Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NVIDIA Launches $159 Mainstream Maxwell-Based GeForce GTX 950

Posted by timothy on from the but-it-barely-fits-in-my-laptop! dept.

MojoKid writes: NVIDIA is launching a new mainstream graphics card today, the GeForce GTX 950, based on the company's GM206 GPU. The GM206 debuted on the GeForce GTX 960, which launched a few months back. As the new card's name suggests though, the GM206 used on the GeForce GTX 950 isn't quite as powerful as the one used on the GTX 960. The company is targeting this card at MOBA (massive online battle arena) players, who don't necessarily need the most powerful GPUs on the market, but want smooth, consistent framerates at resolutions of 1080p or below. It's being positioned as a significant, yet affordable, upgrade over cards like the GeForce GTX 650 Ti, that are a couple of generations old. NVIDIA's reference specifications for the GeForce GTX 950 call for a base clock of 1024MHz and a Boost clock of 1188MHz. The GPU is packing 768 CUDA cores, 48 texture units, and 32 ROPs. The 2GB of video memory on GeForce GTX 950 cards is clocked at a 6.6GHz (effective GDDR5 data rate) and the memory links to the GPU via a 128-bit interface. At those clocks, the GeForce GTX 950 offers up a peak textured fillrate of 49.2 GTexels/s and 105.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. At a $159 starting MSRP, in the benchmarks, the GeForce GTX 950 offers solid entry level or midrange performance at 1080p resolutions. It's a bit faster than AMD's Radeon R9 270X but comes in just behind a Radeon R9 285.

85 comments

  1. Press Release by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

    n/t

  2. Is this better? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think the number on my card is 970.
    This is 950.

    Are smaller numbers better than bigger numbers? Or is this an older card that they've kept in a box for a year before revealing to the world?

    How would this improve my life?

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Is this better? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Are smaller numbers better than bigger numbers? Or is this an older card that they've kept in a box for a year before revealing to the world?

      How would this improve my life?

      It would improve your life by saving you $150 over the more expensive card.

      If you want to play next-gen PC games though, it's not going to do much. It seems like every AAA title now requires at least a 960, and many recommend (amazingly to me) a Titan in the system specs.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Is this better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Guide to understanding Nvidia video card models:

      First number is the series, basically the generation of the card
      Second number is the tier, basically its performance in context with other cards in that series, the bigger that number the better

      The letters are the "quality" and go
      SE/LE - Very low
      GS - Low
      GSO - Below GT but above GS
      GT - Standard/Normal
      GTS - Good
      GTO - Usually a binned GTX, High
      GTX - Very high
      Ultra - Usually an OC'd GTX
      GX2 - 2 GPU's

    3. Re:Is this better? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Within a given manufacturer (nVidia / AMD), a higher number within the same generation is better.

      The 970 is better than the 950. A lot better.
      The 980 is better than the 970. The 980 Ti is better than the 980. The 123 Ti SC or SSC or FTW or whatever shit different vendors sell are all 123 Tis, but with varying stock clocks, PCB designs, and cooling designs. The key difference between these variants are overclocking ability, noise/power levels, aesthetics, and manufacturer warranties / free games / trade-in programs. Read reviews to compare these.

      Both AMD and nVidia change up what their "flagship" moniker (x800, x900, x80, x90, x970, Titan, Fury, etc.) is and what the modifiers (GT, GTX, Ultra, X, Z, Pro, XT, etc.) are and how they rank.

      Sometimes you get a case where a later card is released that is better than the flagship in the same generation, or a much better value. Consider nVidia's 8800 GT vs the 8800 GTX or 8800 Ultra. The GT came later and was really fucking cheap while giving comparable performance. Too bad they were all defective (bumpgate). The 980 Ti is basically the same as the new Titan but for a fraction of the cost. It often outperforms the full Titan, and the non-reference designs that vendors put out overclock like crazy and blow the Titan away.

    4. Re:Is this better? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the number on my card is 970. This is 950. Are smaller numbers better than bigger numbers?

      For your wallet, in general yes. Also for your power bill.

      Or is this an older card that they've kept in a box for a year before revealing to the world?

      It's basically the same technology as the 970, on a chip half the size.

      How would this improve my life?

