Nvidia to Discontinue 2GB Versions of the Geforce GTX 960 – 4GB Version Better Suited to Deal with the R9 380

[patrickjp93]

Let me see if I understand :

• usualy AMD has 2 cards to compete with 1 NVIDIA card - except on the top tier;
• The criteria of choosing the pairs is based on suiting some odd logic (yours)? Is it because it suits you? Like you said, Price it's not for sure, and performance neither;
• Nano is alone - yet the 970 mini is no where to be found... not sure why it's not alone.

You are so predictable lol:

AMD has more SKUs. Nothing I can do about that. Because the 970 mini is a less powerful 970. If you had a 980TI mini we'd have something to discuss.

[Misanthrope]

AMD has more SKUs. Nothing I can do about that. Because the 970 mini is a less powerful 970. If you had a 980TI mini we'd have something to discuss.

 

You can look at the pricing of the cards to see what are they're aiming to compete with: none of this 380/x/ vs 970 nonsense.

[bogus]

AMD has more SKUs. Nothing I can do about that. Because the 970 mini is a less powerful 970. If you had a 980TI mini we'd have something to discuss.

So your tiers criteria is based on the number of SKUs?

Help us out patrick! We are trying to understand this!

[QueenDemetria]

And you approach the problem the wrong way. I have $100 and a less than stellar experience. Can $100 buy me an experience that is better and will last so I'm not spending more than I have to long term, or would it be better to save up more money and/or wait for prices to drop? Buying for the immediate term is the wrong way to approach the market.

My point------------------>>

Your head

Spending $100 on a GPU and its performance level wasn't my point, to make it clear my point is: "I have X amount of money, for X whats the best card I can get" Which means whether its budget, flagship, swagship, if card A is better than B at the same price(regardless of any other factor), then card A is the one to get(better).

Fury/X vs. 980TI/Titan X

R9 Nano (kind of its own thing)

390/X vs 980

380/X vs 970

370X vs 960

370. vs 950

360 and down vs 750 and down (at which point, why bother?)

And you made this up? AMD and Nvidia dont get together in a meeting and are like " so your 380 should be in the same tier as our 970, but we should really mess with the consumer and use different price and performance points for this so-called tier".

 

Lets compare Nvidias flagship(Titan) vs AMDs(FuryX). Are the considered flagships since they are best of their class? Yes. But are they really comparable GPU's? No, the Fury X really competes with a lower end card from Nvida(980ti) it terms of both price and performance, which really skews your tier system doesn't it?

[MrTiC]

They should bring out an 960TI 4GB imho, with a 256bit bus and  1152 cuda cores at a 225-249$ price point.

Only then i would be intrested, 

[QueenDemetria]

You can look at the pricing of the cards to see what are they're aiming to compete with: none of this 380/x/ vs 970 nonsense.

"Hi I'm new to PC, should I buy 970 or 380" -No one ever.

[QueenDemetria]

They should bring out an 960TI 4GB imho, with a 256bit bus and  1152 cuda cores at a 225-249$ price point.

Only then i would be intrested, 

A TI variant would be so cool, I'd sell my 750ti for it.

[Misanthrope]

They should bring out an 960TI 4GB imho, with a 256bit bus and  1152 cuda cores at a 225-249$ price point.

Only then i would be intrested, 

 

Thats precisely what they need to do: a 960 ti

[patrickjp93]

You can look at the pricing of the cards to see what are they're aiming to compete with: none of this 380/x/ vs 970 nonsense.

Somewhat pointless. Nvidia has historically been the better long-term investment when buying cards going from the GT 8800/9800 days up to the 700 series. I base my decisions on more than initial purchase prices. A $500 card that lasts me 5 years moving from a great experience to a less than good but still acceptable one at the end is worth more to me than buying 5 $100 cards one year after another. Had we gotten the 480 instead of the 570, I'd be on my 5th year having the same experience. Basing everything on initial purchase prices is idiotic from both a financial and economic standpoint.

[patrickjp93]

My point------------------>>

Your head

Spending $100 on a GPU and its performance level wasn't my point, to make it clear my point is: "I have X amount of money, for X whats the best card I can get" Which means whether its budget, flagship, swagship, if card A is better than B at the same price(regardless of any other factor), then card A is the one to get(better).

And you made this up? AMD and Nvidia dont get together in a meeting and are like " so your 380 should be in the same tier as our 970, but we should really mess with the consumer and use different price and performance points for this so-called tier".

 

Lets compare Nvidias flagship(Titan) vs AMDs(FuryX). Are the considered flagships since they are best of their class? Yes. But are they really comparable GPU's? No, the Fury X really competes with a lower end card from Nvida(980ti) it terms of both price and performance, which really skews your tier system doesn't it?

