• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Gaming Performance Previewed – AMD Calls It “Unappealing”, On Par With A Rade

Telecaster said:
I don't think it was me.

I was actually massively underwhelmed with it on the original 960 thread, but it's turned out not quite as bad as I expected.

I just think some people's expectations are a little unrealistic.
Click to expand...

its more the blind hope that they might shake the market up a bit
 
Remember the good old saying of "there's no poor graphic card, there are only poorly priced card"?

The 960 proves that to be the case again.

Telecaster said:
lol @ people wanting Titan performance for £120 and three games.

Moon on a stick.
Click to expand...
Stopping trolling.

People want a card which should be price at £120 (base on the spec) to be priced at £120 is not too much to ask.
 
Last edited:
mulpsmebeauty said:
Yeah...shame on people for expecting the cards to be a significant improvement over products that have been out for ages.
Click to expand...

120w TDP, big overclocks, fanless/silent operation up to 60 degrees and all with a slight boost in actual performance.

As someone above said, you need to look around at other PC hardware and see if new replacement products even offer half as much improvement as that.

I don't particularly like it and I'm not in the market for one so I've no interest in defending it, but to just write it off as the same card with a new number is taking the p*ss a bit.
 
Ok I know this card is disappointing performance wise and seemingly a bit too expensive. But is there anything to be said for the fact that this is a GM206 chip and not a GM204 and yet as the highest (only) GM206 chip available it beats the previous lowest GK104 chip (760).
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Techpowerup's results are not worth ****, he's all over the place with his reviews.

Same card on Hexus is nowhere near 20% faster.
Click to expand...

Hexus are comparing it to a factory overclocked 760 and using less games, having said that it also beats the 760 by >20% in their Rome II test, so like I said game dependant (In WoW it beats a R290 at 1080p so great value if thats all you play).
 
Marine-RX179 said:
Remember the good old saying of "there's no poor graphic card, there are only poorly priced card"?

The 960 proves that to be the case again.
Click to expand...

well the 960 was designed from the ground up for that price
its not like nvidia cant drop some faster cards if they wanted, but thats a boring debate so lets skip that :)

they are consciously sandbagging tho, and thats not helping pc gaming any!
 
NVidia compare it to a 660 because that's the market they're after and because it compares more favourably with a 660 than a 760.

There must be tens of thousands of 1080p DOTA / League of Legends players out there looking for a reasonable speed bump.
 
Mei said:
well the 960 was designed from the ground up for that price
its not like nvidia cant drop some faster cards if they wanted, but thats a boring debate so lets skip that :)
Click to expand...
Except it's not. It is just a newer, more powerful improved variant of the 750Ti.

Looking at the spec, it looks more appropriate to be 750Ti's successor and be labelled as 950Ti rather than 960. The whole "960" labelling just for the sake of putting it in it's current overpriced price bracket.

The 750Ti gathered lots of praises because it was (still is) the fastest bus-power card there is; now since that 960 require additional PCI-E power, that's one of most attractive feature/accomplishment gone.
 
Last edited:
Telecaster said:
Isn't it more of a 660 successor than the 760? At least that's what Nv seem to compare it with.
Click to expand...

Bonjour said:
NVidia compare it to a 660 because that's the market they're after and because it compares more favourably with a 660 than a 760.
Click to expand...

ubersonic said:
That's a good point, as the 760/770 were rebadged 670/680 cards (760 is also cut down) the 960 is actually the direct successor to the 660, I hadn't considered that.
Click to expand...

Marine-RX179 said:
Except it's not. It is just a newer, more powerful improved variant of the 750Ti.

Looking at the spec, it looks more appropriate to be 750Ti's successor and be labelled as 950Ti rather than 960. The whole "960" labelling just for the sake of putting it in it's current overpriced price bracket.

The 750Ti gathered lots of praises because it was (still is) the fastest bus-power card there is; now since that 960 require additional PCI-E power, that's one of most attractive feature/accomplishment gone.
Click to expand...

Exactly that it is the next chip down from the 970 and as such the same chip will undoubtedly power the 950ti as well, whereas the 960ti will be powered by a cut down GM204. the non ti 950 will probably be the next chip down again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom