Possible GTX 960 and R9 285X Specs & Prices

[TERAFLOP]

GTX 960

CUDA Cores : 1280
Memory Interface : 192bit
Memory : 3GB GDDR5 @ 7Gbps

 

R9 285X
GCN Cores : 2048
Memory Interface : 384bit
Memory : 3GB GDDR5 @ 5.5Gbps

Both cards are supposed to sit between the 770/280X and 780/290 in terms of performance. Both cards are rumored to cost around $249.
 

Full Article

 

 

[Sidiox]

Seems like quite an good deal for that GTX960. This new GTX line up seems to have quite good prices imho (although I don't know much about AMD's line up, because fuck learning althose names)

[GPUXPert]

Specs fall in line spot on with my expectations for both cards.

It's kinda funny that Nvidia is doing a 2048 SP card and a 1280 SP card. Since that's the configuration that AMD went for. For both the 7970 and 7870. Save for the fact that a CUDA core is quite a bit larger than a GCN core.

[Jobbe03]

WCCF... ffs

 

There's no fucking way they're making a 285x

 

"Both cards are supposed to sit between the 770/280X and 780/290 in terms of performance."

 

The fuck is the normal 285 for then? 

[ivhyn]

Needs more of this:

 

 

The 285X would be a 280X without Crossfire bridges and TrueAudio Support... what a surprise.

[GPUXPert]

WCCFT... ffs

 

There's no fucking way they're making a 285x

 

"Both cards are supposed to sit between the 770/280X and 780/290 in terms of performance."

 

The fuck is the normal 285 for then? 

285 replaces the 280, 285X replaces the 280X. Fairly simple I think.

[Toddwjp]

285 replaces the 280, 285X replaces the 280X. Fairly simple I think.

 

but still needlessly complicated and way too many cards

[TERAFLOP]

Needs more of this:

 

 

The 285X would be a 280X without Crossfire bridges and TrueAudio Support... what a suprise.

40% higher bandwidth, double the video transcode speed, 4X the tessellation performance. etc...

[Jobbe03]

285 replaces the 280, 285X replaces the 280X. Fairly simple I think.

That super complicated 

 

The amd lineup is getting waay out of hand. 

[EmmaLong]

These wccf memes need to die in a fire. So tired of seeing them.

[GPUXPert]

but still needlessly complicated and way too many cards

40% higher bandwidth, double the video transcode speed, 4X the tessellation performance. etc...

You think AMD's naming scheme is too complicated ? think again !

[Victorious Secret]

These wccf memes need to die in a fire. So tired of seeing them.

 

Then ignore them. Do they upset you that much? 

 

You think AMD's naming scheme is too complicated ? think again !

 

Intel isn't marketing mobile chips to consumers though, are they? 

[BookerDeWitt]

Intel isn't marketing mobile chips to consumers though, are they? 

Consumers buy laptops. Good luck figuring out where your CPU falls in line. You buy an i7 expecting a top of the line chip but you might VERY well end up with a dual core.

[Victorious Secret]

Consumers buy laptops. Good luck figuring out where your CPU falls in line. You buy an i7 expecting a top of the line chip but you might VERY well end up with a dual core.

And that would matter to most consumers because?

We aren't most consumers. We care.

The 99%? They don't. They also don't buy mobile chips off a shelf, so what does it matter?

We DO buy GPUs off the shelf. And that needs more coherent naming. Something AMD is just bad at.

[JaMGeR]

As Booker said.. Intel has a way more complicated name scheme with all the MQ, HQ, U, M and Y's at the end of every chip. Also.. if u just dont understand why the 285x ( if it even comes out ) goes over the 280x, u must be bloody stupid. Whats the confusion?  

[GPUXPert]

Then ignore them. Do they upset you that much? 

Intel isn't marketing mobile chips to consumers though, are they? 

Of course they're marketing mobile chips to consumers. People buy laptops, netbooks and notebooks much more than desktops.

And it's NOT any better on the desktop either.

If you thin replacing 1 digit in a 3 digit name from 0 to 5 to illustrate an architectural update is too complicated (as in the 280 and 285) then good luck figuring anything out on Intel's entire entry and mid range lineup.

These are Haswell desktop CPUs, yes ALL of them.

[CarlosRex]

We DO buy GPUs off the shelf. And that needs more coherent naming. Something AMD is just bad at.