Don't bother buying until you weigh all the variables. Why spend now if you don't absolutely have to if you can stretch to get a better experience and save money down the road? I'm like an economist arguing against a financier. You're not taking your opportunity costs into consideration, so you're making blind decisions.

[don_svetlio]

Somewhat pointless. Nvidia has historically been the better long-term investment when buying cards going from the GT 8800/9800 days up to the 700 series. I base my decisions on more than initial purchase prices. A $500 card that lasts me 5 years moving from a great experience to a less than good but still acceptable one at the end is worth more to me than buying 5 $100 cards one year after another. Had we gotten the 480 instead of the 570, I'd be on my 5th year having the same experience. Basing everything on initial purchase prices is idiotic from both a financial and economic standpoint.

Nvidia the best long term solution? Le KEK

*cough* 7970 kicking a 960's ass all the way to kingdom come? *cough*

The 480 was the single most terrible card ever produced and you base your argument on that? REALLY?

Basing purchases on price:performance is idiotic? you just insulted 99% of the world.

[Misanthrope]

Somewhat pointless. Nvidia has historically been the better long-term investment when buying cards going from the GT 8800/9800 days up to the 700 series. I base my decisions on more than initial purchase prices. A $500 card that lasts me 5 years moving from a great experience to a less than good but still acceptable one at the end is worth more to me than buying 5 $100 cards one year after another. Had we gotten the 480 instead of the 570, I'd be on my 5th year having the same experience. Basing everything on initial purchase prices is idiotic from both a financial and economic standpoint.

 

Looking at the price of competing products is pointless? Ok then!

 

But seriously, AMD is infamous for rebadging and "refreshing" old chips. Their entire business is predicated on cutting prices aggressively not necessarily coming up with new tech, which they obviously can't afford to do constantly when it comes to R&D budget. In fact Nvidia does this too as well: next generation might only see Pascal cards as the top tier and they could re purpose maxwell chips for all mid range cards 980 becomes 1070, 970 becomes 1060, etc.

[SteveGrabowski0]

I'm kinda glad I didn't wait for the 960 for that reason alone lol, the 760 is a better GPU in basically every way. More cores, wider memory bus, greater memory bandwidth, 3-way SLI support (due to the GK104 core), slightly better performance, the only way the 960 is better is in power consumption and heat output and the 760 is neither a power-hungry nor a hot GPU to begin with.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 760 still outputs a decent amount of heat, but it's not a hot GPU at all. Or, at least, the specific model I have isn't anyway.

 

Why would you want 3 way SLI when it sucks even for Titans?

[don_svetlio]

Looking at the price of competing products is pointless? Ok then!

 

But seriously, AMD is infamous for rebadging and "refreshing" old chips. Their entire business is predicated on cutting prices aggressively not necessarily coming up with new tech, which they obviously can't afford to do constantly when it comes to R&D budget. In fact Nvidia does this too as well: next generation might only see Pascal cards as the top tier and they could re purpose maxwell chips for all mid range cards 980 becomes 1070, 970 becomes 1060, etc.

Actualy - Nvidia did that waaaay before AMD. The GTX 8000 became the GTX 9000 and some became the GTX 200 series.

[patrickjp93]

Nvidia the best long term solution? Le KEK

*cough* 7970 kicking a 960's ass all the way to kingdom come? *cough*

The 480 was the single most terrible card ever produced and you base your argument on that? REALLY?

Basing purchases on price:performance is idiotic? you just insulted 99% of the world.

Does it insult 99% of the world that the 1% make more money and are smarter?

You're twisting what I'm saying. Using that as your only purchase metric is idiotic! You can even prove this mathematically. If I buy a 390X instead of a 980 and the AMD dies with no one to support the card 6 months later, was it really intelligent to just buy on the price/performance ratio if I could see AMD dying from 10 leagues away?

[Misanthrope]

Actualy - Nvidia did that waaaay before AMD. The GTX 8000 became the GTX 9000 and some became the GTX 200 series.

 

Right is standard practice, which is why I said that we need to look at the pricing to compare cards. Maybe I should clarify current pricing not launch pricing (the 290x launched at a much higher price than the 390x is now) 

[patrickjp93]

Looking at the price of competing products is pointless? Ok then!

 

But seriously, AMD is infamous for rebadging and "refreshing" old chips. Their entire business is predicated on cutting prices aggressively not necessarily coming up with new tech, which they obviously can't afford to do constantly when it comes to R&D budget. In fact Nvidia does this too as well: next generation might only see Pascal cards as the top tier and they could re purpose maxwell chips for all mid range cards 980 becomes 1070, 970 becomes 1060, etc.

Again, not what I said, read post directly above this... Sheesh you people have no attention spans...

[don_svetlio]

Does it insult 99% of the world that the 1% make more money and are smarter?

You're twisting what I'm saying. Using that as your only purchase metric is idiotic! You can even prove this mathematically. If I buy a 390X instead of a 980 and the AMD dies with no one to support the card 6 months later, was it really intelligent to just buy on the price/performance ratio if I could see AMD dying from 10 leagues away? 

So I should spend more for less on the off chance that the company dies? okay

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Somewhat pointless. Nvidia has historically been the better long-term investment when buying cards going from the GT 8800/9800 days up to the 700 series. I base my decisions on more than initial purchase prices. A $500 card that lasts me 5 years moving from a great experience to a less than good but still acceptable one at the end is worth more to me than buying 5 $100 cards one year after another. Had we gotten the 480 instead of the 570, I'd be on my 5th year having the same experience. Basing everything on initial purchase prices is idiotic from both a financial and economic standpoint.

 

Hmm... Not what I expected coming from you. 

[don_svetlio]

I'm right and arguing against a bunch of defensive keyboard warriors whose egos and ideals are being challenged, making them more irrational.

Wow, you really believe it, don't you?

 

Hmm... Not what I expected coming from you. 

He got proven wrong so many times here it's hilarious

[don_svetlio]

So just to be clear - you are saying "buying anything other than Nvidia is irrational?" Welp - that made my day

[patrickjp93]

So I should spend more for less on the off chance that the company dies? okay

You might make more money but I seriously doubt you being smarter than anyone in here.

My premise is that you spend more for more, not more for less. The 980 will last 5 years. The 390X? I highly doubt it. Even if Intel bought Radeon they'd never support the old AMD cards. LukaP is the only one in this community who might have intelligence equal to mine. Knowledge will differ on any multitude of subjects, but as for intelligence, I am smarter than nearly all of you, certainly than everyone who's posted since this began. Svetlio doesn't know what constitutes a proof, you don't understand the difference between all-or-nothing and supplementation arguments, and Queen doesn't understand the difference between long-term and short term metrics. The proof sits in this thread that I am smarter than all of you. If you'd like to demonstrate otherwise, quit the pissing match and start arguing.

[patrickjp93]

So just to be clear - you are saying "buying anything other than Nvidia is irrational?" Welp - that made my day

No, I'm saying that if you buy AMD solely for their price to performance ratio, you're irrational.

[Misanthrope]

Does it insult 99% of the world that the 1% make more money and are smarter?

You're twisting what I'm saying. Using that as your only purchase metric is idiotic! You can even prove this mathematically. If I buy a 390X instead of a 980 and the AMD dies with no one to support the card 6 months later, was it really intelligent to just buy on the price/performance ratio if I could see AMD dying from 10 leagues away? 

 

1) The people on the 1% actually don't even work to make money. They just live off interests and savings alone. The top 10% might have a bit more people with actual skills and high intelligence as you allude to, thought you'd be surprised to find that this is rarely the case: brilliant people in science, engineering, medicine, etc. are often criminally underpaid

 

2) I see your point a bit better, however I also think that you should look at specific vendors and specific custom cooling solutions. I have never seen people recommend a reference 290x but I see most people recommend a sapphire or MSI 390x simply because their added value and cooling solutions are way better. Now I do concede that ultimately, the best choice for durability and longevity right now would be a reputable vendor with a mid range Maxwell chip, absolutely. 

 

However I'll give you another dimension to this argument that we should consider: the people buying it. Now if you have someone buying a mid range card like a 960 or an R9 380, the kind of guy that builds a budget build and can only afford a 200ish USD card is the kind of person that like you say, will probably use this card for like 5 or 6 years.

 

Someone who is buying a 980 or a 390x or higher however, are more likely enthusiasts building 900-1500 rigs. They are actually likely to upgrade their GPU within 2 or 3 years tops. People on the high end? Well they probably update yearly so longevity is really not something they're concerned about and you kinda see Nvidia and card manufacturers recognize this by promoting really aggressive overclocking on the high end cards only: if you can afford 600-800 bucks for a GPU you can probably afford to update a lot more often and deal with less longevity.

 

So if you consider that, the 390x even if it's shorted lived, makes more sense still than a 980.

[QueenDemetria]

Don't bother buying until you weigh all the variables. Why spend now if you don't absolutely have to if you can stretch to get a better experience and save money down the road? I'm like an economist arguing against a financier. You're not taking your opportunity costs into consideration, so you're making blind decisions.

Let me break down your tier system:

You have a 390(both non X and X) and 980 on the same tier correct? So, how are they on the same tier if they are in different price and performance, with the 980 being significantly higher in both categories(Ignoring features, that's subject to change, and beside the point). Then, let me ask you those very same questions for every "tier" in your system. 

 

Would it not make sense to have 970 = 390(x) since they have similar performance and cost? If so then do tell.

 

Like I previously implied, AMD and nvidia classify their cards differently, thus busting your tier system. You cant compare model numbers, they dont mean anything in the real world, but price and performance do.