      Judging by the inaneness of your post, the only way is up.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Is this better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anymore, everything seems to be just a GTX {generation}{tier}0, with or without a "Ti" (process-improved mid-generation-performance-bump variant with lower power consumption and/or higher clock speed). Word got around about the grading codes, and nobody would shell out more than $50 for anything below GTX. That happened back in generation "2" (which was at least the second generation-2 that I know of, the first being the original GeForce 2 series, making this one more like generation 11 or 12). They've kept a few binned parts available at the sub-$50 level as GT{whatever}'s, but they're universally clearance parts from a previous generation.

    6. Re:Is this better? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It may not make a difference, depends where the bottleneck is on your machine. My ~2yo 750 on an i7 has no trouble with games, I also have a 550 on an i5 with an SSD. User experience for games on both is good, no problems with frame rates. Before installing the SSD on the i5 it had no hope of keeping up with the i7, now it is hard to tell the difference without checking the frame rate numbers.

      My current beef is with the laws of physics and human ingenuity, neither will allow the ping time from Oz to US/EU game server to drop below ~200ms.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Is this better? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      I have found the current Nvidia 750 Ti to be quite effective, quiet, not much power drawn and does the job, quite a surprise value card.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:Is this better? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I feel the same about my R9 280 which according to TFA is better than this card, has a GB more RAM and cost $30 less so I really have to wonder what the market for this thing is.

      I mean sure there are always gonna be guys loyal to the brand that will buy it no matter what but most mainstream gamers I've dealt with? Just looking for the most bang for the buck and if they keep that price point the R9 280 is just a better buy, they really need to drop the price by $30-$40 so that it comes in below the 280 to make it a better deal.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:Is this better? by savuporo · · Score: 1

      I think you are reading too much into it. There really is no face on Mars.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    10. Re:Is this better? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      go slit your fucking wrists fucktard

      -TechyImmigrant (175943)

      You seem angry. Perhaps you should seek anger management classes.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    11. Re:Is this better? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Get one of those 2k screens and suddenly you have a desire for an insanely powerful card just so that you can get beyond 30Hz refresh.

      My current beef is with the laws of physics and human ingenuity, neither will allow the ping time from Oz to US/EU game server to drop below ~200ms.

      The problem is more managerial. Internode and others offered Blizzard dirt cheap hosting in Australia but the policy was that an extra site added more complications and that ~200ms did not appear to be costing customers.

    12. Re:Is this better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...aaand this one doesn't improve too much over that. Slightly more power use, bit more 3D performance, supports some new shiny things that are going to be used in applications in a few years when this card is probably already obsolete. No reason to upgrade. This is mostly a budget card for someone upgrading from 2-3 years older cards.

    13. Re:Is this better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree. And the 750 and 750Ti ARE Maxwell cards unlike the rest of the 7xx series which are Kepler.

      These 750s are so fast with a low power draw that they're great for rescuing old systems without having to even add a new power supply. The only trouble is finding a motherboard with a PCIe gen 2 slot (gen 3 makes virtually no difference) oriented and positioned so as to accommodate the card.

      The best gaming on the cheap deal out there is taking an old refurbished Quad Core Xeon with HT (or a high end Core 2 Quad if you can find one) and pairing it with a GTX 750 or 750Ti.

    14. Re:Is this better? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have found the current Nvidia 750 Ti to be quite effective, quiet, not much power drawn and does the job, quite a surprise value card.

      That's how I feel about it. I can play most games that I play at decent frame rates with everything maxed out at 1920x1200. Sometimes I have to turn down some shadow detail or disable antialiasing to get good results, but at this resolution the AA is no great loss. I'll likely pick up a 950 when I can get one for $120 with 2GB of RAM or more, which is what I paid for my 750 with 1GB.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Meh... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll wait five years to pick up this card for $50 and buy this year's video games for $5 each on Steam.

    1. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll wait five years to pick up this card for $50 and buy this year's video games for $5 each on Steam.

      You too? I have started Fallout III last week after magic 300h passed on Napoleon Total War. Both are playable on C2Q 6600 and GF 9800GT

    2. Re:Meh... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why pay $60 per video game when Steam will eventually have them on sale for $5 or less? I can get 12 older games for the price of a brand new game. Video cards are no different.

    3. Re:Meh... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      personally I buy what I want to play at the time not wait 5 years to try and hopefully save $50. that may be a $5 game or a $60 game just released. $60 isn't a lot to pay for something I will spend many many hours on. cheaper than going to the movies and most other forms of entertainment I engage in. I find gaming saves me money as I would be spending far more on other activities.

    4. Re:Meh... by adolf · · Score: 1, Troll

      personally I don't spend a lot of money on digital entertainment.

      Let's do some math:

      $5 Steam or GOG/Humble game + $0 for my garbage-score Radeon HD4800-ish 1GB card == $5 for lots of digital entertainment.

      $60 game + $150 video card == $210 for lots of digital entertainment.

      $210 - $5 == $205.

      And $205 is just enough to take my ridiculously-attractive lady friend on a cheap night out of town and enjoy a few guaranteed hours of pornstar sex.

      To me, the choice is obvious. But I guess others have different priorities in life.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    5. Re:Meh... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I'll wait five years to pick up this card for $50 and buy this year's video games for $5 each on Steam.

      You too? I have started Fallout III last week after magic 300h passed on Napoleon Total War. Both are playable on C2Q 6600 and GF 9800GT

      I thought everyone does that. I just filter for sub $10.00.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re:Meh... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      personally I buy what I want to play at the time not wait 5 years to try and hopefully save $50. that may be a $5 game or a $60 game just released. $60 isn't a lot to pay for something I will spend many many hours on. cheaper than going to the movies and most other forms of entertainment I engage in. I find gaming saves me money as I would be spending far more on other activities.

      I find that there is an unlimited supply of steam games to play at any time and it's no hardship to find a cheap one when I'm done with the last one. I think I paid full price for the last Bioshock, but that's because I'd run through the previous two and it was in the series. Stupid ending though.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    7. Re:Meh... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Yes. I have far too many unplayed Steam games I bought for $2-5 in sales to have to rush out and buy new ones. I do sometimes buy games at release, but only a very small number that I really want to play now.

    8. Re:Meh... by pepty · · Score: 2

      I was never a big gamer - probably because what I want most from a game is to be amazed, or at least surprised. The vertigo from stepping onto the bridge in Half Life 2 - stuff like that. Some of those moments do require a moderately decent setup, and for that the ~$150 price point for GPUs has generally fit the bill for FPS games for quite some time now.

    9. Re:Meh... by epyT-R · · Score: 0

      $205 for a few orgasms from a late 30s/mid 40s age wife is way overpriced.

    10. Re:Meh... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Despite what you supposedly learned never to do again, you went in for round 2? These days, I suspect living at home with mom would be the better deal. Certainly less risky, financially, and with less drama, leaving you with more spare time. Of course, your false dichotomy leaves out other obvious options like avoiding round 2 and not living at mom's.

      $205 still a bum deal for a few orgasms.

    11. Re:Meh... by adolf · · Score: 0

      You know, I frankly expect better trolling from someone who actually bothered to log in.

      It's a shame that you think that all relationships are doomed and useless and all-encompassing.

      Enjoy your solo work. I'll enjoy my pornstar sex.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    12. Re:Meh... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      I was trolling? You come into a thread where people are obviously into games and related hardware to downplay their expenditures and troll implied superiority with essentially buying access to 'pornstar' sex instead. Your attempt at the tired incel-virgin-gamer stereotype is the fail here. What are you trying to prove? Games certainly aren't the be-all-end-all of life, but neither are relationships. Why post here at all? You've made it clear that gaming isn't a big interest of yours.

      Some percentage of the time, you're paying $205 for the privilege of a solo workout you could've gotten for free. I'd rather save that for something with a guaranteed payoff. Even with that, paying for sex directly with cash, via proxy of a night out, or with a mortgage followed by vagina-debt alimony, is still a waste of money. It's something that desperate, insecure incel-loser stereotype would do to retain access.

    13. Re:Meh... by adolf · · Score: 1

      No, I come into a thread where people are obviously lamenting spending large values of money on gaming, and declaring that they're perfectly happy with cheap/old/slow hardware and cheap/old/fun games.

      Scroll up.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
  4. Overkill for MOBAs by flink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this is targeted at MOBA players, then it is probably overkill. I've got a 2011 Mac Pro with a Radeon 5870 (850Mhz GPU, 1GB VRAM). Playing League of Legends at 1920x1200, 60fps is no problem for this setup. These games are not graphically intensive, nor do they require much CPU horsepower. If you are going to drop money on hardware for MOBA gaming, spend it on a nice keyboard/mouse and the lowest latency ISP you can find. If your machine is less than 5 years old, whatever came stock is more than enough to play the game.

