Nvidia GeForce GTX 960: Maxwell In The Middle

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also I don't like the fact that these heavily factory OC cards were compared to a reference R9-285, both in terms of performance and cooling/acoustics. This shines sort of a misrepresenting light on the current 3rd party 285 options and makes the 960 look like it is competing farther up AMD's product stack than it really is. That said this review should have included the less expensive R9-280 (7950) to illustrate that the 960 is still competing with the same exact 3 yr old AMD GPU that the 2 year old 760 did. Not much here besides power saving which most gamers couldn't care less about unless paired with equally impressive performance like the 970.
 


Yes, this I was expecting something better than this. I was hoping for at least 280x/770 performance, and we get an overclocked card that barely beats an R9 285.
 
This reminds me of the nvidia 8600 launch.The 7600 was a contender in it's class. The 8600, like the 960, had awesome big brothers but, also like the 960, failed to step up to the plate. I was already burnt before nvidia, not this generation buddy.
 
As far as I can find you can get a 280X cheaper than a GTX 960 in the UK at the moment and a 280 £25 cheaper. It is not a £/performance winner by a long shot, shame, after the GTX970 I was hoping for something great in this price bracket.
 
Where on earth you got it you think it costs more than 285? Both 280x and 285 cost around $250 on newegg now. N this costs 200-210. Considering its performance against the 285 its a fair deal. Less power less price and matches the perf of 285. I dont get why dont ppl compare the prices like i told you. $250 and $210 is what we are looking at.
 


With R9 280's at $175 and R9 290's at $250 I just don't see spot for the 960 atm. Mini itx is about all i can rationalize as well. I feel the same way about the 970 awesome card and not even that bad of a value all things considered if you have the need for it and the funds. For me it is a bit overkill, over budget.
 
Learn how to make a chart already!! If there are no results from 30 down to 0 FPS, change the axis to only show from 30-70 FPS or whatever is actually used instead of cramming all the information in the top 10% of the graph. Also... those arrows, wtf?
So, for the performance, I'm not very surprised. This is aimed at the middle, mainstream sector. I still wonder why we never see the old 670 included in these types of comparison charts. I think the 670s were popular around the same time as the 660s. I know they were a little more expensive at launch, but prices dropped pretty quickly.
 
Seems I hit one or two buttons too many. Sorry for the double comments. But to add to my original: The card does seem to perform well for what it is, but my question is how well will two or three of them perform in SLI. My 2-660's are marvelous at 1060P-1200P, running as fast in games as a single 680. I won't be doing 4K for a long time, so can only imagine a pair of 960's would be as fast or faster then a 980. Hopefully Tom's will do some testing.
 
After reading this, I feel relieved that I stretched for a GTX970. I suspect that a 960Ti will turn out to be what I hoped this card would be, but right now I'd probably be a little irritated if I'd waited for this.
I have to wonder though, if its performance in SLI would be a redeeming feature, although limitations on amount and bandwidth of memory may hurt there too.
I will agree with those who are looking at the potential of that single-fan Gigabyte model in a mini-ITX rig. It seems to me that single-fan coolers ought to be a lot more common on cards only needing a single 6-pin PCIe connector; additional fans and huge heat sinks appear to add a lot of cost, but not much benefit except perhaps a few dbA of noise reduction. As much as I like quiet, I don't think it is worth it.
 



I waited for it.. now I am stuck waiting for the 3XX launch before pulling the trigger on something new. Why would one consider SLI 960's ? "Theoretically" same speed as a 970 but costs more and uses more power kind of defeats the purpose, no ?
 
Guys, this is Tom's Hardware. Aren't you suppose to be very knowledgable tech lovers?

I don't get some of your comments.

From these benchmarks we see that the GTX960 and 285 are pretty much identical in performance. The 960 actually averages a slightly higher frame rate at 1080p.

The 960 is also about 20$ less expensive, uses a LOT less power, and doesn't make as much noise. Less power and less noise seem like trivial things to some, but this is hard to actually accomplish, which is why AMD's card tend to run a little more warm.

I see some of you saying "This card can't run games at 4k! It's memory is too slow!". Really? REALLY? A 200$ GPU is suppose to run games at 4k? And don't tell me you wanted them in SLI, because two 960's in SLI only equal 1 980, so just get a 980, it doesn't make since.

Why do the specs of the card even matter? The only thing you should be looking at is performance because that's all that counts in the end.

I also see comments stating that the 960 is "Slightly" faster than the 760. Really? Slightly? Depending on the game, the GTX960 is 10-20% faster than the 760. While it uses 10% less cores and half the bandwidth. That's impressive, IDC who you are.

I'm getting one of these for my brother to replace his GTX660Ti, he's going to love it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom