Gtx 960 bad?

[Teemo4Life]

I saw Linus gtx 960 review and lots of people liked and agreed that this gpu was a disappointment as its not better than the gtx 760 or R9 285/280.

[minibois]

So.. You have a question or what

The GTX 960 is a slight disappointment after the very well performing GTX 970.

And also because the R9 280 has been out longer and performs pretty much equally (for a little bit less usually)

[Teemo4Life]

So.. You have a question or what

The GTX 960 is a slight disappointment after the very well performing GTX 970.

And also because the R9 280 has been out longer and performs pretty much equally (for a little bit less usually)

Are the facts I said true?

[minibois]

Are the facts I said true?

It's slightly better than the GTX 760 and about even with the R9 280 and R9 285.

It does run cooler and quieter.

[Misanthrope]

Maxwell is all aout being more efficient and running cooler, what is even your point?

 

Well the point is that Nvidia should observe more uses than just being "efficient". I mean I do love the fact that it's efficient, this is great news for small itx systems or people that just don't want to worry too much about maintenance and want something that will be more durable for being more efficient, etc. And that is certainly one side, but the main demographic on that market is what I would call "Enthusiast on a budget" Someone who is ok with noise and power but just wants the max horse power they can get on the 200-250 price range. Only AMD seems to understand this and they're willing to put out beefier cards at lower price points, Nvidia just assumes all Enthusiasts just have endless money and can henceforth move up to the 970 or 980 which is most definitely not the case.

[Kermit]

r9 280+ cards are old and really good performance per dollar, compared to nvidia they are really cheap.

 

gtx 960 runs more stable with lower temps and volume so many people opt for that card

[chopdok]

GTX 960 beats R9 280 in every test, under every condition, at every resolution. Not by a lot, but beats nonetheless. 960 is a good card, its just not a great one really. R9 280 is slightly weaker, but you can pick one up for 170$, and GTX 960 is 200$. 3 GB of RAM is...well, its nice to have for peace of mind. Theoretically, better for longevity. Practically - not a single test, even the most intensive one, showed R9 280 to have any advantage over GTX 960 despite VRAM advantage.

 

People are mostly disappointed because they were expecting too much. After GTX 970, which performed on par with previous top-of-the-line GTX 780, they expected GTX 960 to beat GTX 770. Its just a very lazy GPU by nVidia - they gave it just enough performance to justify its 200$ price tag, and not a bit more. On paper, the card has "additional value" - shadowplay, G-Sync support, hardware h.264 and HEVC .265, low TDP and thermals. However, most people don't care for those - majority of proper gaming rigs have powerfull and reliable PSU (at least, they should have), and they also have a good CPU that can handle the video/streaming stuff. G-Sync is the only rally valuable thing of all these "bonuses", but the people who can afford a G-Sync gaming monitor ain't gonna waste their time with 960 - they will get 970/980 cause they can afford it.

 

Where the card does shine is all the small-size mATX/ITX rigs. Lower thermals mean no throttling after playing for a few hours, and also smaller PCB size - all that while maintaining low levels of noise - while with R9 280, for small cases buying a card with a loud blower cooler is mandatory pretty much, if you want to avoid throttling. For those cases - R9 280/290 series is absolutely the worst choice possible.

 

Also, the silence is a thing for some people in by itself. GTX 960 under full load is more silent than the absolute best custom R9 280 on idle. So, people who use PC for recording/streaming gameplay and have a good microphone, people who use their computer for sound stuff. Or just people who want a quiet PC for whatever reason - in those cases, R9 280 is pathetically incompetent card, and GTX 960 is the best and obvious choice.

 

Its a niche card. In its niches, it obliterates R9 280, regardless of how AMD fanboys sing their "only performance/price is relevant" song. In pure price/performance comparison, R9 280 is roughly equal or better choice(depending on game/bench) - its a slightly slower, but moderately cheaper card, and no amount of nVidia fanboys screaming "Butbutbut Shadowplay and G-Sync" will change that too.

[vembutech]

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-960-windforce-2x-review,1.html

[i_build_nanosuits]

... it obliterates R9 280 blah blah blah..

no the R9 280 is in fact a stronger GPU.

[asim1999]

Maxwell is about power consumption, better OCing and more manageable temps compared to Kepler due to less, more powerful cores

[chopdok]

no the R9 280 is in fact a stronger GPU.

 

That is BS. Find me one benchmark where GTX 960 is outperformed by R9 280. Only benchmark where R9 280 barely matches GTX 960 is BF 4 at Ultra with high AA. Everywhere else - 960 is faster. In fact, even in BF4 GTX 960 is still faster, just the difference is so small they are almost equal.

[i_build_nanosuits]

That is BS. Find me one benchmark where GTX 960 is outperformed by R9 280. Only benchmark where R9 280 barely matches GTX 960 is BF 4 at Ultra with high AA. Everywhere else - 960 is faster. In fact, even in BF4 GTX 960 is still faster, just the difference is so small they are almost equal.

looks like your right, most reviews pit the R9 285 and GTX 960 and they trade blows from game to game...the R9 280 being slightly slower than the 285 that would indeed indicate that the GTX 960 is indeed slightly faster than the R9 280, but it's very close.

This is the conclusion i trust (great review BTW: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-review):

Nvidia GeForce GTX 960: the Digital Foundry verdict

The GTX 960 is a solid, but not spectacular performer. Priced at £160/$199, it falls slap bang in the middle of AMD's two offerings in the same price range. It runs some games better than its competitors, but falls short in others - sometimes significantly so in the case of Far Cry 4 and Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor. Generally speaking though, all three contenders do a similar job at similar price-points, assuming you're running a PC with processing power equivalent to a quad-core Intel chip, or better.

 

...but there's a genuine sense that this card has been designed with financial considerations first and foremost in mind, rather than the needs of the gamer - the inclusion of just 2GB of RAM is the biggest misstep here in particular, just as it was for the Radeon R9 285.

[AlbertScrub]

i am waited for the 960 to drop price... my 650 ti boost still have a year i feel on it. but i realyl want to go for that 960 .