# ASUS GeForce GTX 950 STRIX OC 2 GB



## W1zzard (Aug 18, 2015)

The ASUS GTX 950 STRIX comes overclocked out of the box and features an extremely quiet dual-fan cooling solution that makes the card quieter than whisper-quiet during heavy gaming. In idle or light gaming, the fans will stop completely for a perfect noise-free experience.

*Show full review*


----------



## bug (Aug 20, 2015)

I'm not sure why would anyone get this when they can spend $10 more and get the 960.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 20, 2015)

I'd buy the Zotac AMP edition and replace my R9 270X, just for the energy savings over the two years I'd keep it, as well as a reduction in heat, it's performance is slightly better too.


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 20, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> I'd buy the Zotac AMP edition and replace my R9 270X, just for the energy savings over the two years I'd keep it, as well as a reduction in heat, it's performance is slightly better too.



Why!!! for $10 more you can get a *960**. *If you don't mind rebates you can get a *960 for the same price.*


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 20, 2015)

Asus needs a reality check when it comes to pricing. It seems they believe they have products that are so superior to other vendors they can price so high. The 980ti Strix was initially more expensive (in UK) than the EVGA Classified version and the Classified arguably has more going for it.
Get real Asus, you're not 'that' good.


----------



## SASBehrooz (Aug 20, 2015)

Whats the point of buying R9 370 anyway....


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 20, 2015)

Sorry knowing there's no Nvidia reference the $160 is just an arbitrary MSRP, the additional $20 for a STRIX is a huge upcharge. Heck even $170 for these seem expensive for what today is mainstream 1080p.   Power usage is nothing to tout, 25% less than a 270X or 20% Perf/W.   Also I'd like to see the R9 285 power numbers in the graphs, it's in the Performance per Watt section. 

I see AMD dropping the R7 370 from $150 (always was a bad price) to $130, and the R9 370X will be $160 for many 2Gb customs, while perhaps 4Gb variants for $180.

Find it odd that not one vendor has offered a R9 380 for TPU to review, and it's unfortunate as we still see a result from that one Sapphire 285, that when it was test seemed to provide weird power numbers.  Although, to W1zzard defense the numbers seemed to vary, but that 285 review had the Sapphire 48% higher than a reference GTX 760, the highest I've come across.

Here are power numbers for 285's more reviews offered, more often 12-17% higher than a reference GTX 760. Though these two reviews show it just a couple of watts (2-3%) more.
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.ph...odelle-der-radeon-r9-285-im-test.html?start=5
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-285-tonga,3925-11.html

Even Brent Justice at [H] has on of the next highest, 23% above a reference GTX 760.
http://hardocp.com/article/2014/09/02/msi_radeon_r9_285_gaming_oc_video_card_review/10#.VdYJqJ3n8m5


----------



## DarkOCean (Aug 20, 2015)

pretty bad cards for the money, more than the 960 already was...
 so is this a 1,5 gb 96bit 24 rop card in reality seeing it castrated by 25%?


----------



## EpicShweetness (Aug 20, 2015)

Have to agree the base MSRP of $160 is just not justifiable for the performance that an extra $20-40 will get you. They need to bring the card down to $140 at the *most*, I would consider this card for my media computer (replacing a 650ti BOOST) for that price. Even the I bought the 650ti BOOST for $130, its just not priced well.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 21, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> Why!!! for $10 more you can get a *960**. *If you don't mind rebates you can get a *960 for the same price.*


For the same reasons I already stated.
The 960 is faster, but uses more power, I don't mind the current performance level of my card, but I would like to reduce power consumption.
Faster is not always better, especially at 1080p I don't need faster.


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 21, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> For the same reasons I already stated.
> The 960 is faster, but uses more power, I don't mind the current performance level of my card, but I would like to reduce power consumption.
> Faster is not always better, especially at 1080p I don't need faster.



What!?! 



Caring1 said:


> I'd buy the Zotac AMP edition and replace my R9 270X, just for the energy savings over the two years I'd keep it, as well as a reduction in heat, it's performance is slightly better too.



You want to buy a card that uses 1watt less but dismiss the option of getting a more powerful card that uses less for the same price.  












Can't argue with that logic.


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 21, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> For the same reasons I already stated.
> The 960 is faster, but uses more power, I don't mind the current performance level of my card, but I would like to reduce power consumption.
> Faster is not always better, especially at 1080p I don't need faster.


Remember that perceived "savings" only happen when gaming, you'd have to play 24/7 to perceive anything on a power bill.  In reality your machine is probably sleeping upward of 18 hrs.' a day.  AMD's ZeroCore reduces power usage like 4-7W all the time your computer is sleeping.  TechReport is the only review site that provides this information, and while they've yet to load their GTX 950 review here's the numbers for GTX 960's.  Being efficient is one thing, although having such vampire loads "suckle" all the time when it’s not doing anything, bears much more inexcusable.

http://techreport.com/review/27702/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-graphics-card-reviewed/11

For me when I want to drive hard I don't cry about gas mileage... I want to go!  However if that car is in the drive and leaks a puddle of gas over-night... every night, no one in their right mind would stand for that.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 23, 2015)

FYI: ZeroCore is only active when your monitor is off and there is nothing drawing to the screen while the monitor is off


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 24, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> FYI: ZeroCore is only active when your monitor is off and there is nothing drawing to the screen while the monitor is off


So, the monitor has to be physically turned off at the button?  Not in a stand-by as what happens in M-S power option where it indicates "turn off the display" after XX minutes?


----------



## rruff (Aug 24, 2015)

bug said:


> I'm not sure why would anyone get this when they can spend $10 more and get the 960.



The retail price is $40 lower, and at that delta, the 950 is a better deal (FPS/$). I suspect we will see plenty of 950s for <$120 and 960s for <$150 in a couple months.

This card makes more sense in some ways than the 960 because memory limitations are less of an issue. And no, the 4GB 960 doesn't solve that. The bandwidth is still a limiter.

Comparing the TPU tests of this card vs its 960 brother: The 960 delivers 16% more performance @1080p, 1 W* less* idle power consumption (8W vs 9W), and 114W vs 95W at average load.

Comparing to the Asus 750 Ti: The 950 delivers 38% more performance @1080p, 1W more at idle, and 95W vs 60W at average load.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 25, 2015)

Casecutter said:


> So, the monitor has to be physically turned off at the button?  Not in a stand-by as what happens in M-S power option where it indicates "turn off the display" after XX minutes?


Monitor standby is ok, what I mean was that the monitor can not show any picture.


----------

