True AMD competitor to the GTX 950?

[alexruiz]

This is one that is puzzling me.
If I am building a budget PC for somebody, and on a hard budget, what AMD video card is truly the competition to the GTX950?

Yes, the GTX950 is slow and overhyped, but at the $130 AR price point that it pops up quite often, I cannot find a comparable AMD alternative.
We knew about the R9 370X, the hot clocked Trinidad / Curacao / Pitcairn XT. Not available unless you are in China. The R9 270X is neck and neck with the GTX 950, but again, finding one now at the $130AR or so that the GTX 950 is appearing often is not possible. R9 270x are scarce, and expensive.

No, the R7 370 doesn't qualify. It is still slower than the GTX 950, and even a hot clocked Strix R7 370 at 1050MHz is not faster than the Pitcairn XT of the original HD 7870 GHz edition. A hot clocked R9 270X like the powercolor PCs+ was 1150 MHz, and it was a full blown Curacao, so it still was a good ~15%-20% faster than any R7 370. I am still in disbelief that AMD decided to make the R7 370 a "Pro" chip, and not a hot clocked "XT"

So what are my choices to stay AMD at the $130AR GPU price point? Go lower with a R7 370? Scavenge $50 somehow and jump to the much superior R9 380? Or do the unthinkable and go nvidia for this price point?

 

[poofyhairguy]

The answer is "go back in time a few months when the 270s got cleared out and nab one."

Nvidia rules at that price. I hope AMD addresses that this year.

 

[96Firebird]

The 950 is on sale for $120 without rebate right now. I've been debating on getting one for a future 4K HTPC build, but I might just retire my 970 to that build when the new cards come out.

 

[MrTeal]

The 2GB isn't that far off the 950; Techpowerup's last few reviews have the 2GB 950 anywhere from 10% ahead of the 2GB 370 to tied. The 2GB 370 is a little cheap, though for the same $130AR you could also pick up a 4GB 370.

 

[AtenRa]

The 2GB isn't that far off the 950; Techpowerup's last few reviews have the 2GB 950 anywhere from 10% ahead of the 2GB 370 to tied. The 2GB 370 is a little cheap, though for the same $130AR you could also pick up a 4GB 370.

Yea just realized they are using Anno 2205 and Batman :AK in the latest reviews. They also took off RYSE and Shadow of Mordor.

 

[alexruiz]

Thanks for the answers guys.
So it seems that I am hosed
At $120 no rebate for that MSI GTX950 even one of the biggest AMD fanboys like me will get second thougths...

ps. A 2GB R9 270x is still faster than a 4GB R7 370... I just need to convince poofhairguy to loan me his time machine

 

[crisium]

The 950 is king there on the new market. Pay more for a 380 or shop used for 7950 7970 280 280X if you want AMD without sacrificing performance.

 

[poofyhairguy]

OP, I can't wait for the AMD competitor personally so my 750 ti can be demoted. The damn thing is so freaking loud.

 

[AtenRa]

Even if you could find a 270X, 950 may still be better overall.

But yea why not go used with a HD7950/70 ?? or 285 ??

Unless you really need low power card.

 

[el etro]

The point is: GTX 950 is technically uninpressive(GM206 is already a bit unimpressive, and this come with reduced efficiency with less shaders, BW...), but value-wise is a great card. Full Pitcairn might be the best counterattack to it.

 

[Yuriman]

The point is: GTX 950 is technically uninpressive(GM206 is already a bit unimpressive, and this come with reduced efficiency with less shaders, BW...), but value-wise is a great card. Full Pitcairn might be the best counterattack to it.

Even with its reduced efficiency, it's far more efficient than Pitcairn, and it has a newer and more complete feature set than GCN 1.0.

 

[alexruiz]

Well, I bit the bullet, I bought that $120 GTX 950.
I feel so dirty right now, but oh well, no AMD card with that performance at that price available

I will probably test the GTX950 quickly before delivering that build. In one of my personal PCs I have a Powercolor R9 270X PCs+, a real R9 270x at 1150Mhz, so I'll find out more how they truly stack. Those benchmarks on the posts above are NOT real R9 270x, those are rebadged HD7870 at 1000MHz, maybe one of those with a 1050MHz boot. I raised this flag before during the launch of the GTX 950, that those "R9 270X" were just HD7870s and that the reviewers got lazy. A real R9 270x would be the MSI Gaming at 1100MHz or the Powercolor PCs+ at 1150 MHz.
Well, I'll have the chance first hand to find out. In addition to that R9 270X I also have R9 380 4GB PCs+ and a R9 380X PCs+ Myst.

Thanks everyone for chiming in!


Alex

 

[96Firebird]

Hope that helped save your friend (or client?) some money that can be used elsewhere in the build!

