Nvidia GeForce GTX 960: Maxwell In The Middle

[meat_loaf]

For games like shadow of mordor that will be using more than 3.5gb vram you will notice lag and stutter. This vram issue also cannot be fixed as some claim to be with a bios or software upgrade.

They can most likely "fix" it by reserving the whole 512MB block for internal driver and general non-3D use so games cannot use it. There you go, no more stutter from games trying to use it.

Unless the game is written to only work with 4GB GPU RAM, it should have no trouble coping with having 512MB less to work with; albeit possibly at slightly lower detail level.

That depends unless nvidia release drivers doing that and talking to game developers. Because devs dont care and will try to use the full 4gb on their games. We can see Shadow of Mordor doing that and probably a few more games coming soon like Witcher and GTA 5.

 

[meat_loaf]

I don't know why people are now trying to compare the 960 to a 280X, never should have even been compared to a 285. Toms only used the 285 because it is $50 more expensive than the 280 that the 960 should have been compared to. Let it be known that the 285 used in these comparisons was a reference model as well. Lower clocks on the reference 285 allowed the 960 to be marginally faster where as a comparable "factory OC" 280 would have not only been $30 cheaper it would have been faster than the 960 as well. The 960 overall is a totally underwhelming card, toms did their best to make it look competitive and make it look like a good value but the honest truth of the matter is that the 960 is neither a good value or competitive at it price point. Too bad too, I was holding out for this card to be something special.

Trying to make it look competitive is already being biased in the review which any professional will discredit it, especially that review Tom's made. Second R9 280X is selling for $30-50 (not on sale price) more than GTX 960 which you can find in other countries. Sometimes it is even cheaper than GTX 960 on sale, since AMD likes giving out sales quite often.

Hence the reason why people are comparing it price point to performance which is a huge factor for many people that build systems. It is to get the most performance for less bucks.

 

[meat_loaf]

Easy here is a R9 280X selling for less http://www.ncix.com/detail/club3d-radeon-r9-280x-royalqueen-15-94043-1356.htm
while the GTX 960 here is http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-960-g1-73-105120-1481.htm

Fail on a few counts. First, you're being dishonest since you're not including the two cheapest 960 cards available at that site ( those would be these two. ) So there you have a both an ITX version and normal version of the 960 for less than the clearance price of the 280X. If you compare prices, try doing so fairly.

Second, paying international shipping and insurance on that card brings it up to $220USD for me ( and either of those 960s would still be cheaper. ) Now, finding a huge discount on a 280X is great, but again, it's not something you're going to regularly see. No one on these forums has ever said don't get the more powerful card if you can find a steep discount. But until those sales and discounts become the norm, we don't treat them as the regular street value.

And here is another from newegg showing R9 280X http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125726&cm_re=r9_280x-_-14-125-726-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127843&cm_re=gtx_960-_-14-127-843-_-Product
Different brands will have slightly lower or higher pricing. But considering on the US market the MSI version is only 15$ more with with more performance than GTX 960.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. First of all, that's a $20 difference between those two cards you linked, not $15. Second, and once again, you're not using the cheapest available 960 in your comparison, which means you're being unfair and dishonest. If you're going to compare the cheapest 280X to the cheapest 960 on Newegg, it's a $40 difference, not $15 or $20.

I have no interest in debating with you if you're not going to be fair and honest, and thus far you've simply been raving about things that are largely non-issues. No one is saying the 280X isn't the superior performing card if all you're concerned about is sheer 3D gaming frames. Then again no one is saying the 290X isn't superior to the 280X on the same criteria, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. But when you start including factors like pricing, availability, power use, heat, and noise, things start getting much more complicated, and that's something you seem to refuse to acknowledge.

The cheapest GTX 960 on NCIX is still $250 which is still more than R9 280X from Club 3D which is only $239. The comparison to R9 280X / 285 or 280 is a good comparison. Since Tom's biased review compared OC GTX 960 to a stock R9 285 reference card to make 960 look competitive. would you call that fair and honest?? I dont think so. Pricing change everyday and the price I accessed few days ago is that price i stated. I'm sure any PC builders would know that price fluctuates and we all buy when we think the price is lowest. Still, in the debate, im just extending what Tom's review of 960 provided.

