Asus GeForce GTX 950 Strix Review

[InvalidError]

I'm sure folk out there in Interweb land are smart enough to make their own minds up, hardware numbers and compute numbers being being pretty much exactly the same is a bit of a strange coincidence I reckon but it's up to people out there to believe what they want to.

In three words: different transistor counts.

The R9-285/380 also have different die areas from the R9-280(x) with the 285/380 being 7sqmm bigger.

 

[Mousemonkey]

I'm sure folk out there in Interweb land are smart enough to make their own minds up, hardware numbers and compute numbers being being pretty much exactly the same is a bit of a strange coincidence I reckon but it's up to people out there to believe what they want to.

In three words: different transistor counts.

The R9-285/380 also have different die areas from the R9-280(x) with the 285/380 being 7sqmm bigger.

The 280x? It's the 285/380/7950 relationship that concerns me not the 280x, sorry mate but I remain unconvinced that the three are not one and the same. How is this information checked? Where does it come from in the first place? Do you guys have an Electron microscope at your disposable? ;

 

[logainofhades]

It is GCN 1.2, not 1.0, It has the same CF features as Hawaii. It has true audio, Tahiti does not. That is bonaire , tonga, and Hawaii only. It supports Freesync, which tahiti does not.

 

[RedJaron]

In three words: different transistor counts.

The R9-285/380 also have different die areas from the R9-280(x) with the 285/380 being 7sqmm bigger.

It is GCN 1.2, not 1.0, It has the same CF features as Hawaii. It has true audio, Tahiti does not. That is bonaire , tonga, and Hawaii only. It supports Freesync, which tahiti does not.

We've relayed this information and more already. He just wants to ignore it. You can't force intelligence on someone, especially if they want to be willfully ignorant. It's best we just ignore him at this point.

 

[InvalidError]

The 280x? It's the 285/380/7950 relationship that concerns me not the 280x, sorry mate but I remain unconvinced that the three are not one and the same.

The 280/280X and the HD7950 have the same die size (352sqmm) while the 285/380 are 359sqmm. Very similar die size but that is only because the GCN 1.2 architectural updates in the 285/380 consumed the space saved from shrinking the memory interface from 384bits to 256bits.

 

[ganons]

If I were to buy the GTX 950, will it always use the 90 watts or only when gaming?
The PC will see some Dolphin emulation useage and Street Fighter 5 when released next year.

Given the above is it worthy to buy over the 750 Ti?

 

[InvalidError]

If I were to buy the GTX 950, will it always use the 90 watts or only when gaming?

The GPU uses whatever power it needs to get its job done. That power can vary on a frame-by-frame basis anywhere from 8-9W idle to 150-180W instantaneous peaks.

 

[RedJaron]

If I were to buy the GTX 950, will it always use the 90 watts or only when gaming?
The PC will see some Dolphin emulation useage and Street Fighter 5 when released next year.

Given the above is it worthy to buy over the 750 Ti?

If your primary concern is gaming performance, and you have the money for the card and the power supply to handle it, then yes, the 950 is a better way to go. The 950 doesn't need any great power supply. Most mainstream units with a single PCIe power lead will be able to handle it without problem.

 

[Mousemonkey]

In three words: different transistor counts.

The R9-285/380 also have different die areas from the R9-280(x) with the 285/380 being 7sqmm bigger.

It is GCN 1.2, not 1.0, It has the same CF features as Hawaii. It has true audio, Tahiti does not. That is bonaire , tonga, and Hawaii only. It supports Freesync, which tahiti does not.

We've relayed this information and more already. He just wants to ignore it. You can't force intelligence on someone, especially if they want to be willfully ignorant. It's best we just ignore him at this point.

The Radeon R9 380 is a rehash of the R9 285 which means it is based on the latest Graphics Core Next architecture. Still at its roots you will find a graphics card that is almost three years old now (the Radeon HD 7950).

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/his_iceq_xsup2_oc_radeon_r9_390xr9_390_r9_380,4.html

You better go and tell these guys how ignorant and unintelligent they are then hadn't you?

 

[Sakkura]

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/his_iceq_xsup2_oc_radeon_r9_390xr9_390_r9_380,4.html

You better go and tell these guys how ignorant and unintelligent they are then hadn't you?

That would be a good idea, if it wasn't because arguing with ignorant people is often futile. You should note that they also rag on the lower memory bandwidth of the R9 380 vs. the 280 (one more thing that separates them, by the way), completely leaving out the fact that the 380 features improved color compression which means less memory bandwidth is required. The benchmarks bear that out, the 380 gets the same or slightly more performance despite having only two thirds the memory interface width of the 280. They also seem to forget the fact that the 380 has 8 asynchronous compute engines where the 280 only has 2.

 

[Mousemonkey]

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/his_iceq_xsup2_oc_radeon_r9_390xr9_390_r9_380,4.html

You better go and tell these guys how ignorant and unintelligent they are then hadn't you?