 

[Ketchup]

You, like everyone, has the right to their opinion. But I suggest you use this opportunity to be a little more open when it comes to building a computer on a budget. The list of AMD parts that compete well at all price points will get smaller and smaller. I like seeing that people around here are still into them, and that they have good visibility in the retail segment (which ironically then didn't when they were outdoing their competition), but it is going to take nothing short of a miracle to keep that company from continuing to go downhill until their get bought out, or die trying not to.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Well, I bit the bullet, I bought that $120 GTX 950.
I feel so dirty right now, but oh well, no AMD card with that performance at that price available

I will probably test the GTX950 quickly before delivering that build. In one of my personal PCs I have a Powercolor R9 270X PCs+, a real R9 270x at 1150Mhz, so I'll find out more how they truly stack. Those benchmarks on the posts above are NOT real R9 270x, those are rebadged HD7870 at 1000MHz, maybe one of those with a 1050MHz boot. I raised this flag before during the launch of the GTX 950, that those "R9 270X" were just HD7870s and that the reviewers got lazy. A real R9 270x would be the MSI Gaming at 1100MHz or the Powercolor PCs+ at 1150 MHz.
Well, I'll have the chance first hand to find out. In addition to that R9 270X I also have R9 380 4GB PCs+ and a R9 380X PCs+ Myst.

Thanks everyone for chiming in!


Alex

Good to see that you put your friend's experience over your own biases. Definitely kudos deserved here :thumbsup:

 

[VirtualLarry]

I wonder if a GTX950 would play SFV on PC, on an AMD Athlon II X4 640 3.0Ghz quad-core?

Edit: What about pairing the GTX950 2GB with a G3258 @ 4.0, and one 8GB DDR3-1600?

 

[el etro]

Even with its reduced efficiency, it's far more efficient than Pitcairn, and it has a newer and more complete feature set than GCN 1.0.

Your graphs clearly shows that it not impresses. efficiency is not much(if any) better than Pitcairn(a 2012 GPU).

 

[crisium]

You, like everyone, has the right to their opinion. But I suggest you use this opportunity to be a little more open when it comes to building a computer on a budget. The list of AMD parts that compete well at all price points will get smaller and smaller. I like seeing that people around here are still into them, and that they have good visibility in the retail segment (which ironically then didn't when they were outdoing their competition), but it is going to take nothing short of a miracle to keep that company from continuing to go downhill until their get bought out, or die trying not to.

Well to be fair, that's one of the few price points where Nvidia wins. The other being $650, and $1000 technically. You speak as if the 390, 380X, and 380 do not exist.

 

[Azix]

Interested in the results. Never really trust launch reviews for Nvidia cards.

Well, I bit the bullet, I bought that $120 GTX 950.
I feel so dirty right now, but oh well, no AMD card with that performance at that price available

I will probably test the GTX950 quickly before delivering that build. In one of my personal PCs I have a Powercolor R9 270X PCs+, a real R9 270x at 1150Mhz, so I'll find out more how they truly stack. Those benchmarks on the posts above are NOT real R9 270x, those are rebadged HD7870 at 1000MHz, maybe one of those with a 1050MHz boot. I raised this flag before during the launch of the GTX 950, that those "R9 270X" were just HD7870s and that the reviewers got lazy. A real R9 270x would be the MSI Gaming at 1100MHz or the Powercolor PCs+ at 1150 MHz.
Well, I'll have the chance first hand to find out. In addition to that R9 270X I also have R9 380 4GB PCs+ and a R9 380X PCs+ Myst.

Thanks everyone for chiming in!


Alex

 

[Yuriman]

Your graphs clearly shows that it not impresses. efficiency is not much(if any) better than Pitcairn(a 2012 GPU).

I'd really love to compare AMD's 2015 GPU in this price range to nVidia's 2015 GPU, but there isn't one. Nor is there a 2014 GPU, or a 2013. Plenty of HD7850's released on launch-day can run at the same clocks with the same voltages as current 370's, because aside from slightly better yields and some redesigned power circuity, they're basically the same thing.

The tech report graph shows the 950 drawing less power than the 370 (AMD's current offering and "newest" card in this price bracket, mind you) while providing 25% more performance, while both are built on the same process.

TechPowerUp's chart shows the 950 beating the 270x slightly in Metro, while the 270x is drawing 30% more power.

In the Guru3d chart, the 950 is just a hair behind the 280x, and right above the 270x - while the 270x draws a whopping 55% more power.

And this is NV's least efficient card right now?

Even if brand recognition were completely even between the two, given this, NV could probably still get away with worse priceerformance and closed standards, and still sell cards.

I'm not trying to smear AMD, but I'm jaded because they won't sell me a card I want to buy. I've not had an nVidia GPU in my main rig since the Geforce 2. In fact, I like to pretend I'm even-handed, but really, when I upgrade has historically been a combination of when AMD has a very competitive offering and when I need the upgrade. This price bracket is where the most cards are sold, and AMD is still selling the same GPU they sold me in 2012, for nearly the same price.