Any non-reference cards can dissipate heat fast enough to not cause any issue. Plus non-reference cards have well designed fan that barely has any noise. I know that from my R9 270 from Asus. Lastly, power is not even a huge issue for anyone. People are too anal and concentrated on reducing power on everything. It is like looking at a small thing than the overall picture.

Most people are confused about what power usage gpus are actually using when TDP nomenclature is interchangeable to mean heat output and actual power wattage usage. Unless you have a specific wall wattage meter you wouldn't know the actual draw on your system. I know for fact as I measured GTX 970 vs R9 290 that on idle they both draw the same power usage of 30-35w. R9 290 on full load draws about 210w, while 970 draws between 160-170, both on stock clocks. The difference of 40w isn't a lot in terms of power usage. Your monitor likely eats up the same 40w constantly on the adapter.

 

[InvalidError]

Unless the game is written to only work with 4GB GPU RAM, it should have no trouble coping with having 512MB less to work with; albeit possibly at slightly lower detail level.

That depends unless nvidia release drivers doing that and talking to game developers. Because devs dont care and will try to use the full 4gb on their games.

The game cannot use 4GB even if it wanted to if the GPU drivers only report 3.5GB usable. On my PC, about 400MB of GPU memory is used just to run my desktop with no games or 3D applications open, so the "lost" 512MB could be set aside for that.

 

[meat_loaf]

Easy here is a R9 280X selling for less http://www.ncix.com/detail/club3d-radeon-r9-280x-royalq...
while the GTX 960 here is http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-960-g1-...

And here is another from newegg showing R9 280X http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125726&cm_re=r9_280x-_-14-125-726-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127843&cm_re=gtx_960-_-14-127-843-_-Product
Different brands will have slightly lower or higher pricing. But considering on the US market the MSI version is only 15$ more with with more performance than GTX 960.

requires a power supply larger than 450w and is not 7" long. these two cards are aimed at completely different rigs. the gtx960 is pure and simply aimed at store bought computer owners that have at least a free 6 pin pcie connector as a drop in worry free graphics card.

Anyone with decent sense wouldn't buy a 450w psu for a system if you build that yourself. Why would you limit yourself the on the PSU since this immediately erases any possibility of future upgrades. Most gaming rigs have at least 600w as a standard on PSU and its recommended by most manufacturer, if you just look, that they recommend systems to have at least a minimum of 500w.

Don't be silly.

 

[meat_loaf]

Unless the game is written to only work with 4GB GPU RAM, it should have no trouble coping with having 512MB less to work with; albeit possibly at slightly lower detail level.

That depends unless nvidia release drivers doing that and talking to game developers. Because devs dont care and will try to use the full 4gb on their games.

The game cannot use 4GB even if it wanted to if the GPU drivers only report 3.5GB usable. On my PC, about 400MB of GPU memory is used just to run my desktop with no games or 3D applications open, so the "lost" 512MB could be set aside for that.

That really depends if they manage to as I said in the driver to to hardcode that way. But certain games don't rely on the drivers to tell it what it has or it doesnt have since they directly detect the hardware instead. Like AIDA 64 it couldn't give a rats ass about what AMD Catalyst and Overdrive says when it essentially directly access the hardware for information. Similar to how GPU-Z and CPU-Z is.

Shadow Mordor is one of those games that ignores what drivers says and detects soley on the hardware. For my R9 270 it reports 2048mb effective and uses up to 1985mb of vram. That is also why 970 users report lots of stuttering when game requires additional 0.5gb of it.

 

[RedJaron]

The cheapest GTX 960 on NCIX is still $250 which is still more than R9 280X from Club 3D which is only $239.

No, it's not. I already gave two links to 960s that are only $220 CAD and $230 CAD, which means you didn't even read what I wrote. Which begs the question of what else you didn't read.

Since Tom's biased review compared OC GTX 960 to a stock R9 285 reference card to make 960 look competitive. would you call that fair and honest??

So just because you think others are doing it, that means it's ok for you to as well, huh?

