Overclock.net banner

[Various] NVIDIA might be launching a 960 Ti

7K views 102 replies 37 participants last post by  Peanuts4 
#1 ·
Quote:
It looks like Nvidia is preparing an answer to AMD's recently released R9 380x, with a mid-range 'sweet spot' card of its own- the GTX 960Ti. Right now, there is a pretty big price and performance gap between the GTX 960 and GTX 970, with the former coming in at $199 and the latter often priced at $329, skipping over the $230-$250 range occupied by AMD

The GTX 960 has 1024 CUDA Cores (in 8 SMMs) while as the GTX 970 has 1664 CUDA Cores (in 13 SMMs). If green is preparing a card that lies somewhere between the GTX 960 and GTX 970 then the card will probably have either 10 or 11 SMMs (for 1280 - 1408 CUDA Cores), both of which are comfortably spaced from the GTX 960 and GTX 970 respectively. The price points of the 960 and 970 are $199 and $329, so a card lying in the center will probably retail around the $249 mark.

Its worth nothing that the variant with 10 SMMs is more likely because Nvidia already has a GTX 960 OEM edition with 10 SMMs (1280 CUDA Cores), something it can brand as the GTX 960 Ti for the mainstream market. The OEM edition of the card also has a 192 bit bus width (an upgrade over the 128 bit bus width provided with the mainstream 960) which makes it a completely different card, even though the primary nomenclature is the same. Given below is a specification comparison of the two cards:



The card would arrive in January 2016, so it will miss the Christmas shopping period.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
 
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImJJames View Post

It still won't beat 380X
you're forgetting that people who buy 280X/380X or potentially 960(ti) usually don't run the latest K-series i5's/i7's, which is needed to fill the CPU overhead gap for AMD is order for 280X/380X to maintain steady fps. I bet if the tests were done on i3's then 960Ti would run better than 380X overall, and I mean noticeably better. I think they'll drop the price of 960 since it can't keep up with 380X and introduce 960Ti at the same price. Only that would make sense. Plus 380X may perform quite nicely but the pricing, at least in my country, is ridiculous. You can buy a new R9 290X 4GB TriX off and auction site for what 380X's were launched.
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post

you're forgetting that people who buy 280X/380X or potentially 960(ti) usually don't run the latest K-series i5's/i7's, which is needed to fill the CPU overhead gap for AMD is order for 280X/380X to maintain steady fps. I bet if the tests were done on i3's then 960Ti would run better than 380X overall, and I mean noticeably better. I think they'll drop the price of 960 since it can't keep up with 380X and introduce 960Ti at the same price. Only that would make sense. Plus 380X may perform quite nicely but the pricing, at least in my country, is ridiculous. You can buy a new R9 290X 4GB TriX off and auction site for what 380X's were launched.
I agree. This is what most review sites don't show because they run entuisiast class CPUs in their testrigs.

A 960 Ti would probably perform pretty even with 380X when CPU is not an issue, and better with weaker CPUs.
 
#6 ·
A current i5 quad core would not run into a CPU bottleneck in 99% of titles, today, K-series or not.
And I'd argue that almost anyone buying one of these GPU's has gaming in mind, and will be opting for a K-Series anyway.

People are really blowing up this CPU issue. It effects almost no one. When there is somewhat of a performance difference, we're talking about i3's and Bulldozer chips paired with Hawaii or Fury compared to Titan or a 980 Ti in heavily CPU-bound games. Even then, you're still pushing over 100 FPS, yet you're complaining because the NV card is doing 120 FPS.

No one in their right mind will care if they get CPU bound around 100 FPS with AMD cards that are paired to mediocre CPU's. And that is where we see a CPU bottleneck: when AMD cards are pushing around 100 FPS.

The way people are carrying on about it, you'd think you couldn't get over 45FPS without AMD cards getting CPU bound. It's not like that at all.

If AMD could do 150 frames per second and NV could only do 100 in a CPU bound scenario with an i3 would anyone care? No.
And it's not a new issue. AMD has always become CPU bound sooner than NV cards, even as far back as the x1950 XTX nearly a decade ago. It's amazing to me that people are only talking about it now. I guess people don't do as much critical thinking nowadays.
I bought the x1950 XTX because it would crush the 7900 GT in the 40-100 FPS range. After 100, the 7900 GT would win. It would also win on charts of averages, but when the game was actually limited by GPU grunt, ATi would win. When you were doing over a hundred frames and it didn't matter, NV would win.

That's another thing people don't realize about "Boost." Yet again, average FPS skyrockets for certain segments of a benchmark because the GPU is relatively unloaded and can push twice as many frames that you'll never see. At the end of the test, it makes a big difference in averages when the NV GPU pushed as many extra frames as it possibly could by raising it's clocks while GPU-load was minimal.

Talk about something that is relevant to the actual performance of these cards, not something that only makes a difference when the card is pushing 100+ frames already.
 