 

[Azix]

the original problem I saw with the 950 was that it launched at 285 level prices. MSRP was $150 with many going for more than that. Its kind of like the 960 situation where people picked it over the 285 and 380, just worse. Why would anyone buy a 950 over a 285 or 380 that went close in price?

With rebates its another matter. I would still buy a used or look for a deal though, I can't settle.

Too much overlap on prices. Even now you can find 380s dip that low

Ultimately it comes down to whether you want to find that AMD card that is a much better deal or be stuck with a 950 lower end card that won't put out the performance.

You couldn't convince me to buy a 950 unless I had absolutely no choice. I would hold out for a 285 or 380 deal because the difference is too much. But I wouldn't buy a 370 either at the current price. A 270x for $120 maybe. As a budget buy I would expect the 270x to still outlast the 950 even if release year results for the 950 are close.

I'd really love to compare AMD's 2015 GPU in this price range to nVidia's 2015 GPU, but there isn't one. Nor is there a 2014 GPU, or a 2013. Plenty of HD7850's released on launch-day can run at the same clocks with the same voltages as current 370's, because aside from slightly better yields and some redesigned power circuity, they're basically the same thing.

The tech report graph shows the 950 drawing less power than the 370 (AMD's current offering and "newest" card in this price bracket, mind you) while providing 25% more performance, while both are built on the same process.

TechPowerUp's chart shows the 950 beating the 270x slightly in Metro, while the 270x is drawing 30% more power.

In the Guru3d chart, the 950 is just a hair behind the 280x, and right above the 270x - while the 270x draws a whopping 55% more power.

And this is NV's least efficient card right now?

Even if we brand recognition were completely even between the two, given this, NV could probably still get away with worse priceerformance and closed standards, and still sell cards.

I'm not trying to smear AMD, but I'm jaded because they won't sell me a card I want to buy. I've not had an nVidia GPU in my main rig since the Geforce 2. In fact, I like to pretend I'm even-handed, but really, when I upgrade has historically been a combination of when AMD has a very competitive offering and when I need the upgrade. This price bracket is where the most cards are sold, and AMD is still selling the same GPU they sold me in 2012, for nearly the same price.

 

[VirtualLarry]

actually the original problem I saw with the 950 was that it launched at 285 level prices. MSRP was $150.

You couldn't convince me to buy a 950 unless I had absolutely no choice. I would hold out for a 285 or 380 deal because the difference is too much. But I wouldn't buy a 370 either at the current price. A 270x for $120 maybe. As a budget buy I would expect the 270x to still outlast the 950 even if release year results for the 950 are close.

Hmm. This thread got me to buy two of those $120 MSI GTX950 2GB OC cards on ebay that were linked early on. Then I saw your post.

I don't know, the linked benchmark graphs show it neck-and-neck with a 270X, while using less power. I paid roughly $145-150 for a pair of 270X 2GB cards last year, on clearance. How are these GTX950 cards not better? They take one less power plug too.

 

[Yuriman]

Possibly from the standpoint that historically, AMD cards tend to move up in relative performance to NV cards as they age - perhaps because AMD's drivers don't as-fully tap the cards' performance on launch day? Or, maybe it's that AMD continues to work on improving their older cards, while NV doesn't (as much)?

GCN 1.0 and 1.1 as a whole have really aged gracefully (as can be demonstrated by the fact that I'm still quite happy with my 7850 in 2016), but they've aged nonetheless.

 

[Azix]

Hmm. This thread got me to buy two of those $120 MSI GTX950 2GB OC cards on ebay that were linked early on. Then I saw your post.

I don't know, the linked benchmark graphs show it neck-and-neck with a 270X, while using less power. I paid roughly $145-150 for a pair of 270X 2GB cards last year, on clearance. How are these GTX950 cards not better? They take one less power plug too.

I was more saying I'd find a tier higher AMD card for similar price rather than bothering with the 950 vs 270x debate. But for arguments sake:

its 91 W vs 119W from one chart above. And 270x is GCN vs Maxwell 950. Its not going to last as neck n neck. You are "safer" going GCN for this because they are unlikely to upgrade soon. Safer in quotes because being a few fps slower down the line isn't going to make the PC explode. Its just less value over time.

eg.

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/nvidia-geforce-gtx-950-test/strona/24635.html

This was before the recent second beta came out with async support so the stock 270x is likely ahead of the overclocked 950 now. tough choice and the lower power requirement is temping. But seen enough not to trust the 950 to maintain its position

 

[mohit9206]

R7 370 cannot compete with 950 even though both cost the same.However the upcoming 950se will deliver similar performance to 370 that too at a much lower TDP and some models won't even require pcie 6 pin connection.Even less of a reason then to consider a 370 once the 950se comes out at $129.