Any non-reference cards can dissipate heat fast enough to not cause any issue. Plus non-reference cards have well designed fan that barely has any noise.

That you made these two statements means you're woefully ignorant on many things, not least of which is building in small enclosures and/or HTPCs.

Lastly, power is not even a huge issue for anyone. People are too anal and concentrated on reducing power on everything. It is like looking at a small thing than the overall picture.

Again, you not recognizing all the small aspects means you don't have an accurate "big picture." Try living in a country where your electric bill is twice as high as in the USA. Try telling someone with a 400W OEM PSU that power doesn't matter.

Most people are confused about what power usage gpus are actually using when TDP nomenclature is interchangeable to mean heat output and actual power wattage usage. Unless you have a specific wall wattage meter you wouldn't know the actual draw on your system. ... You probably don't even have a clue to what power usage means as most people just look at the TDP and say is wattage from the wall....

That's a lovely assumption you've made of me, especially since it's based on absolutely nothing but your own imagination. But please, continue with the petty insults and mindless derision. I'm sure it will make others view you so much more credible because of it.

As much as I enjoy repeatedly fisking someone, you have gotten rather annoying. You've added nothing to this conversation but misinformation and insults. If you have nothing else to add, I recommend you stop before you heap even more ignominy on yourself.

 

[nikoli707]

128bit bus is uselss on a card even designed for 1080p.

Besides there are other 1080p cards performs well given the price, like R9 270X. The 960 is priced if it was a competitor to R9 280, but the peformance is no where close.

The benchmarks show otherwise. The 960 shows very respectable framerates at 1080 even with the 128-bit handicap. Go above that and you'll run into problems. As for being "no where close" to the 280, which games are you cherry picking? The scores here show the 960 and 285 trading blows If you look at scores on other sites, you'll even see a few places where the 960 meets or beats the 280X. And while the 270X is a great card for the price, the 960 is consistently faster than it by a significant margin.

My complaint is not that the 960 is a poor card, but that it's very niche and has little value outside its pigeonhole. However, since that pigeonhole is single screen FHD, and since that's the area the vast majority of gamers live, it will likely be a very profitable card for NVidia

But you can get a 270X 4GB for $200, which is worth the 10% drop in performance.

Easy here is a R9 280X selling for less http://www.ncix.com/detail/club3d-radeon-r9-280x-royalq...
while the GTX 960 here is http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-960-g1-...

And here is another from newegg showing R9 280X http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125726&cm_re=r9_280x-_-14-125-726-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127843&cm_re=gtx_960-_-14-127-843-_-Product
Different brands will have slightly lower or higher pricing. But considering on the US market the MSI version is only 15$ more with with more performance than GTX 960.

requires a power supply larger than 450w and is not 7" long. these two cards are aimed at completely different rigs. the gtx960 is pure and simply aimed at store bought computer owners that have at least a free 6 pin pcie connector as a drop in worry free graphics card.

Anyone with decent sense wouldn't buy a 450w psu for a system if you build that yourself. Why would you limit yourself the on the PSU since this immediately erases any possibility of future upgrades. Most gaming rigs have at least 600w as a standard on PSU and its recommended by most manufacturer, if you just look, that they recommend systems to have at least a minimum of 500w.

Don't be silly.

my friend just upgraded his 750ti to a 960 in his micro atx silverstone case htpc and hes using an antec vp450. the single fan versions are like 7" long and they only require a single 6 pin and draws a little over 100w but idles down to something like 4 watts. to me that screams performance htpc card. next to an i3-4130t, its a perfect combo. great htpc card in my opinion. there is no way an a 4130t+960 will come anywhere close to 500w, maybe half at best running prime+furmark. its a great htpc card in my opinion.

 

[InvalidError]

That really depends if they manage to as I said in the driver to to hardcode that way. But certain games don't rely on the drivers to tell it what it has or it doesnt have since they directly detect the hardware instead. Like AIDA 64 it couldn't give a rats ass about what AMD Catalyst and Overdrive says when it essentially directly access the hardware for information. Similar to how GPU-Z and CPU-Z is.