    1. Re:Overkill for MOBAs by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but someone with a Mac Pro doesn't have the right to talk about "stock hardware" being more than enough.

    2. Re:Overkill for MOBAs by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      The previous message was sent from my 2010 Mac mini which has an nVidia 320m GPU. It wasn't even "good enough" when it was released.

    3. Re:Overkill for MOBAs by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      If this is targeted at MOBA players, then it is probably overkill. I've got a 2011 Mac Pro with a Radeon 5870 (850Mhz GPU, 1GB VRAM). Playing League of Legends at 1920x1200, 60fps is no problem for this setup. These games are not graphically intensive, nor do they require much CPU horsepower. If you are going to drop money on hardware for MOBA gaming, spend it on a nice keyboard/mouse and the lowest latency ISP you can find. If your machine is less than 5 years old, whatever came stock is more than enough to play the game.

      ^this. it is not something you should buy as an upgrade, you should only get this sort of card if you are buying a new machine and that is your target gaming area. upgrading from a 650ti as the summary/article suggests to this would be brain dead moronic.

    4. Re:Overkill for MOBAs by flink · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but someone with a Mac Pro doesn't have the right to talk about "stock hardware" being more than enough.

      It's not about the fact that it's a Mac Pro. Mac's have shit out of date GPUs. If a GPU that was out of date and under-powered 4 years ago can comfortably run today's MOBAs, then one can infer that a reasonably current budget PC with stock hardware can as well.

    5. Re:Overkill for MOBAs by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      The Mac Pro had out of date GPUs but they were still 10x better than the other Macs, which is my point. The GPU from a 5-years-old Mac is like the GPU from a 10-years-old PC.

    6. Re:Overkill for MOBAs by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Radeon 5870 is old but it was an almost 200W high end card, still a strong performer.

      Car analogy : Meh, my 40-year-old Porsche does 120 mph easily. Any 40-year-old car does 120 mph. This new $15900 car that does 120 mph is pointless, keep your old Porsche.

    7. Re:Overkill for MOBAs by flink · · Score: 1

      Right, so if your PC is less than 10 years old, you'll be able to run MOBAs at least as well as my 5 years old mac. Therefore if you are a MOBA player you do not need this card, which was my original point.

    8. Re:Overkill for MOBAs by Orestesx · · Score: 1

      The 5870 is still a very capable GPU that is on par with a 750 ti. Definitely not what would be considered typical stock hardware. The 950 is replacing the 750 ti. So for MOBA, no compelling reason to upgrade, but this is Nvidia's offering at the ~$150 price point for people who are in the market today for a card.

    9. Re:Overkill for MOBAs by Orestesx · · Score: 1

      Not true. The 5870 is still a capable GPU that is on par with a 750 ti. http://www.anandtech.com/bench...

    10. Re:Overkill for MOBAs by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      There's no mac mini or macbook with a 5870.

    11. Re:Overkill for MOBAs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats, that is one of the worst car analogies I have heard in a long time.

  5. Ridiculous upgrade path by baka_toroi · · Score: 1

    Both the 650 Ti and the 950 are built on a 28nm process. Sure, that's not the only parameter that matters but I don't think it's a reasonable upgrade path at all. If you need more performance you should probably go for something bigger, or better yet, wait until 14/16nm becomes a reality for GPUs.

    1. Re:Ridiculous upgrade path by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      Both the 650 Ti and the 950 are built on a 28nm process. Sure, that's not the only parameter that matters but I don't think it's a reasonable upgrade path at all. If you need more performance you should probably go for something bigger, or better yet, wait until 14/16nm becomes a reality for GPUs.

      They are saying that to try and keep the money flowing...

      For people at 1080p, I have a hard time imaging that a 650 Ti is "out of date" by any stretch. If it is, a 950 isn't the solution, a 970 would be.

      Is the 950 faster? Sure... Is it "faster enough to be worth the time and trouble"? Probably not.

    2. Re:Ridiculous upgrade path by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Both the 650 Ti and the 950 are built on a 28nm process. Sure, that's not the only parameter that matters but I don't think it's a reasonable upgrade path at all. If you need more performance you should probably go for something bigger, or better yet, wait until 14/16nm becomes a reality for GPUs.

      Pre- and post-Maxwell makes a huge difference, competing with 65nm Pentium IV vs 65nm Intel Core or 32nm Westmere vs 32nm Sandy Bridge. For sure there'll always be something better next year but Pascal is probably a year or more away and that's a long time if you want better graphics now.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Ridiculous upgrade path by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you WON'T get better graphics out of that upgrade. you will get slightly higher frame rates at 1080p and below. It is a really really BAD upgrade. you would only get this card as an upgrade for something far weaker than a 650ti or in a new machine. upgrading a 650ti to this is just flushing money down the shitter for no reason.

    4. Re:Ridiculous upgrade path by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Pre- and post-Maxwell makes a huge difference,

      The silver-hammer, demon or field equations?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:Ridiculous upgrade path by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Smart.

  6. If only you could SLI them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing I have against these "budget cards" is they purposely remove features such as SLI but you get what you pay for.

    Personally I'm running a GTX 750ti Maxwell and the Witcher 3 is just fine on high settings at 1080p. While I'm tempted to upgrade to this 950ti since my 750ti only cost 150 last year, I'd rather wait until a genuine generation chip upgrade that fully utilizes Dx12 after they've worked more bugs out of it. By then I'll be ready to treat myself to a 4k monitor too.

  7. TDP? by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

    Can you run it fanlessly like the 750 ti?

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
    1. Re:TDP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, just water cool it.

    2. Re:TDP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, the 950 consumes 90 watts while the 750 Ti consumes 60 watts. I've got a 750 Ti in a Dell with a 300-Watt power supply. I've heard of people using them in 280-Watt PSUs (maybe as low as 240-260 watts). I think it would be pushing it to install one of these in a low-wattage system.

    3. Re:TDP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just checked EVGA's product page on the 950, they recommend a 350-Watt power supply. Since they made my 750 Ti, I'd take their recommendation.

    4. Re:TDP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most models have "0rpm fan at idle", which means the fan won't spin under normal desktop use. Note that this is not unique to 950 - all current generation NVIDIA cards (GTX 960, 970 and even the top-of-the-line 980/980Ti) have models feature this. As an example, my Gigabyte G1 Gaming 980ti card (with over 3x the TDP of the GTX 950) uses just the heatsink, without fans spinning, when doing normal desktop tasks.

      But yes, it will run the fan if you run a 3D load on it, but it is not loud.

      Haven't seen purely passive models yet but there might be some available later (at a price premium), with no fan.

    5. Re:TDP? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, the 950 consumes 90 watts while the 750 Ti consumes 60 watts.

      Also, it has 768 CUDA cores vs. 640 of the 750 Ti. That means 1.2x cores for 1.5x the power consumption, which doesn't sound great. I think I've seen this before with GPUs that have some of their cores disabled, such as AMD's 5830 vs. 5870 -- for best efficiency, stay away from the crippled parts.

      As for the passive cooling, I used to have fanless HD 5770 with a TDP of 108 W, so 90 W is definitely possible. However, with such wattages you generally need some forced air circulation anyway; the 5770 was fine as long as there was a case fan next to it. In general, I've found that with strong discrete GPUs, it's much easier to make fanned cooling almost dead silent than go completely fanless. I currently have two 750s with their stock fans, and I haven't bothered with cooling mods as they are indistinguishable from background hum anyway.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    6. Re:TDP? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it is fine with a high quality 300W PSU with a lowish power use consumer CPU (including i5, i7) while a high quality 350W is perfect to use the card with a power hungry CPU (AMD FX, 2011 socket)

    7. Re:TDP? by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

      0 rpm idle's no good for me. Games have quiet bits and the fan is there. Also if you don't have the sound that loud cos its late at night then the fan is there as well.

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
    8. Re:TDP? by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

      And invariably what fan manufacturers describe as "barely audible" is anything but... I've been burnt too many times by misleading descriptions.

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
    9. Re:TDP? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Headset. Gaming as loud as you want at three in the morning.

    10. Re:TDP? by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

      Prefer speakers, better bass response, no wire to trip over and means I can talk to my gf as well

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
    11. Re:TDP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the same fucking bass that annoys the hell out of your neighbours?

    12. Re:TDP? by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

      Remember the bit about not having the sound loud cos its late at night?

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
  8. a significant upgrade? really? by slacka · · Score: 2

    a significant, yet affordable, upgrade over cards like the GeForce GTX 650 Ti,

    I guess Nvidia's marketing drones think we're all a bunch of rich morons. That's exactly the card I have now, and there's no way in hell I'm stupid enough to pay $150 for a few extra FPS. Just look at those benchmarks, like Metro's 27 vs 36 avg FPS. If I need a few extra FPS, I'll lower the quality a bit and wait until a TRUE mid-range upgrade is available.

    The real question here is WTH is going on with Moore's law? I paid about $150 for my 650 back in 2012, and here we are 3 years later, and my $150 buys essentially the same performance and features.

    1. Re:a significant upgrade? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it is Nvida claiming it as an upgrade. That is Mojokid and his aweful hothardware site.

    2. Re:a significant upgrade? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the 950 has the same exact power draw as the 650 Ti. My 750 Ti is a little weaker than the 650 Ti, but it only pulls 60 Watts.

      Maybe a 940 will have a better performance-to-power ratio. (If one is released.)

    3. Re:a significant upgrade? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have a 650ti

      i guess you have the 650ti, this is the regular 50, they should release a 50ti later on and stuck it on this price and lower this one a lot. I bet there will be more difference then

      there is no way this card compares with a regular 650 non ti. It would totally destroy it

      think the 650ti is basically a regular 460 performance wise which was a very good card, so the regular 650 non ti has to be less than that by quite a margin

      so either you are comparing the wrong card, or you were really unlucky a got a regular 650 non ti and then they released the ti like a month later

    4. Re:a significant upgrade? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not a few frames its 2-2.5x faster than your 650, go do some googling and look various benchmarks on your own before u grace us with your "expert opinion"

    5. Re:a significant upgrade? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a DX-12 compatible part. Given that your old card could use neither Mantle nor DX-12, I assume you would see a pretty significant boost with games that are developed to take advantage of the new features.

      So, maybe now you could run 1080p60 with decent anti-aliasing.

  9. still waiting... by cas2000 · · Score: 1

    i'm still waiting for nvidia to produce a card that's worth upgrading to from a gtx-560 Ti for around $250 or so.

    that's what i paid for some gtx-560 and 560 Ti cards a few years ago and is about the limit of what i'm willing to pay for a video card. paying $600 or $700 or $1200 for a GPU is something only a moron would do.

    every card since then that costs around $250 is actually worse than the 560 in terms of performance - generally much better power consumption, but worse performance...ranging from slightly worse to ridiculously bad, and usually deliberately crippled by being cut from a 256-bit memory interface to 64-bit.

    at best, it would be roughly the same as what i already have - why pay that much for no actual benefit?

    when i bought the 560s, i was upgrading from gt-240s - definitely a worthwhile upgrade, from ~ 1.5 to ~ 5 times the performance depending on what attribute you're measuring (GTX-560Ti vs GT240). when i upgrade again i want a similar increase in performance for about the same price.

    so, nvidia, give me a reason to upgrade.

    1. Re:still waiting... by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Okay, so you have no idea how to compare performance? Let me show you how easy it is!

      The GTX 960 is 60% faster than your GTX 560. Let me tell you how easy it was to figure this out:

      1. TechPowerUp review shows GTX 680 7% faster than the GTX 960.

      https://www.techpowerup.com/re...

      2. Older TechPowerUp review shows GTX 680 70% faster than the GTX 560 Ti.

      https://www.techpowerup.com/re...

      GTX 960 is 100/107 the speed of the GTX 680 = 0.93

      The GTX 680 is 100/59 the speed of the GTX 560 Ti = 1.7

      1.7 * 0.93 is almost 60 percent improvement. And that's from a $190 card:

      http://www.newegg.com/Product/...

      And if you must have more performance, this is over twice as fast as your GTX 560 Ti, and is only $300.

      http://www.newegg.com/Product/...

      Now, quit your complaining. Both Nvidia and AMD are up against a wall because there's only been one process node shrink since 2011. 14nm is due next year, but until then they had to make magic happen with Maxwell (it's a more efficient architecture, making better use of available compute and memory resources to reduce costs).

      That said, the GTX 680 is on the exact same process node as the GTX 960, and it cost $500 on release! So if they can offer nearly the same performance for $200 today, imagine what they can do in a year or two when they actually have a process shrink to work with!