Dude, Nvidia is even worse. They sold two completely different GPUs under the exact same name. That goes beyond stupid branding into outright deception.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-geforce-gtx-650-benchmark,3297-16.html

[Victorious Secret]

Dude, Nvidia is even worse. They sold two completely different GPUs under the exact same name. That goes beyond stupid branding into outright deception.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-geforce-gtx-650-benchmark,3297-16.html

Unless I'm reading that wrong, ASUS released that card. Not Nvidia.

 

Board partners get stuff from Nvidia, they do whatever they want with those chips, so long as Nvidia isn't annoyed by what they are doing to their chips. 

So really, get mad at ASUS for doing this. Not at Nvidia. Nvidias naming still makes more sense lately than AMDs. 

 

And one of those cards was OEM, not available to consumers AT ALL. The other was their DCUII card, that was retail. So once again, why is that an issue? You can't buy the OEM card. The OEM card is for system builders. Thats a whole different can of worms to talk about. 

[CarlosRex]

Unless I'm reading that wrong, ASUS released that card. Not Nvidia.

Asus can't just willy-nilly slap an Nvidia brand onto any product it wants. It had to get approved by Nvidia. Otherwise it becomes a counterfeit product and they get sued into oblivion.

[GPUXPert]

Unless I'm reading that wrong, ASUS released that card. Not Nvidia.

 

Board partners get stuff from Nvidia, they do whatever they want with those chips, so long as Nvidia isn't annoyed by what they are doing to their chips. 

So really, get mad at ASUS for doing this. Not at Nvidia. Nvidias naming still makes more sense lately than AMDs. 

 

And one of those cards was OEM, not available to consumers AT ALL. The other was their DCUII card, that was retail. So once again, why is that an issue? You can't buy the OEM card. The OEM card is for system builders. Thats a whole different can of worms to talk about. 

Asus can't just willy-nilly slap an Nvidia brand onto any product it wants. It had to get approved by Nvidia. Otherwise it becomes a counterfeit product and they get sued into oblivion.

An 1152 CUDA core and 192bit bus GK104 GPU SKU officially doesn't exist from Nvidia.

There were only three SKUs at the time the 680 = 1536 + 256bit, 670 = 1344 + 256bit and the 660 Ti = 1344 + 192bit.

The 760 was introduced a year later with 1152 CUDA cores but a 256bit bus. Again meaning a 1152 CUDA core 192bit buss GK104 GPU SKU officially doesn't exist.

What this means is that Nvidia simply wanted to get rid of defective harvested dies that wouldn't make the cut to be a 680, 670 or a 660 Ti. So they made a deal with Asus to sell them as 660s to OEMs. How would Nvidia not know about the chips they were selling ? that's completely nonsense.

The argument that it's an OEM card so it's fine is completely invalid. Since a consumer can buy an OEM system thinking he got a 660 because well bloody hell it's called a 660 but instead get a completely different card. What if it gets even more complicated and he buys a retail 660 just to find out that they don't work in SLI. Or if the OEM system owner sells the card to someone thinking he can SLI it with his own retail 660. I can go on and on but you should get the point by now.

[WereCat]

Wasn't it long ago when AMD confirmed that R9 285x won't exist and it is just thing created by media? I wouldn't believe this rumor.

[Techhog]

WCCF... ffs

 

There's no fucking way they're making a 285x

 

"Both cards are supposed to sit between the 770/280X and 780/290 in terms of performance."

 

The fuck is the normal 285 for then? 

280 < 285 < 280X < 285X < 290

 

The 285 has disabled cores.

[Jobbe03]

280 < 285 < 280X < 285X < 290

 

The 285 has disabled cores.

That's retarded.

 

If they insist on having that many different cards, atleast make it logical like:

280 < 280x < 285 < 285x < 290 < 290x

[Techhog]

That's retarded.

If they insist on having that many different cards, atleast make it logical like:

280 < 280x < 285 < 285x < 290 < 290x

While true, they simply didn't think that far ahead. Also, the 285 and 285X are meant to replace the 280 and 280X while adding new features.

[ZestyJalapeno]

I think because the 270/X and the 280/X are rebrands the naming scheme is fuddled up. I thought it was confusing at first, but a quick check of the cards' specs instead of complaining then the confusion was gone. The 200-series is a combination of new archs, new GPUs and rebrands, so there would be some overlaps. Once they release the 300-series the whole naming scheme should be more streamlined hopefully.

 

AMD's naming scheme makes enough sense, when you separate the Xs from the non-Xs that is. Although I do miss being able to say 'HD 7970'. It sounds retro-cool in my head, I wish high-end hardware didn't have to come with Xs in their name. X99, GTX, 290X, 5960X, HyperX...