Computers would be royally screwed if that were true. Before any software can access any memory anywhere, they need to get a handle for the memory page first and the driver could very well refuse to hand those out to apps that ignore reported-usable memory or otherwise fail to meet prerequisites.

Also, programs that forcibly try to use all GPU memory would be problematic since Windows itself may use hundreds of MBs for desktop composition when not running in full-screen or having the desktop on a secondary. Games cannot assume they will always have all the GPU memory for themselves. Games that did would break under countless circumstances.

 

[littleleo]

Easy here is a R9 280X selling for less http://www.ncix.com/detail/club3d-radeon-r9-280x-royalqueen-15-94043-1356.htm
while the GTX 960 here is http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-960-g1-73-105120-1481.htm

Fail on a few counts. First, you're being dishonest since you're not including the two cheapest 960 cards available at that site ( those would be these two. ) So there you have a both an ITX version and normal version of the 960 for less than the clearance price of the 280X. If you compare prices, try doing so fairly.

Second, paying international shipping and insurance on that card brings it up to $220USD for me ( and either of those 960s would still be cheaper. ) Now, finding a huge discount on a 280X is great, but again, it's not something you're going to regularly see. No one on these forums has ever said don't get the more powerful card if you can find a steep discount. But until those sales and discounts become the norm, we don't treat them as the regular street value.

And here is another from newegg showing R9 280X http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125726&cm_re=r9_280x-_-14-125-726-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127843&cm_re=gtx_960-_-14-127-843-_-Product
Different brands will have slightly lower or higher pricing. But considering on the US market the MSI version is only 15$ more with with more performance than GTX 960.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. First of all, that's a $20 difference between those two cards you linked, not $15. Second, and once again, you're not using the cheapest available 960 in your comparison, which means you're being unfair and dishonest. If you're going to compare the cheapest 280X to the cheapest 960 on Newegg, it's a $40 difference, not $15 or $20.

I have no interest in debating with you if you're not going to be fair and honest, and thus far you've simply been raving about things that are largely non-issues. No one is saying the 280X isn't the superior performing card if all you're concerned about is sheer 3D gaming frames. Then again no one is saying the 290X isn't superior to the 280X on the same criteria, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. But when you start including factors like pricing, availability, power use, heat, and noise, things start getting much more complicated, and that's something you seem to refuse to acknowledge.

The cheapest GTX 960 on NCIX is still $250 which is still more than R9 280X from Club 3D which is only $239. The comparison to R9 280X / 285 or 280 is a good comparison. Since Tom's biased review compared OC GTX 960 to a stock R9 285 reference card to make 960 look competitive. would you call that fair and honest?? I dont think so. Pricing change everyday and the price I accessed few days ago is that price i stated. I'm sure any PC builders would know that price fluctuates and we all buy when we think the price is lowest. Still, in the debate, im just extending what Tom's review of 960 provided.

Any non-reference cards can dissipate heat fast enough to not cause any issue. Plus non-reference cards have well designed fan that barely has any noise. I know that from my R9 270 from Asus. Lastly, power is not even a huge issue for anyone. People are too anal and concentrated on reducing power on everything. It is like looking at a small thing than the overall picture.

Most people are confused about what power usage gpus are actually using when TDP nomenclature is interchangeable to mean heat output and actual power wattage usage. Unless you have a specific wall wattage meter you wouldn't know the actual draw on your system. I know for fact as I measured GTX 970 vs R9 290 that on idle they both draw the same power usage of 30-35w. R9 290 on full load draws about 210w, while 970 draws between 160-170, both on stock clocks. The difference of 40w isn't a lot in terms of power usage. Your monitor likely eats up the same 40w constantly on the adapter.

How many websites did you have to go to find one that had GTX 960s more then 280Xs? Your really trying to hard on this. I popped on NewEgg and the cheapest GTX 960s ran about $199.99 there were 4 at that price and 2 had ratings of 5 eggs, 2 had no ratings. Then I checked the 280x and I found 2 @ $219.99 one with 1 egg the other with no ratting. The next was a model was at $239.99 with 4 eggs. So it looks like the GTX 960 is less expensive and getting better ratings.

