deal prices.

 

[RussianSensation]

^
Passmark is a wortless benchmark. No serious enthusiast pays attention to Passmark for CPU/GPU scores.

$290-300 deals on good 970s are super rare. When did you see a G1/MSI Gaming for $290-300? If it's some $25 off $200 AMEX deal and $15 MasterPass combo, then using the same strategy, a 290 falls to $210-220. The $80 differential remains. After-market 290s tend to be smoother than 970 SLI in frame times. Double up on the cards and it's now $160-200 more for what in the best case is 7-10% more performance on average, but at high rez, actually similar or worse performance!

There are other factors at play like some people prefer the peace of mind of EVGA's warranty or want to use NV specific feaures such as 3D vision or PhysX. Strictly speaking price/performance of an after-market 290/290s beats 970/970 SLI hands down. At 4 hours of gaming a day all year @ $0.15 per kWh it will take 4+ years to just break even on the electricity costs.

My most important point was that 970 barely beats a 1 year old card that cost $400. That's crazy underwhelming now that I think about it! Lower power usage and HDMi 2.0 are literally the main things 970 has going for it after launching 1 year later. Let's face it if AMD brought out a card just 6-7% faster than a 970 by September 2015 for $50 less, nearly everyone but the most hardcore AMD supporters would call it a failure. At first I was kinda impressed by the 970, but now that the hype settled, browsing reviews with many games, it's not epic like 6600GT, 8800GT or GTX460 was. Nowhere close to those legendary cards. But yet it's hyped like one of those cards.

LOL. 30%..... 10%.... 6%.... 5%....
Yeah, if you look hard enough you'll find reviews that put them closer together than further apart. 970 is a 290X competitor, not 290.

Ya and 95% of after-market 290 = 290X in performance but no matter how many times people post these facts, it flies right past you:

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-05/amd-radeon-r9-290-290x-roundup-test/2/

Hence after-market 290 = reference 290X => 1440p/1600p/4K identical performance to an after-market 970 per TPU; 6% disadvantage at 1080p for $80-100 less. I don't recall you recommending people buy the 7970 / 7970 Ghz for $80-100 over the 670. Just saying...

 

[HumblePie]

Ya and 95% of after-market 290 = 290X in performance but no matter how many times people post these facts, it flies right past you:

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-05/amd-radeon-r9-290-290x-roundup-test/2/

Hence after-market 290 = reference 290X => 1440p/1600p/4K identical performance to an after-market 970 per TPU; 6% disadvantage at 1080p for $80-100 less. I don't recall you recommending people buy the 7970 / 7970 Ghz for $80-100 over the 670. Just saying...

Well the 290x is basically a slightly OC'd better binned 290 at a significantly higher price and that significance was much higher prior to the introduction of the gtx 970. I don't know anyone that would seriously recommend buying the 290x or really even the gtx 980 for most people. The 290x is really a bad price for the performance card.

 

[tential]

Well the 290x is basically a slightly OC'd better binned 290 at a significantly higher price and that significance was much higher prior to the introduction of the gtx 970. I don't know anyone that would seriously recommend buying the 290x or really even the gtx 980 for most people. The 290x is really a bad price for the performance card.

I implore you to go back and read the last few Russian sensation posts a little slower because by your responses I can tell you missed a key fact or two in there.

 

[HumblePie]

I implore you to go back and read the last few Russian sensation posts a little slower because by your responses I can tell you missed a key fact or two in there.

Really??

...but an after-market 970 is more or less equal to a year old 290.

... The only thing in your point is power usage but I'd take the performance increases of 7970Ghz over 6970/570, 780 over 680, etc, over a 100W reduction in power and just 6% more performance that 970 brought over the 290 one year later. 7970, 780, were all far more impressive as graphics cards vs. the 970. I mean I care about performance and price/performance. From that point, 970 barely moved the mark and 980 completely flopped historically speaking.

Honestly people on our foruma were disappointed by the improvements 7970/680 brought but 970/980 are a total joke compared to those cards.

He made the claim the 970 is only 6% performance increase over a year old 290 card. Right....

That the price for performance for the 970 is a joke on these boards.

What point are you trying to make again?

 

[Pinstripe]

Nvidia is just terrible with the pricing. A GTX 970 costs ~380€, while I got my MSI R9 290 Gaming for ~205€. Unbeatable.

 

[Rezist]

Looking at the site linked with the 10+ 290's/290x's the difference from stock 290 to the worst after market 290 was 9%, the worst aftermarket 290 to the worst aftermarket 290x was 8% and the best 290 to the best 290x 6% then the BF4 test is all messed up with them all getting mingled together but on average 15% then the stock 290.

OC vs OC the 970 would probably be so equal to the 970/290/290x I don't see anyone really noticing much beyond power consumed and possibly noise, however the 980 would clearly lead.

 

[SolMiester]

Really??



He made the claim the 970 is only 6% performance increase over a year old 290 card. Right....

That the price for performance for the 970 is a joke on these boards.

What point are you trying to make again?

RS slags NV every chance he gets?

 

[stahlhart]

And, on that note, we're all done here.
-- stahlhart