bogmaliPlay nice folks and keep this going without the name-calling/insults

You are correct, thanks. :) I just wish folks would see computer hardware as it is and not with red, green or blue tinted glasses.

When Nvidia introduced the Kepler (GTX 680) line, they did something different than they had in the past - they introduced the mid-range GPU first, albeit at the price of the previous high-end GPU. Brilliant marketing move. It allowed them to move the price scale up. No longer were they selling Gx204 GPU's for $260. Now they're selling GM204's for $550. When I read through a thread like this, I see that a lot of people don't seem to understand this. This GTX 960's "grandfather" is the GTS 450.
(please don't get picky with this list - I know there are some minor factual errors, but I've tried to compress as much as possible)
Gx200/210 - Nvidia high end: GTX 285 - 480/580 - 780/780 Ti
Gx204/214 - Nvidia mid range GTX 260 - 460/560 - 680/770 - 970/980
Gx206 - Nvidia entry: GTS 450 - GTX 550 - 660 - 960
... and that leaves the GTX 750/Ti. Notice that it's not SLI compatible? It belongs to the group that had the 8400GS - GT 210/220 - GT 440/530/630/730 (the 750 Ti is my pet peeve - is should cost less than $100)

It's easy to get lost in the numbers, so maybe think of it this way. What's been the difference between the mid-range cards and the high end cards since the GTX 2xx days? In most cases, it's been the settings that you could run a game at. You could get nearly identical FPS, just not at the same detail settings.
So,

buggalugsYep, disappointing. A mid range card should be able to run 4K in 2015. or at least 1440p.

..is right, but the GTX 960 is not a mid-range card. The 970/980 are, and can.

Presumably then it's the competition that need to up their game?

thebluebumblebeeWhen Nvidia introduced the Kepler (GTX 680) line, they did something different than they had in the past - they introduced the mid-range GPU first, albeit at the price of the previous high-end GPU. Brilliant marketing move. It allowed them to move the price scale up. No longer were they selling Gx204 GPU's for $260. Now they're selling GM204's for $550. When I read through a thread like this, I see that a lot of people don't seem to understand this. This GTX 960's "grandfather" is the GTS 450.
(please don't get picky with this list - I know there are some minor factual errors, but I've tried to compress as much as possible)
Gx200/210 - Nvidia high end: GTX 285 - 480/580 - 780/780 Ti
Gx204/214 - Nvidia mid range GTX 260 - 460/560 - 680/770 - 970/980
Gx206 - Nvidia entry: GTS 450 - GTX 550 - 660 - 960
... and that leaves the GTX 750/Ti. Notice that it's not SLI compatible? It belongs to the group that had the 8400GS - GT 210/220 - GT 440/530/630/730 (the 750 Ti is my pet peeve - is should cost less than $100)

It's easy to get lost in the numbers, so maybe think of it this way. What's been the difference between the mid-range cards and the high end cards since the GTX 2xx days? In most cases, it's been the settings that you could run a game at. You could get nearly identical FPS, just not at the same detail settings.
So,

..is right, but the GTX 960 is not a mid-range card. The 970/980 are, and can.

Well said. Nvidia confused a lot of people with the GTX 680 release and the fallout seems to be lingering even to this day.

ManofGodWOW, just WOW. The 128 Bit defense force it out is force today. :D Have to justify the decrepit 128 bit bus by calling others AMD fan boys. Shit, crap is crap whether someone likes it or not. The 128 bit but is from last decade and needs to be dropped on anything about $150. This card is low end at best compared to everything in its price range out there.

The 128 bit bus will quickly get overwhelmed with anything coming out in the next year or so. Sorry but, Nvidia pushed this crap just so people would buy their 970 GTX's instead. Otherwise, with a 256 bit bus, the 970 sales would be eaten into buy the 960.

As Baffles said, if you do not like it, do not buy it. For what it is, it is probably fine but, 128 bit bus is still very limiting.

That's just it, you're living in the last decade. This is new technology, and you really have to forget what you knew about bus-width and performance. The compression means that a 128 bit bus now acts the same as at LEAST a 192 bit bus. There's nothing wrong with this where it's aimed. The performance numbers so far show it between 760 and 770 performance. If it's also more energy efficient, it's a complete win, and they can replace the 760 in their lineup.

rtwjunkieThat's just it, you're living in the last decade. This is new technology, and you really have to forget what you knew about bus-width and performance. The compression means that a 128 bit bus now acts the same as at LEAST a 192 bit bus. There's nothing wrong with this where it's aimed. The performance numbers so far show it between 760 and 770 performance. If it's also more energy efficient, it's a complete win, and they can replace the 760 in their lineup.

There at 960Ti rumors as well that could fill in the gap between 960 and 970 even more so.

Dj-ElectriCtpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GeForce_GTX_980_G1_Gaming/images/perfrel_3840.gif
How much higher? 5K? 8K?

Calm down. I said in many cases. Maybe I should have said "some cases" so you don't explode. (I am just kidding)

Anyway, the fact is that, moving higher in resolution, narrows the difference between 980 and 290X. If you compare 970 and 290X i's even more obvious that the extra bandwidth helps the Radeon card. 970 is on top in the two lower resolutions and it loses at 1440p and 2160p. That's from the same page results where your chart is.

Now....





These numbers come from Tom and I think everyone knows how much they love AMD there.

Have a look at this
AnandTech | The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Review: Featuring EVGA - Print View
If you see the results there, the higher the resolution the less the advantage between the Nvidia cards and the AMD cards. More than that, in a couple of cases AMD cards are on top, and in a few more, Radeon cards have higher minimum frames which is maybe more important than average.
I think I wouldn't start spamming charts, you can follow the link.

This argument about bus width is - well - silly. I believe that bus width is a major factor in determining the cost of a video card. Look at my list above and you (if you research it) will notice similarities in the bus width for the different performance segments. Is Nvidia getting more performance out of the same bus width? I sure hope so! Think of it this way, if you were to go and buy a Ford F150 today, would you want a 1980's spec 5.0l or a current 3.6l Eco-boost?

Just noticed that the 960 and 750 Ti share the same bus width.

thebluebumblebeeWhen Nvidia introduced the Kepler (GTX 680) line, they did something different than they had in the past - they introduced the mid-range GPU first, albeit at the price of the previous high-end GPU. Brilliant marketing move. It allowed them to move the price scale up. No longer were they selling Gx204 GPU's for $260. Now they're selling GM204's for $550. When I read through a thread like this, I see that a lot of people don't seem to understand this. This GTX 960's "grandfather" is the GTS 450.
(please don't get picky with this list - I know there are some minor factual errors, but I've tried to compress as much as possible)
Gx200/210 - Nvidia high end: GTX 285 - 480/580 - 780/780 Ti
Gx204/214 - Nvidia mid range GTX 260 - 460/560 - 680/770 - 970/980
Gx206 - Nvidia entry: GTS 450 - GTX 550 - 660 - 960
... and that leaves the GTX 750/Ti. Notice that it's not SLI compatible? It belongs to the group that had the 8400GS - GT 210/220 - GT 440/530/630/730 (the 750 Ti is my pet peeve - is should cost less than $100)

It's easy to get lost in the numbers, so maybe think of it this way. What's been the difference between the mid-range cards and the high end cards since the GTX 2xx days? In most cases, it's been the settings that you could run a game at. You could get nearly identical FPS, just not at the same detail settings.
So,

..is right, but the GTX 960 is not a mid-range card. The 970/980 are, and can.

I guess though its really coming down to what is defined as a "High end" card. The problem being is that the definition has shifted from what we are used to in the past and now its can get quite confusing. Your chart is very accurate and it shows how NVidia has basically changed the definition of what they define as high end starting with the GTX 680. The problem is how do we define it anymore, are we going by the chips themselves, the performance, or how do we define it?

Mostly I feel its come down to a performance point, if they make a chip that can best their previous chip then they define it as the next high end chip and market it as such. The chips in the GTX 980/970 are the successors to the GTX 680/770 chip, however they best their previous high end chip (Well GTX 980 does) so to them that is now what is king. To add to that I think its also primarily because they do not want to release a new supremely high end GPU (GM 200 which they would rather work/tweak to make it better and have less problems or chance of problems) that would smoke their previous high volume of GPU's because if they did and released the GTX 980 as the 970 at a $300 price point (Just a random example or guesstimate) and the GM 200 as a GTX 980/980ti/titan in the ranges of $500-$1000 then who would buy the GTX 780's and below for any reasonable amount of money? I think its so they do not lose much profits off the previous cards while the clear them out and gain additional profits from chips that may not be the "highest end" of their new generation. Again that is just my speculation based on what I have read/seen.

FluffmeisterPresumably then it's the competition that need to up their game?

How about I retort to you the same thing? They didn't have much reason to best anything since the HD 7970 beat the GTX 580 by a significant amount and the HD 7970/R9 280X bested the GTX 680/770 so why would they bother as well using your logic.

64KWell said. Nvidia confused a lot of people with the GTX 680 release and the fallout seems to be lingering even to this day.

Yea because the problem is numbers/names can be more powerful to people than actual facts/specs. Most PC gamers that I see at LAN parties and such judge their cards (and other components) based more on higher numbers than anything. I think names play one of the most important roles in this area and that leads people to conclude that "Because the number/name is higher/better, it must be better".

MxPhenom 216There at 960Ti rumors as well that could fill in the gap between 960 and 970 even more so.

That is what I am betting on especially if they price this at $200, I would then guess a $250 dollar 960ti would be next.

The 960 is what it is, it may not have glorious specs and there are cards out there that are going to best it even around for the same money probably. But the fact is its being marketed as a middle ground card and is going to be defined as such whether or not the specs say otherwise because it will perform well in that area we define as the middle. This is just my opinion of course, but its going to be a good card for the 1080p gamer.

The issue of high versus mid end is not one of technology. Its chronological and price based. If brand A releases a product that is superior to brand B, as long as both are present at market simultaneously, it is 'high' end. You cannot define the contemporary leading product as mid end. It is high end.
When that brand manufacturer releases the faster version, the previous product can become mid range. Perfect example is the 680 as high end but with 780 (or arguably) Titan, it became the 770 and became mid range.
High end is a market definition, NOT a technological one.

thebluebumblebeeThis argument about bus width is - well - silly. I believe that bus width is a major factor in determining the cost of a video card. Look at my list above and you (if you research it) will notice similarities in the bus width for the different performance segments. Is Nvidia getting more performance out of the same bus width? I sure hope so! Think of it this way, if you were to go and buy a Ford F150 today, would you want a 1980's spec 5.0l or a current 3.6l Eco-boost?

Just noticed that the 960 and 750 Ti share the same bus width.

Well, considering how the responses to folks saying they were disappointed in the 128bit bus, I am not surprised this started turning into a crap fest. Hardware limit is still a hardware limit no matter what is done. Well, they had to cut cost somewhere and I guess this is where it happened.

I would still wait to see real benchmarks, with real games with the actual graphics card in question before saying anything. Obscure 3DMark results does not satisfy me in any way.

But that is me. :rolleyes:

MxPhenom 216There at 960Ti rumors as well that could fill in the gap between 960 and 970 even more so.

I'm almost certain that we will see another card between GTX 960 and GTX 970. The 960 is between a 760 and a 770 and the 970 is between a 780 and a 780Ti leaning towards the 780Ti side. There is a gap between the 770 and 780 that needs to be filled. They may call is a 960Ti or a 965.

GhostRyderHow about I retort to you the same thing? They didn't have much reason to best anything since the HD 7970 beat the GTX 580 by a significant amount and the HD 7970/R9 280X bested the GTX 680/770 so why would they bother as well using your logic.

I'm not the one that is getting hung up on chip code names, if the performance fits I couldn't give two shits where it sits in their current chip hierarchy.

Besides the GTX 580 was released in November 2010, with the 6970 failing to take the crown, it's no surprise a card coming over a year later and benefiting from a node shrink should be faster. Wizz concluded ~15% on average, so really not that exciting in the grand scheme of things.

The 280X and 770 appear neck and neck to me even now in Wizz latest reviews, so yeah. /shrug

$250-$300 That's the latest rumors.
Various AIB's Geforce GTX 960 Pictures and Preliminary Pricing Leaked - ASUS, Zotac and EVGA Included

thebluebumblebeeThis argument about bus width is - well - silly. I believe that bus width is a major factor in determining the cost of a video card. Look at my list above and you (if you research it) will notice similarities in the bus width for the different performance segments. Is Nvidia getting more performance out of the same bus width? I sure hope so! Think of it this way, if you were to go and buy a Ford F150 today, would you want a 1980's spec 5.0l or a current 3.6l Eco-boost?

Just noticed that the 960 and 750 Ti share the same bus width.

And the 750Ti, and fairly decent at 1080p for its price point.

john_$250-$300 That's the latest rumors.
Various AIB's Geforce GTX 960 Pictures and Preliminary Pricing Leaked - ASUS, Zotac and EVGA Included

At those prices its competing with AMD R9 280X & R9 290 and just replacing the GTX 770 in pricing. It has a better chance replacing GTX 760 in pricing $229-$259 but still goes up against the R9 280X.

I still think it need to be priced at $199 to compete with the R9 280 if those scores are any indication of the performance. 7 days.

john_$250-$300 That's the latest rumors.
Various AIB's Geforce GTX 960 Pictures and Preliminary Pricing Leaked - ASUS, Zotac and EVGA Included

Well, at those prices it wouldn't be very competitive to say the least, especially when another $40 at the top end buys a pretty well-specced 970.
Having said that, I seem to recall that the GTX 970's rumoured MSRP was $400almost right up until the card actually launched.

HumanSmokeWell, at those prices it wouldn't be very competitive to say the least, especially when another $40 at the top end buys a pretty well-specced 970.
Having said that, I seem to recall that the GTX 970's rumoured MSRP was $400almost right up until the card actually launched.

I think we are best just awaiting next week to see. :D

FluffmeisterI'm not the one that is getting hung up on chip code names, if the performance fits I couldn't give two shits where it sits in their current chip hierarchy.

Besides the GTX 580 was released in November 2010, with the 6970 failing to take the crown, it's no surprise a card coming over a year later and benefiting from a node shrink should be faster. Wizz concluded ~15% on average, so really not that exciting in the grand scheme of things.

The 280X and 770 appear neck and neck to me even now in Wizz latest reviews, so yeah. /shrug

So again comparing a card released a year later is not ok yet you talk about it constantly and make references to cards spaced a year out??? On top of that if 15% average is not that interesting then why is less than 15% interesting now?

XzibitAt those prices its competing with AMD R9 280X & R9 290 and just replacing the GTX 770 in pricing. It has a better chance replacing GTX 760 in pricing $229-$259 but still goes up against the R9 280X.

I still think it need to be priced at $199 to compete with the R9 280 if those scores are any indication of the performance. 7 days.

I agree, though to be fair benchmarks are only the top in my book as I prefer seeing the actual games running them before I make judgments. As long as its priced accordingly its going to be a good value but who knows until the actual release.

john_$250-$300 That's the latest rumors.
Various AIB's Geforce GTX 960 Pictures and Preliminary Pricing Leaked - ASUS, Zotac and EVGA Included

I hope it is not that close to $300...Dang that would be a terrible value pitted against the GTX 970. $250 to me would be pushing it honestly, though I maybe judging to early until I see its actual performance.

Just my opinion but $250 is too much for a card coming in between a GTX 760 and a GTX 770. Reason being that you can pick up a R9 290 for $10 or $15 more that outperforms a GTX 770 by ~15%

You so silly that's all resolutions we don't even know if it will be able to handle anything above 1080p

64KJust my opinion but $250 is too much for a card coming in between a GTX 760 and a GTX 770. Reason being that you can pick up a R9 290 for $10 or $15 more that outperforms a GTX 770 by ~15%

You know how the replys will go.

FluffmeisterWizz concluded ~15% on average, so really not that exciting in the grand scheme of things.

Fluffmeister... the GTX 580 was released in November 2010, with the 6970 failing to take the crown, it's no surprise a card coming over a year later and benefiting from a node shrink should be faster. Wizz concluded ~15% on average, so really not that exciting in the grand scheme of things.

To that History... The database is showing both at 40nm! The GTX 580 showed Nov 9th, 2010 (520 mm²)/ 6970 Dec 14th, 2010 (389 mm²). While the 6970 showed a month after the GTX580, yes didn't take the "crown", but it took its thunder. At 2560x1600 it was like 10% less, although MSRP'd for 25% less, offering 12% better Perf/W, and 15% Perf/$. So it did more to "raise the bar" in ways that at that time folk didn't seem as eager to tout, in today’s thinking many are consider that as a Win!

XzibitYou so silly that's all resolutions we don't even know if it will be able to handle anything above 1080p



You know how the replys will go.

I doubt that this card is targeted at anything above 1080p.

It's a bit more tedious to post multiple resolutions but ok here you go










The GTX 960 will undoubtedly fall somewhere between the GTX 760 and GTX 770. If the price point is $250 then the R9 290 for $10 to $15 more will be the better deal.

64KI doubt that this card is targeted at anything above 1080p.

It's a bit more tedious to post multiple resolutions but ok here you go

The GTX 960 will undoubtedly fall somewhere between the GTX 760 and GTX 770. If the price point is $250 then the R9 290 for $10 to $15 more will be the better deal.

Sorry, I know what you meant I was just making light of it. Sarcasm and dry sense of humor doesn't come across in text.

If the price is $200+ it will be 750/Ti again. Focus will be on power consumption rather then price/performance. On Nvidia side it will be seen as a bargain because performance/prices of 600 & 700 similar cards are much higher.