 

[Eggz]

. . . PC Part Picker is your friend

R9 280

10 models ranging in price form $152.99 to $221.98

GTX 960

12 models ranging in price from $194.99 to $228.99

R9 285

11 models ranging in price from $186.98 to $235.66

R9 280X

17 models ranging in price from $219.99 to $349.69

. . . So are other review sites for reference

Euro Gamer, comparing the GTX 960 to the GTX 760, R9 280, and R9 295 in several games, including ACU in the video linked below.

[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyYvoQPYPbs"][/video]

 

[meat_loaf]

Easy here is a R9 280X selling for less http://www.ncix.com/detail/club3d-radeon-r9-280x-royalqueen-15-94043-1356.htm
while the GTX 960 here is http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-960-g1-73-105120-1481.htm

Fail on a few counts. First, you're being dishonest since you're not including the two cheapest 960 cards available at that site ( those would be these two. ) So there you have a both an ITX version and normal version of the 960 for less than the clearance price of the 280X. If you compare prices, try doing so fairly.

Second, paying international shipping and insurance on that card brings it up to $220USD for me ( and either of those 960s would still be cheaper. ) Now, finding a huge discount on a 280X is great, but again, it's not something you're going to regularly see. No one on these forums has ever said don't get the more powerful card if you can find a steep discount. But until those sales and discounts become the norm, we don't treat them as the regular street value.

And here is another from newegg showing R9 280X http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125726&cm_re=r9_280x-_-14-125-726-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127843&cm_re=gtx_960-_-14-127-843-_-Product
Different brands will have slightly lower or higher pricing. But considering on the US market the MSI version is only 15$ more with with more performance than GTX 960.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. First of all, that's a $20 difference between those two cards you linked, not $15. Second, and once again, you're not using the cheapest available 960 in your comparison, which means you're being unfair and dishonest. If you're going to compare the cheapest 280X to the cheapest 960 on Newegg, it's a $40 difference, not $15 or $20.

I have no interest in debating with you if you're not going to be fair and honest, and thus far you've simply been raving about things that are largely non-issues. No one is saying the 280X isn't the superior performing card if all you're concerned about is sheer 3D gaming frames. Then again no one is saying the 290X isn't superior to the 280X on the same criteria, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. But when you start including factors like pricing, availability, power use, heat, and noise, things start getting much more complicated, and that's something you seem to refuse to acknowledge.

The cheapest GTX 960 on NCIX is still $250 which is still more than R9 280X from Club 3D which is only $239. The comparison to R9 280X / 285 or 280 is a good comparison. Since Tom's biased review compared OC GTX 960 to a stock R9 285 reference card to make 960 look competitive. would you call that fair and honest?? I dont think so. Pricing change everyday and the price I accessed few days ago is that price i stated. I'm sure any PC builders would know that price fluctuates and we all buy when we think the price is lowest. Still, in the debate, im just extending what Tom's review of 960 provided.

Any non-reference cards can dissipate heat fast enough to not cause any issue. Plus non-reference cards have well designed fan that barely has any noise. I know that from my R9 270 from Asus. Lastly, power is not even a huge issue for anyone. People are too anal and concentrated on reducing power on everything. It is like looking at a small thing than the overall picture.

Most people are confused about what power usage gpus are actually using when TDP nomenclature is interchangeable to mean heat output and actual power wattage usage. Unless you have a specific wall wattage meter you wouldn't know the actual draw on your system. I know for fact as I measured GTX 970 vs R9 290 that on idle they both draw the same power usage of 30-35w. R9 290 on full load draws about 210w, while 970 draws between 160-170, both on stock clocks. The difference of 40w isn't a lot in terms of power usage. Your monitor likely eats up the same 40w constantly on the adapter.

How many websites did you have to go to find one that had GTX 960s more then 280Xs? Your really trying to hard on this. I popped on NewEgg and the cheapest GTX 960s ran about $199.99 there were 4 at that price and 2 had ratings of 5 eggs, 2 had no ratings. Then I checked the 280x and I found 2 @ $219.99 one with 1 egg the other with no ratting. The next was a model was at $239.99 with 4 eggs. So it looks like the GTX 960 is less expensive and getting better ratings.