That would be a good idea, if it wasn't because arguing with ignorant people is often futile. You should note that they also rag on the lower memory bandwidth of the R9 380 vs. the 280 (one more thing that separates them, by the way), completely leaving out the fact that the 380 features improved color compression which means less memory bandwidth is required. The benchmarks bear that out, the 380 gets the same or slightly more performance despite having only two thirds the memory interface width of the 280. They also seem to forget the fact that the 380 has 8 asynchronous compute engines where the 280 only has 2.

And again, where are you getting that info from? AMD PR?

 

[Sakkura]

And again, where are you getting that info from? AMD PR?

Actual benchmarks demonstrate the difference. Both synthetics and games, but of course it's far more obvious in synthetics.

 

[Mousemonkey]

And again, where are you getting that info from? AMD PR?

Actual benchmarks demonstrate the difference. Both synthetics and games, but of course it's far more obvious in synthetics.

I'm not seeing a 380 or 7950 in that "comparison".

 

[Sakkura]

I'm not seeing a 380 or 7950 in that "comparison".

The 380 is a rebadged 285, the 280 is a rebadged 7950.

 

[Mousemonkey]

I'm not seeing a 380 or 7950 in that "comparison".

The 380 is a rebadged 285, the 280 is a rebadged 7950.

Not according to LH or Anandtech it isn't. They have the 380/285/280/7950 as the same GPU.

Like the HD 7950, R9 280, R9 285 before it the R9 380 features 1792 SPUs, 112 TAUs and 32 ROPs, the only real changes that impact performance have been made to the clock speeds.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/his_iceq_xsup2_oc_radeon_r9_390xr9_390_r9_380,4.html

See for yourself, I'm not making this stuff up.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Anyone else want to get back on topic? So, when is this and the other 950 cards going to be available on Amazon?

 

[RedJaron]

Not according to LH or Anandtech it isn't. They have the 380/285/280/7950 as the same GPU.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/his_iceq_xsup2_oc_radeon_r9_390xr9_390_r9_380,4.html

See for yourself, I'm not making this stuff up.

But apparently you think we're making all this stuff up. I'm going to try this again, and I'll make sure to use simple words so maybe, just maybe, you'll understand.

Let's start with something easy: Legion contradicts itself. In their 380 review, they do indeed claim that the 7950, 280, 285, and 380 all use the same chip. However, read their original review of the 285. It says right in the first two paragraphs that the 285 is not a rebadge of a 7000 card and that it is derived from the 290. So if you're claiming to Legion's info as gospel, and both reviews were written by the same guy, which one is true? That alone should be enough to prove to you that you're wrong, but if you want more, keep reading.

Legion is the only place that claimed they were the same chip ( and only in one place ). And I actually did take the time to comment over there that they were wrong. However, as they only had two comments on that "review" in the near three months since it was posted, it sounds like they don't have a lot of traffic so I doubt anyone will notice it. However, if you would bother to read the whole 380 review, you would notice that many times they noted differences between the 7950 and 380 that they couldn't explain.

Second, as I said before ( and as you likely ignored ), Anand never said Tahiti = Tonga. Perhaps you ought to read their 285 review. They actually say everything me, Logain, InvalidError, Sakkura, and others have said: Tonga is new. It's similar to Hawai'i. It's a lateral shift that closely matches the total performance of the older Tahiti chip, but does so in different ways. Anand listed that comparison table because the cards are all very similar in total performance and price, and thus they merit a direct comparison.

Finally, did you ever bother reading Tom's own 285 review? If you have read it, why don't you believe it? If you don't believe, then why are you even here? Why be a member of this community, and a moderator no less, if you don't trust the reviews to have accurate and reliable information?

We have given piles of evidence and cited multiple sources that the 7950/280 and the 285/380 are not the same silicon. Why is it so hard for you to read and process it all? You have but one source on your side, and I just proved above that it is wrong, or at least inconsistent. Are you seriously that afraid to admit you're wrong? You're even contradicting yourself now. Given Sak' last graph, you said you didn't see a 380 or 7950 represented. That was despite the fact you've been arguing for the past two pages that a 7950, 280, 285, and 380 are all the same chip. If that's so, then why wouldn't they all be represented on that graph when both a 280 and 285 are present?

You claim to be a graphics expert and qualified to explain these things to others, but you can't even keep your own stuff straight. You are woefully and willfully ignorant on this matter, and though you are allowed to believe what you want, the rest of us would prefer to not have to correct your misinformation in the future.


Now please, Monkey, can we go along with Turkey here and get back to discussing the 950?

 

[Mousemonkey]

Not according to LH or Anandtech it isn't. They have the 380/285/280/7950 as the same GPU.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/his_iceq_xsup2_oc_radeon_r9_390xr9_390_r9_380,4.html

See for yourself, I'm not making this stuff up.

But apparently you think we're making all this stuff up. I'm going to try this again, and I'll make sure to use simple words so maybe, just maybe, you'll understand.

Let's start with something easy: Legion contradicts itself. In their 380 review, they do indeed claim that the 7950, 280, 285, and 380 all use the same chip. However, read their original review of the 285. It says right in the first two paragraphs that the 285 is not a rebadge of a 7000 card and that it is derived from the 290. So if you're claiming to Legion's info as gospel, and both reviews were written by the same guy, which one is true? That alone should be enough to prove to you that you're wrong, but if you want more, keep reading.

Legion is the only place that claimed they were the same chip ( and only in one place ). And I actually did take the time to comment over there that they were wrong. However, as they only had two comments on that "review" in the near three months since it was posted, it sounds like they don't have a lot of traffic so I doubt anyone will notice it. However, if you would bother to read the whole 380 review, you would notice that many times they noted differences between the 7950 and 380 that they couldn't explain.

Second, as I said before ( and as you likely ignored ), Anand never said Tahiti = Tonga. Perhaps you ought to read their 285 review. They actually say everything me, Logain, InvalidError, Sakkura, and others have said: Tonga is new. It's similar to Hawai'i. It's a lateral shift that closely matches the total performance of the older Tahiti chip, but does so in different ways. Anand listed that comparison table because the cards are all very similar in total performance and price, and thus they merit a direct comparison.

Finally, did you ever bother reading Tom's own 285 review? If you have read it, why don't you believe it? If you don't believe, then why are you even here? Why be a member of this community, and a moderator no less, if you don't trust the reviews to have accurate and reliable information?

We have given piles of evidence and cited multiple sources that the 7950/280 and the 285/380 are not the same silicon. Why is it so hard for you to read and process it all? You have but one source on your side, and I just proved above that it is wrong, or at least inconsistent. Are you seriously that afraid to admit you're wrong? You're even contradicting yourself now. Given Sak' last graph, you said you didn't see a 380 or 7950 represented. That was despite the fact you've been arguing for the past two pages that a 7950, 280, 285, and 380 are all the same chip. If that's so, then why wouldn't they all be represented on that graph when both a 280 and 285 are present?

You claim to be a graphics expert and qualified to explain these things to others, but you can't even keep your own stuff straight. You are woefully and willfully ignorant on this matter, and though you are allowed to believe what you want, the rest of us would prefer to not have to correct your misinformation in the future.


Now please, Monkey, can we go along with Turkey here and get back to discussing the 950?

You can go back to whatever you like pal and I shall continue to have and post my opinion, enjoy.

 

[Sakkura]

I'm not seeing a 380 or 7950 in that "comparison".

The 380 is a rebadged 285, the 280 is a rebadged 7950.

Not according to LH or Anandtech it isn't. They have the 380/285/280/7950 as the same GPU.

Like the HD 7950, R9 280, R9 285 before it the R9 380 features 1792 SPUs, 112 TAUs and 32 ROPs, the only real changes that impact performance have been made to the clock speeds.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/his_iceq_xsup2_oc_radeon_r9_390xr9_390_r9_380,4.html

See for yourself, I'm not making this stuff up.

But you are making this stuff up. Anandtech clearly indicates that the R9 285 uses a different GPU than the 280 (or 7950).

And I've already explained that Legion Hardware are incompetent.

 

[ganons]

Which of these 2 is better? http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0144YGBMI/ref=s9_acsd_bw_wf_a_NvidiaBa_cdl_0?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-9&pf_rd_r=049EKGTYYVNYQ6CV9T13&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=676497487&pf_rd_i=6711150031

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0146YLCHA/ref=s9_acsd_bw_wf_a_NvidiaBa_cdl_1?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-9&pf_rd_r=1M0WAWGG5M1S33RYFX67&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=676497487&pf_rd_i=6711150031

 

[Sakkura]

The MSI card is slightly cheaper, has slightly higher stock clocks, and is sold directly from Amazon. The Gigabyte card is from Kitatek, no idea who they are. It does seem to be available for shipping sooner though.

I would probably go MSI. But I don't think there's a big difference.

 

[RedJaron]

The MSI card is slightly cheaper, has slightly higher stock clocks, and is sold directly from Amazon. The Gigabyte card is from Kitatek, no idea who they are. It does seem to be available for shipping sooner though.

I would probably go MSI. But I don't think there's a big difference.

What he said. I'd go with MSI for the lower price. Higher factory clocks are nice, but you can usually overclock the card on your own and a couple extra MHz doesn't always make a big difference.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

EVGA Superclocked card going for $160 on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-Graphics-Card-02G-P4-2951-KR/dp/B013WQCC8Q

 

[frankpc]

You mentioned it supports HDMI 2.0. Does it support HDCP 2.2 like the GTX-960?

 

[LORD_ORION]

I just saw the 950 pricing on newegg.ca... then the pricing for 950 was removed. (must be a fluke they accidentally displayed it while I was there and removed it)

Here are the prices I saw... picking up a 950 for $210 CDN seems a pretty good value over a cheapy 960 for $249.99

EVGA GeForce GTX 950 02G-P4-2951-KR 2GB 128-Bit Video Card (mini card): $214.99
MSI GeForce GTX 950 GTX 950 GAMING 2G Video Card: $224.99
EVGA GeForce GTX 950 02G-P4-2958-KR 2GB 128-Bit Video Card: $239.99
MSI GeForce GTX 950 GTX 950 2GD5T OC 2GB 128-Bit Video Card: $209.95
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 950 AMP! ZT-90603-10M 2GB 128-Bit AMP! Edition Video Card: $239.99