-
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
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
If you look at the chart in the 1st post, you see that a fully OC'd 960 is just about (not quite) equal to a stock 770/280X An OC'd 770 or 280X is significantly faster.
It's up to you whether you think that's a good improvement or not. But it's slightly unfair to say that the 960 is "on a par" with a 280X, if those benchmarks are to be believed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
Should have done that in the first place as soon as those spec leaked. Now the 970 is much more expensive during to weaker pounds, as well as close to the release of the 960 also lead to slight inflation to pricing as well.So those of us that were waiting, might as well just get our 970's like we planned
Those guys that insisted Maxwell is so awesome that 128bit memory bus won't not drag down the performance really ruin it for the others.
So those of us that were waiting, might as well just get our 970's like we planned
Its quids in for Nvidia.
970's were about £215 to £230 on release. Now they are £260 to £300. 960's will be about £200 to £230. People who didnt buy the 970's months ago have lost out. Without taking into consideration the free games you use to get.
Has the 128bit bus dragged down the performance then? I have seen nothing that shows it has and do you think a 512bit bus with 8GB of memory will suddenly put it to the top of those charts? You need to read up on what is what when it comes to GPUs really before making such silly statements.
If it beats it's AMD rival while using half the power and putting out less heat, and AMD say it's unappealing, does that make their card repulsive?
But it doesn't, if those charts are accurate of course.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
It certainly will for anyone using any level of AA or higher res texture- it's been proven again and again that low memory bandwidth will lead to greater frame rate loss when AA is applied; while yes it is true 512-bit bus most probably won't benefit comparing to say 384/256-bit at 1920 res, as having higher than memory bandwidth than required for the data throughput will not see increase in performance, but have less that what's required will result in poorer performance immediately.
You arguement is like saying "4GB of vram offer no benefit over 3GB of vram for 1920 res, so how can you say 1GB of vram is not enough"
And please don't use the generic arguement of "this card is not meant for maxing gamings out", as people that use cards such as GTX770 or 7970/280x will use AA as well, so there's not reason why this card should be running games without it. Provided that if the 960 had both the model of 128-bit and 256-bit version, at 0xAA the chance are the frame rate would be the same, but as soon as 4xAA or 8xAA is applied (even in the not so demanding games), the 128-bit model will lag far behind and end up being much lower in frame rate than the 256-bit model.
Last edited:
It certainly will for anyone using any level of AA or higher res texture- it's been proven again and again that low memory bandwidth will lead to greater frame rate loss when AA is applied; while yes it is true 512-bit bus most probably won't benefit comparing to say 384/256-bit at 1920 res, as having higher than memory bandwidth than required for the data throughput will not see increase in performance, but have less that what's required will result in poorer performance immediately.
You arguement is like saying "4GB of vram offer no benefit over 3GB of vram for 1920 res, so how can you say 1GB of vram is not enough"
And please don't use the generic arguement of "this card is not meant for maxing gamings out", as people that use cards such as GTX770 or 7970/280x will use AA as well, so there's not reason why this card should be running games without it. Provided that if the 960 had both the model of 128-bit and 256-bit version, at 0xAA the chance are the frame rate would be the same, but as soon as 4xAA or 8xAA is applied (even in the not so demanding games), the 128-bit model will lag far behind and end up being much lower in frame rate than the 256-bit model.
You're right; at stock speed; *no OC* its only at par with 760. 760 because of its price doesn't usually get recommended compared to AMD's side....
Its got a problem if it comes in above 170; which I think it will; if AMD drops; Tonga to 150 *which honestly it should be at* 280 at 140.....960 will be very hard to recommend over those.....
if the 280X drops to 160-170.......there would be no reason at all to recommend this card; specially with the 290 hitting 200 a lot of the time.
Only card left that might be interesting is 960 Ti; but even then I feel its going to be naff......someone said 965 Ti; supposed to be about 780 speed.....but that puts it too close to 970.....Nvidia won't do that....*look at the speed difference between 970; 980.......*
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,389
- Location
- Oxford
It certainly will for anyone using any level of AA or higher res texture- it's been proven again and again that low memory bandwidth will lead to greater frame rate loss when AA is applied; while yes it is true 512-bit bus most probably won't benefit comparing to say 384/256-bit at 1920 res, as having higher than memory bandwidth than required for the data throughput will not see increase in performance, but have less that what's required will result in poorer performance immediately.
You arguement is like saying "4GB of vram offer no benefit over 3GB of vram for 1920 res, so how can you say 1GB of vram is not enough"
And please don't use the generic arguement of "this card is not meant for maxing gamings out", as people that use cards such as GTX770 or 7970/280x will use AA as well, so there's not reason why this card should be running games without it. Provided that if the 960 had both the model of 128-bit and 256-bit version, at 0xAA the chance are the frame rate would be the same, but as soon as 4xAA or 8xAA is applied (even in the not so demanding games), the 128-bit model will lag far behind and end up being much lower in frame rate than the 256-bit model.