Ratings are meaningless, I don't even know you brought that up. But still when you found R9 280X being cheaper than GTX 960 thats more than enough to prove that its cheaper. Even if some models are sold @ $219, there are Asus Strix versions of GTX 960 selling for more than that. Base point for my argument is price per performance. And at the current price listing from $200-220 USD for GTX 960 is not at a compeitive level to even R9 280 which most people compare it to.

 

[meat_loaf]

I always find it annoying GPU reviews only compare CURRENT generation cards. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but how many people on CURRENT generation GPUs are even looking to upgrade? Wouldn't it make sense to stack these things against at least some previous gen boards (e.g. HD7950 etc) to give those on older GPUS an idea where they fit in on the performance curve?

This review is retarded. Look elsewhere on newegg for 970 performance at $240 with an Asus DirectCU II R9 290.

This review is retarded because Toms purposely left out R9 280 because it knows it destroys this card at the same price point. Obviously something like that can't be put on reviews...(sarcasm).

the r9-285 is the same card.

R9 285 isn the same card. It has lower memory bandwidth of 256bit vs 384 and 1 gb less. R9 285 also redesigned with R9 290 implementations like True Audio, which other versions R9 lacks.

 

[meat_loaf]

That really depends if they manage to as I said in the driver to to hardcode that way. But certain games don't rely on the drivers to tell it what it has or it doesnt have since they directly detect the hardware instead. Like AIDA 64 it couldn't give a rats ass about what AMD Catalyst and Overdrive says when it essentially directly access the hardware for information. Similar to how GPU-Z and CPU-Z is.

Computers would be royally screwed if that were true. Before any software can access any memory anywhere, they need to get a handle for the memory page first and the driver could very well refuse to hand those out to apps that ignore reported-usable memory or otherwise fail to meet prerequisites.

Also, programs that forcibly try to use all GPU memory would be problematic since Windows itself may use hundreds of MBs for desktop composition when not running in full-screen or having the desktop on a secondary. Games cannot assume they will always have all the GPU memory for themselves. Games that did would break under countless circumstances.

I'm pretty sure there are many games that are like that even few years ago. If you look at that horrible COD Ghosts. The memory leak even on people with 16gb ram sticks. Hard to say I won't ever see that problem in the future. Badly optimized games is a trend in devs today. You can have the best drivers in the world, but wont always solve the problems if the inherent coding on games or other software becomes exorbitantly bad that deters hardware performance. But here's a video for your enjoyment that GTX 970 stutters and glitches when the game requires more vram. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQE6p5r1tYE#t=58.

 

[dim0s]

boooo i have 760 and all i have to say is this isnt even an upgrade jesus nvidia exposing yourselves here..

 

[nikoli707]

I always find it annoying GPU reviews only compare CURRENT generation cards. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but how many people on CURRENT generation GPUs are even looking to upgrade? Wouldn't it make sense to stack these things against at least some previous gen boards (e.g. HD7950 etc) to give those on older GPUS an idea where they fit in on the performance curve?

This review is retarded. Look elsewhere on newegg for 970 performance at $240 with an Asus DirectCU II R9 290.

This review is retarded because Toms purposely left out R9 280 because it knows it destroys this card at the same price point. Obviously something like that can't be put on reviews...(sarcasm).

the r9-285 is the same card.

R9 285 isn the same card. It has lower memory bandwidth of 256bit vs 384 and 1 gb less. R9 285 also redesigned with R9 290 implementations like True Audio, which other versions R9 lacks.

for all intent purposes they perform exactly the same in games minus any exposed bandwidth limitations. same gcn cores, same core clock, same performance.

 

[jazzy663]

Guys, all this says to me is that Maxwell is just get started :-D

Maybe not 'just getting started', Maxwell is on its second revision. However Maxwell impresses me, and as a result I have set my personal expectations for Nvidia very high, especially for future architectures.