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    2. Re:still waiting... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      upgrades have definitely reduced in performance gains. But if you can't find a SIGNIFICANT upgrade from a 560 for under $250 then you simply don't understand how to compare cards correctly.

    3. Re:still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as AC cause I used some mod points on this topic.... Similar to you, I was running a 550 Ti and mostly playing MMOs from several years back. Nothing truly modern. But the card was maxed out and I could not play things in max res.

      So I swapped it for a 770 with 4GB of ram and that seemed to add headroom and speed due to better architecture. But I wanted even more so I traded the 770 for a 970 with 4GB and expected a hi res miracle. The latest thing, you know. It has to be bestest! Nah. Games played the same as on the 770. More advanced games like GW2 and Tera and Aion and FFXIV sure look nice but they look fine on my laptop with a GTX860M too, and it's roughly the same as a 770. .

      Cutting to the chase, I really feel like I wasted the $400 on that 970. Coming from a 550 like me or a 560 like you, a good 770 should be quite a good jump and it should also be cheap.

    4. Re:still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $600-$1200 is certainly a small market segment, but I wouldn't call the people who buy those products morons.

      I know people who drop more than that on lunch, and I imagine if they played video games they wouldn't bat an eye at a computer that costs $3-5k and has a couple of $1200 video cards in it.

    5. Re:still waiting... by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      > The GTX 960 is 60% faster than your GTX 560

      i can, and did, figure that out for myself. as you say, it wasn't hard. comprehension seems to be difficult for you, though, so i'll spell it out:

      a) 60% is nowhere near the 498% pixel rate increase of 240->560ti
      b) the cheapest GTX 960 in .au is around $280. 4GB versions cost around $350
      c) a 60% increase in performance for $280 is not worth it.
      d) still waiting...

      as i said, "when i upgrade again i want a similar increase in performance for about the same price."

      i'll settle for anything at least 2-3x better for around $250-$300.

      > And if you must have more performance, this is over twice as
      > fast as your GTX 560 Ti, and is only $300.

      a) twice as fast is good but still not a 500% increase.

      b) the Gigabyte GTX 970 GV-N970IXOC-4GD costs over $500 in australia, not $300. if it cost only $300 here, i might consider it as being a "just barely worth it" upgrade for the price.

  10. Don't they just switch off faulty cores? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was always under the impression that the lower-end cards had chips that had minor manufacturing flaws that made one or more 'cores' behave abnormally. Nothing serious, just a touch too much carbon here, a nanometer-shorter pin there etc etc.

    Switch the affected cores off and the chip itself runs fine, albeit with lower processing capabilities, so they sell it at a lower price point.

    1. Re:Don't they just switch off faulty cores? by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Yup, these are just faulty GTX 960 cores.

      The GTX 970 is just a faulty GTX 980 core.

      The GTX 980 Ti is just a faulty Titan X core.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  11. How would this compare to the 750ti? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Currently the 750ti is at that price point (or slightly lower).

    And will the new card be as quiet as the 750ti (inaudible so suitable for living room use.)

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:How would this compare to the 750ti? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      As I mentioned in another post, this has 20% more CUDA cores for 50% more power consumption, so it's a step backwards in efficiency.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:How would this compare to the 750ti? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      It has high GPU clock and really high memory clock.

    3. Re:How would this compare to the 750ti? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      It has high GPU clock and really high memory clock.

      The base and boost clocks are almost equal in the 750 Ti and the 950. The memory clock does seem somewhat higher on the 950, but that shouldn't account for too many watts.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  12. Targeted at MOBA players? by The+Raven · · Score: 1

    You don't need a next gen card to get great framerates in a MOBA. You can run at the highest quality setting and cap at 60fps on any card priced in the same range in the past two years in LOL or DotA.

    Ahh well. Marketing.

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
  13. it's not brand loyalty by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    If you like playing old games your pretty much stuck. ATI doesn't do a good job on backwards compatibility. Try digging up a game like No One Lives Forever or even Psyconauts and you'll have nothing but troubles...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:it's not brand loyalty by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Uhhh I have NOLF 1&2 and Psyconauts and had no problem playing them on my HD7750 so I don't see why they would have a problem now, in fact I had more of a problem getting past the ancient DRM of NOLF 1 which doesn't run on 64bit (and which has a 16 bit installer) than I did running the actual game.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.