While that is true to a point you forget Maxwell chips have LOADS more Cache (8 times more) compared to kepler so the GPU wont need to use the memory bus near as much together with the compression tech a smaller bus can be used, of course if there's a die space saving that space can be used for other stuff.
The closer the "GPU" is memory subsystem or the less times it had to use it the better. Helps both the performance and the power efficiency. Its one reason why on chip/package ram that's coming to the next AMD cards will lead loads with speed and power efficiency.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,260
- Location
- Surrey, UK
why are they testing it with AA settings enabled..?
GTX960 / 2GB RAM cards are designed to play at 1080p with no AA enabled, where it should achieve 60 fps in vast majority of PC games available except for crazy demanding ones.
edit: oh yea, cos the AMD cards can run those games with AA enabled. well GG to AMD then, they still have some superiority in the sub £250 market then :3
GTX960 / 2GB RAM cards are designed to play at 1080p with no AA enabled, where it should achieve 60 fps in vast majority of PC games available except for crazy demanding ones.
edit: oh yea, cos the AMD cards can run those games with AA enabled. well GG to AMD then, they still have some superiority in the sub £250 market then :3
It certainly will for anyone using any level of AA or higher res texture- it's been proven again and again that low memory bandwidth will lead to greater frame rate loss when AA is applied; while yes it is true 512-bit bus most probably won't benefit comparing to say 384/256-bit at 1920 res, as having higher than memory bandwidth than required for the data throughput will not see increase in performance, but have less that what's required will result in poorer performance immediately.
You arguement is like saying "4GB of vram offer no benefit over 3GB of vram for 1920 res, so how can you say 1GB of vram is not enough"
And please don't use the generic arguement of "this card is not meant for maxing gamings out", as people that use cards such as GTX770 or 7970/280x will use AA as well, so there's not reason why this card should be running games without it. Provided that if the 960 had both the model of 128-bit and 256-bit version, at 0xAA the chance are the frame rate would be the same, but as soon as 4xAA or 8xAA is applied (even in the not so demanding games), the 128-bit model will lag far behind and end up being much lower in frame rate than the 256-bit model.
Right, first things first... This card isn't aimed at you or me but aimed at mid level gamers. I don't particularly care for this card although I do want a very small and very quiet HTPC for under my main TV to do some fun family gaming, so if this card was to sit under my TV, can it do what I want? Of course the answer is "Yes". Do I need to have AA maxed out and settings fully up? The answer is "No".
Now the average gamer who is on a budget would be looking at this card and seeing what it can do and what it can't do. I built a gaming PC for a mates boy and gave him all my old bits, including a Q8200 and 4GB of DDR ram and I made him pay for a MM 560Ti 1GB and once I built it and gave him a few game codes, he was over the moon and hasn't stopped saying how good it is. That is the sort of person this card is aimed at.
Sometimes you need to look outside at what others do and want and then you can see what is what easier.
For the record, I think this card is underwhelming and if it does come in at £170, overpriced but I can see the uses for it and 2GB is plenty for the market this card is aimed at.
And another thing, those who already own a 770/7970/280X shouldn't even be considering this card, so your point is pointless really. They bought top end and would be downgrading....Silly thing to say really.
Last edited:
So it's not a fair test unless the settings favour nVidia?
Nobody at 1080p uses AA then?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,491
Who's this card aimed at? People who only buy Nvidia (60%+ of the market) and have £150 on a gpu and who probably havent bought a new gpu in years so for them it will be an upgrade, or even they dont have a gpu
Whatever nvidia release will sell well, the reasons why that is have been hashed over so many times and whatever I say people will try to argue arent true, so i wont bother, but obviously there is a big chunk of consumers who only buy Nvidia so it is irrelevant what anyone thinks as to why.
Whatever nvidia release will sell well, the reasons why that is have been hashed over so many times and whatever I say people will try to argue arent true, so i wont bother, but obviously there is a big chunk of consumers who only buy Nvidia so it is irrelevant what anyone thinks as to why.
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Dec 2014
- Posts
- 301
Low end gamers
thats all great and everything and maybe we shouldnt condemn this card before it comes out but am i right in saying you could buy a better card for the same money 4 years ago??
is that harsh/wrong?
it feels like it anyway
i dont think pc gaming getting more expensive is a good thing, apu's makes more sense to me, hope we see something good coming soon!
is that harsh/wrong?
it feels like it anyway
i dont think pc gaming getting more expensive is a good thing, apu's makes more sense to me, hope we see something good coming soon!