It is, but they are yet to release a x10 chip. The highest they've gone is the x04 chip with the 970/980, and Kepler made a lot of strides between x04 chips and x10 chips, going from the 680 (GK104) to the Titan Black and 780 ti (GK110B). Going from x04 to x10B on Kepler was almost a straight-up double of performance, and I hope to see even more out of Maxwell 🙂

I always find it annoying GPU reviews only compare CURRENT generation cards. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but how many people on CURRENT generation GPUs are even looking to upgrade? Wouldn't it make sense to stack these things against at least some previous gen boards (e.g. HD7950 etc) to give those on older GPUS an idea where they fit in on the performance curve?

This review is retarded. Look elsewhere on newegg for 970 performance at $240 with an Asus DirectCU II R9 290.

This review is retarded because Toms purposely left out R9 280 because it knows it destroys this card at the same price point. Obviously something like that can't be put on reviews...(sarcasm).

the r9-285 is the same card.

R9 285 isn the same card. It has lower memory bandwidth of 256bit vs 384 and 1 gb less. R9 285 also redesigned with R9 290 implementations like True Audio, which other versions R9 lacks.

for all intent purposes they perform exactly the same in games minus any exposed bandwidth limitations. same gcn cores, same core clock, same performance.

The GCN cores in the two cards are a different revision: R9 285 = GCN 1.2 Tonga PRO / R9 290 = GCN 2.0 Hawaii PRO. Plus there are 285s with a 2GB frame buffer on a 256-bit interface vs R9 290s with 4GB buffers on 512-bit interfaces, these will perform considerably better at higher resolutions. I would hardly say they're the same card. Similar, but not the same.

 

[NefCanuck]

After reading the article, which talks (at great length) about the lower power consumption and heat production of the chips in question, I'm surprised that a fanless card isn't part of the opening product mix.

As I do audio work as well, I'm looking for a gaming card that would replace the built in HD4000 graphics on my i7 but not increase the noise floor (right now the only noise is from the CPU fan as I have a 460W fanless Seasonic power supply)

Would the ASUS 960 do the job as it seems one of the quieter cards or is there something else in the nVidia family of cards that exists right now that others would recommend for gaming at 1920x1080 and be low power and low / no noise?

 

[meat_loaf]

After reading the article, which talks (at great length) about the lower power consumption and heat production of the chips in question, I'm surprised that a fanless card isn't part of the opening product mix.

As I do audio work as well, I'm looking for a gaming card that would replace the built in HD4000 graphics on my i7 but not increase the noise floor (right now the only noise is from the CPU fan as I have a 460W fanless Seasonic power supply)

Would the ASUS 960 do the job as it seems one of the quieter cards or is there something else in the nVidia family of cards that exists right now that others would recommend for gaming at 1920x1080 and be low power and low / no noise?

You dont understand the problems fanless card gets on high performance gpu. Even Mid range cards require a fan. Because fanless solutions arent a solution to VRAM and mosfet cooling, it will fry them when they draw significant power.

 

[meat_loaf]

I always find it annoying GPU reviews only compare CURRENT generation cards. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but how many people on CURRENT generation GPUs are even looking to upgrade? Wouldn't it make sense to stack these things against at least some previous gen boards (e.g. HD7950 etc) to give those on older GPUS an idea where they fit in on the performance curve?

This review is retarded. Look elsewhere on newegg for 970 performance at $240 with an Asus DirectCU II R9 290.

This review is retarded because Toms purposely left out R9 280 because it knows it destroys this card at the same price point. Obviously something like that can't be put on reviews...(sarcasm).

the r9-285 is the same card.

R9 285 isn the same card. It has lower memory bandwidth of 256bit vs 384 and 1 gb less. R9 285 also redesigned with R9 290 implementations like True Audio, which other versions R9 lacks.

for all intent purposes they perform exactly the same in games minus any exposed bandwidth limitations. same gcn cores, same core clock, same performance.

And I guess you don't have any clue to what you yourself is talking about. R9 285 is not the same as R9 280.
I don't see how they are the same card even when the GPU itself is different and architecture 1.0 vs 1.2. Also both cards differ in precision computing points http://www.anandtech.com/show/8460/amd-radeon-r9-285-review

 

[RedJaron]

After reading the article, which talks (at great length) about the lower power consumption and heat production of the chips in question, I'm surprised that a fanless card isn't part of the opening product mix.