#7 ·
so would this also have "4gb" but only 2 run @ full speed? or is it "2gb" but only can use 1gb?
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mega Man View Post

so would this also have "4gb" but only 2 run @ full speed? or is it "2gb" but only can use 1gb?
2 for read and 2 for write, so technically it's 4gb. oh snap that's a new feature.
jhh
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post

you're forgetting that people who buy 280X/380X or potentially 960(ti) usually don't run the latest K-series i5's/i7's, which is needed to fill the CPU overhead gap for AMD is order for 280X/380X to maintain steady fps. I bet if the tests were done on i3's then 960Ti would run better than 380X overall, and I mean noticeably better. I think they'll drop the price of 960 since it can't keep up with 380X and introduce 960Ti at the same price. Only that would make sense. Plus 380X may perform quite nicely but the pricing, at least in my country, is ridiculous. You can buy a new R9 290X 4GB TriX off and auction site for what 380X's were launched.
You're just making up stuff. You don't need the latest processor to get full utilization out of your GPU.
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mega Man View Post

so would this also have "4gb" but only 2 run @ full speed? or is it "2gb" but only can use 1gb?
If you read the OP you would see that the speculation is 3GB. So it would be a full 3GB.
isnt that what they said about the 970 ( but @ 4gb ) ? so are you sure ?
 
#14 ·
i dont need it explained, i know how it works, it was still a very dirty, underhanded LIE

of which i will now always DOUBT nvidia from now on
 
#17 ·
actually i have more rigs then are listed, including a 980m and a few minor cards - i mainly use/used nvidia in mobile applications as they do have a upper hand on amd in that area, otherwise i will take the stronger of the two which tends to be amd, at higher res
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mega Man View Post

actually i have more rigs then are listed, including a 980m and a few minor cards - i mainly use/used nvidia in mobile applications as they do have a upper hand on amd in that area, otherwise i will take the stronger of the two which tends to be amd, at higher res
Well you only use NVIDIA for mobile since they perform better, may I ask what do you generally use your main systems for?
 
#19 ·
that spec is not gonna cut it, unless they do 12SMM + 7Ghz192bit.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

Well you only use NVIDIA for mobile since they perform better, may I ask what do you generally use your main systems for?
Probably gaming at higher resolutions.
 
#21 ·
I'd gulp it down if I can get it for like $ 140-150 during sales/deals.

Kinda want to try the Green Team after 8 years of mid/higher end GPUs and had some weird stutters that I thought only I noticed (4870 512 GB at launch, 5870 2GB a few months after launch).

Anything more (past $ 160) would probably only remind me of the $ 115 and $ 125 R9 380 2GB deals and would sour the GTX 960 Ti.

I glanced at few posts saying current Maxwell won't have as much legs as current GCN 1.2s though. Hmm.. We'll see.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tivan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

Well you only use NVIDIA for mobile since they perform better, may I ask what do you generally use your main systems for?
Probably gaming at higher resolutions.
correct i <3 eyefinity and want to go 5x1 now that ips have 120+ hz !
 
#23 ·
When the 380X released a few people where asking what was AMD doing not releasing this version of the chip to give gamers more and better choices. They used the decision to hold off as a way to blast at AMD. So now that NVidia has shown it is doing the same thing I am curious if those same people will blast NVidia for holding back a mid range card option?
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopar63 View Post

When the 380X released a few people where asking what was AMD doing not releasing this version of the chip to give gamers more and better choices. They used the decision to hold off as a way to blast at AMD. So now that NVidia has shown it is doing the same thing I am curious if those same people will blast NVidia for holding back a mid range card option?
I was under the impression that both companies were in the habit of "holding back" various intermediate cards with the aim of only releasing them if market trends indicated it was necessary. When viewed as a zero-sum two player arms race, it would make tactical sense to not play all your cards at the beginning before seeing if they're actually needed or not.

In this instance, since the 970 was such a world-beater in terms of customer response (#1 in terms of ownership on the Steam Hardware Survey, with a 50% lead over the second-most owned dGPU) that NVIDIA saw no need to introduce a model between the 960 and 970. Their likely thought process was that anyone who wanted more horsepower than the 960 offered would be more than willing to make the $100+ jump to the 970, and they were certainly right in this case. Perhaps now that the 28nm generation is finally winding down they might release a 960Ti 3GB to sweep up any frugally minded fence sitters remaining in the marketplace.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
you're forgetting that people who buy 280X/380X or potentially 960(ti) usually don't run the latest K-series i5's/i7's, which is needed to fill the CPU overhead gap for AMD is order for 280X/380X to maintain steady fps
Even with a 6700k @ max clocks, that gap is nasty in some games.
 
#26 ·
The performance gap between the 950 and the 960 is too small. The gap between the 960 and the 970 is large enough to justify this card. I know I would be interested.

My AMD 7950 died recently and after tossing in my five year old backup GTX 460 768MB card I noticed how much better the frametimes were than the 7950 in CPU bound games, even with the new crimson drivers. The common 30ms+ spikes are completely gone. Maybe it's the 73% higher single-threaded draw calls or the 107% higher multi-threaded draw calls.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top