GTX950 VS R9 270X

[Prysin]

FRTC and VSR are supported on the 270x and all of the 7000 series

forgot that.

[don_svetlio]

forgot that.

And data compression is compensated by the 3 times larger bandwidth of the 270x compared to the 950.

[Prysin]

950 price?

He is from india i bet, given he lists the price in Rupies. India has a massive bias towards intel and Nvidia. AMD is excessivly overpriced there no matter what. Dunno why, but corruption may be the reason why. However, why AMD is or why it isnt overpriced, whatever is the cause, this is not the place to discuss that...

[roikhan]

Yeah, soz, brainfart

Well - they are close and with driver 15.7 are even closer - it boosts AMD cards by around 5% (my firestrike score went up 500 points when I updated and gained about 4 fps in Witcher 3.)

lucky you,i got nothing from driver update with my old r7 250x,amd driver seems to much focused in medium or high end gpu

[roikhan]

He is from india i bet, given he lists the price in Rupies. India has a massive bias towards intel and Nvidia. AMD is excessivly overpriced there no matter what. Dunno why, but corruption may be the reason why. However, why AMD is or why it isnt overpriced, whatever is the cause, this is not the place to discuss that...

Opps not india,its INDONESIA 

[don_svetlio]

lucky you,i got nothing from driver update with my old r7 250x,amd driver seems to much focused in medium or high end gpu

15.7.1? That's the one I'm using.

Keep in mind that a 250x is a 7700 series and 280 is 7900 series. 7800 and 7900 got a boost, I am sure of it but idk about lower.

[Prysin]

And data compression is compensated by the 3 times larger bandwidth of the 270x compared to the 950.

No it is not.

 

Compression affects the VRAM pool more then the bandwidth.

If you use your pool of VRAM (2GB in this case) poorly, then bad compression on one card vs another can cause you to effectivly have LOWER VRAM, in real usage, even if paper specs are the same.

 

Take 280 vs 285. RAW GPU performance of the 285 isnt THAT much stronger, GPU wise. But the improved data compression means that its 2GB of VRAM can hold up against the 3GB of the 280. The 280 simply "wastes" a lot of space. This waste do affect bandwidth.

 

Maxwells compression is even more efficient then the 300 series, so 2GB on the 950, the data that can be stored in lossless compressed form, would equal to somewhere around 2,5 to 3GB with the compression used in a 270X...

 

This is just how it is. No getting around it really. Nvidia DO cheap out on bandwidth and VRAM pool. Mostly because the efficient nature of their architecture allows them to cheap out on the actual hardware, a little bit.

[roikhan]

950 price?

not arrive yet,thats why i try to buy it online

[don_svetlio]

No it is not.

 

Compression affects the VRAM pool more then the bandwidth.

If you use your pool of VRAM (2GB in this case) poorly, then bad compression on one card vs another can cause you to effectivly have LOWER VRAM, in real usage, even if paper specs are the same.

 

Take 280 vs 285. RAW GPU performance of the 285 isnt THAT much stronger, GPU wise. But the improved data compression means that its 2GB of VRAM can hold up against the 3GB of the 280. The 280 simply "wastes" a lot of space. This waste do affect bandwidth.

 

Maxwells compression is even more efficient then the 300 series, so 2GB on the 950, the data that can be stored in lossless compressed form, would equal to somewhere around 2,5 to 3GB with the compression used in a 270X...

 

This is just how it is. No getting around it really. Nvidia DO cheap out on bandwidth and VRAM pool. Mostly because the efficient nature of their architecture allows them to cheap out on the actual hardware, a little bit.

I've not had issues thus far - max I've seen is 1.8 GB of VRAM used in Witcher 3

[roikhan]

I've not had issues thus far - max I've seen is 1.8 GB of VRAM used in Witcher 3

not sure why people say 2GB is not enough,my brother even play GTA V at High settings 900p with i3 and gtx 750 1gb with smooth 40+ fps

even the witcher 3 medium setting 900p 35-40 fps

[don_svetlio]

not sure why people say 2GB is not enough,my brother even play GTA V at High settings 900p with i3 and gtx 750 1gb with smooth 40+ fps

even the witcher 3 medium setting 900p 35-40 fps

2 GB is pushing it close to the limit now - Witcher 3 has a way of dealing with it as it won't render half the grass and foliage when you don't have the VRAM required - it will, however, be laggier - that game uses about 1300-1900 MB of VRAM normally @ medium settings and ultra settings respectively. 1 GB of 900p is not the end of the world but it's not enough - it's barely enough for 720p.

[don_svetlio]

[H4RDW4R3]

Hey guys which one is better for an odd reason they have a similar price point over here

get 950 its for around 160$ and its very close to 960 and faster than 270x

[roikhan]

just one game?

[don_svetlio]

its not the witcher 3,and its 1080p

Yes but it's still a valid benchmark

[roikhan]

gtx 950 surely better

[roikhan]

Yes but it's still a valid benchmark

this one also valid 

[othertomperson]

Yeah ill get  the 270X the extra stream processors and the 256bit memory BUS makes the difference

 

The 256 bit bus will make no difference because cards released more recently than the 7000 series (Nvidia or AMD since Tonga) use compression to improve memory performance rather than brute forcing it with hardware.

 

The above benchmarks are why I wish more sites would take a rigorous statistical approach to comparing graphics cards, btw. They should run each benchmark a few times, average the results, calculate the standard error and show the error bars over the bars. Then when the bars clearly overlap maybe people will stop seeing 1 or 2 fps differences and thinking that they categorically mean one is better than the other.

[don_svetlio]

this one also valid 

You mean to tell me the 950 outperforms my card even though everyone agrees the 280(7950) is slightly better than the 960? Please use benchmarks with the latest drivers, not ones from 2 years ago.

[othertomperson]

You mean to tell me the 950 outperforms my card even though everyone agrees the 280(7950) is slightly better than the 960? Please use benchmarks with the latest drivers, not ones from 2 years ago.

 

Those benchmarks are weird. One shows the 950 and the 960 being the same, the 280X and 285 are leapfrogging eachother by over 10 fps at times, and that Battlefield Hardline result where everything from a 7870 up to a 285 performs identically? I don't trust them.

[roikhan]

You mean to tell me the 950 outperforms my card even though everyone agrees the 280(7950) is slightly better than the 960? Please use benchmarks with the latest drivers, not ones from 2 years ago.

wait,when did i say 950 outperforms your card?? iknow your card is r9 280 and im sure its better than 950,

i was just showing some pict that the 950 outperforms the r9 270x not r9 280

[roikhan]

Those benchmarks are weird. One shows the 950 and the 960 being the same, the 280X and 285 are leapfrogging eachother by over 10 fps at times, and that Battlefield Hardline result where everything from a 7870 up to a 285 performs identically? I don't trust them.

so,what sould i trust? you?

[othertomperson]

so,what sould i trust? you?

 

lmao defensive. Nice. No, just apply some critical thinking to the benchmarks you're posting. Do they make logical sense? Maybe it's possible that Nvidia could have a 960 and a 950 and not have a difference between them. I find it unlikely though, they like money.

[don_svetlio]

wait,when did i say 950 outperforms your card?? iknow your card is r9 280 and im sure its better than 950,

i was just showing some pict that the 950 outperforms the r9 270x not r9 280

That's what the benchmarks show - look where the 7950 and 950 are

[roikhan]

That's what the benchmarks show - look where the 7950 and 950 are

950 migh be equal to the older 7950 because its newer,but there are no benchmark that showing 950 outperform the real r9 280