As I do audio work as well, I'm looking for a gaming card that would replace the built in HD4000 graphics on my i7 but not increase the noise floor (right now the only noise is from the CPU fan as I have a 460W fanless Seasonic power supply)

Would the ASUS 960 do the job as it seems one of the quieter cards or is there something else in the nVidia family of cards that exists right now that others would recommend for gaming at 1920x1080 and be low power and low / no noise?

If you're talking completely fanless GPUs, the last significant one I saw was a 7770 ( maybe something has been released since then. ) That's a decent mainstream GPU, but it's not great and some wouldn't even consider it "mid-range." At best it'll get you playable rates at medium 1080 detail, but at least that's something. However, it's very low power draw so it'll work in your machine ( I'm guessing that SeaSonic has at least one PCIe power cable, ) without adding much noise ( assuming you get one without coil whine or anything like that. ) If you want anything with more graphical muscle, you'll need something actively cooled.

A lot of 960 cards do have a "zero fan" feature where the fans don't spin when not under load. When you're working on the desktop and doing less demanding tasks, the fans shouldn't spin at all. So if you need quiet when you're working with audio, but you can stand a little extra noise while gaming, that may be something to look into. It also depends on how you've got your i7 cooler setup ( and you didn't mention case fans, do you have any? ) Depending on model and fan speed curve ( for both CPU cooler and GPU, ) it's possible your CPU cooler will be just as noisy as a GPU while gaming ( plus any background noise you may have. )

 

[NefCanuck]

After reading the article, which talks (at great length) about the lower power consumption and heat production of the chips in question, I'm surprised that a fanless card isn't part of the opening product mix.

As I do audio work as well, I'm looking for a gaming card that would replace the built in HD4000 graphics on my i7 but not increase the noise floor (right now the only noise is from the CPU fan as I have a 460W fanless Seasonic power supply)

Would the ASUS 960 do the job as it seems one of the quieter cards or is there something else in the nVidia family of cards that exists right now that others would recommend for gaming at 1920x1080 and be low power and low / no noise?

If you're talking completely fanless GPUs, the last significant one I saw was a 7770 ( maybe something has been released since then. ) That's a decent mainstream GPU, but it's not great and some wouldn't even consider it "mid-range." At best it'll get you playable rates at medium 1080 detail, but at least that's something. However, it's very low power draw so it'll work in your machine ( I'm guessing that SeaSonic has at least one PCIe power cable, ) without adding much noise ( assuming you get one without coil whine or anything like that. ) If you want anything with more graphical muscle, you'll need something actively cooled.

A lot of 960 cards do have a "zero fan" feature where the fans don't spin when not under load. When you're working on the desktop and doing less demanding tasks, the fans shouldn't spin at all. So if you need quiet when you're working with audio, but you can stand a little extra noise while gaming, that may be something to look into. It also depends on how you've got your i7 cooler setup ( and you didn't mention case fans, do you have any? ) Depending on model and fan speed curve ( for both CPU cooler and GPU, ) it's possible your CPU cooler will be just as noisy as a GPU while gaming ( plus any background noise you may have. )

The i7 cooler I have is the stock one and I have a silent 120mm fan to pull hot air out of the case.

The "zero fan" feature that you mention would probably do the trick, once I'm done with the recording or streaming noise is not an issue.

Prior to the this I had been looking at the Zotac Zone edition fanless cards as an option but they seemed under powered for any serious gaming.

NefCanuck

 

[nikoli707]

for gaming fps only the 285 and 280 are the same, you can look at all the 285 benchmarks available to prove this. if you clock them both the same, you will have the same performance. maybe in the future when games use the extra instruction sets that the 285 has, it will outpace a 280.

 

[littleleo]

They compared the GTX 960 vs the 285 and the GTX 760, then compared it with the 280x and GTX 770.

http://hardocp.com/article/2015/01/28/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_high_resolution_review/1#.VNAH3CzlyiE

 

[logainofhades]

I do have some mild interest in the 960, for my other systems, just not my main system. Not confident my HD 7970 will live much longer, and the GTS 450, in my AMD rig really needs replaced.