Meh, even the 960 was a massive disappointment.

It was disappointing because its price was/is damn high. Most expensive 960 does cost only $80 less than reference 970.

You guys realize that there's a market for this card right? My old 750ti served me well for over a year. Not everyone plays AAA games all the time. The only cards worth upgrading to from a 750 ti or the new 950 would be the 970 or 390. Anything in between is useless, anything more is rather useless unless 4k or a demanding title at 1440p.

You are quite right. For me, there are very few cards which are worth mentioning once price and performance is considered. GTX 750Ti, r9-285(+its rebrand), gtx 970, GTX 980Ti, Fury(x). Tho, I am still not sure about non-X Fury. While people like it, I think cooling on Fury X makes for price difference alone and not being cut down is bonus there.

if its correct info the 8(?) pin and stock boost clocks to 1450 this Could be a fun card to screw around with. probably they just pushed up voltage ,power limits and cooling maybe not a terror not so much the best in its price range but fun on the cheap compared to the $500+ or more cards it will play a lot of games fine 1080p if your not so anal with the settings that is if can be compared to a faster 750ti.

Like in the 750 Ti vs 260X, I still expect the 360 to be faster than the 950.

Like in the 750 Ti vs 260X, I still expect the 360 to be faster than the 950.

It may well be faster although it should be remembered that the 750Ti was the first Maxwell card released and was locked down so tight that little overclocking is allowed. However, that being said, while the 360 variants may be faster, a few things are for certain. They will be far less efficient and as such the will be will noisier and far hotter than the 950 which is a bad combination for an HTPC. Furthermore, I also expect there to be a 950Ti further down the line as well as the overdue 960Ti which should be well placed/priced and overclockable.

@Fox2232 the content-fps doesnt change when 2D>3D, no matter if 4k or not. "all" movies/films have a fixed frame rate of 24/25/30/60 (unless pc signal), and will stay the same. if switching to 3D on an "active" panel will result in "full resolution" for both eyes, but will result in lower refresh rate (dropping down to 60Hz (glasses) vs. 120/240Hz on the panel). on a "passive" panel, no change in refresh rate, but resolution drops to half (per eye). e.g. a movie will not drop from 30 to 15Hz when using 3D. will only happen with pc games. @Cartman372 might want to look at some sony reviews. sony has 20ms or less lag on all W and X series TV's since 2014. for the X series: i get a color calibrated 10bit (LG) IPS panel with 120Hz, 4:2:2/4:2:0, and the widest color gamut on market (rec2020). means for me: i will rather buy the 43X83C for ~800$ than a 30/32in monitor for 5-600. for HDMI 2.0: (native) 4K and UHD 4K allow different fps. UHD (3840x2160) at 60p, (native) 4K gets up to 30p. @CrisanT go to a local store that has a ps3/4 connected to an XBR series and check the IQ @1080p. there is no need for the signal to be UHD res, if "you" know how to upscale. sony is the only company with (4K) upscaling background, doing this for the past decade in almost every theater in this country, which allows for 1080p content (@40-50Mbit) to be visually "identical" in picture quality compared to UHD feed. and yes, "proven" it to customers/visitors multiple times. i have two XBRs side by side in the store, running the same movie (one UHD from the media player, the other FHD from BD), and you need to pause it to be able to tell the difference. and thats beside the fact that no one will have 2 identical tv's side by side in the living room... so i will buy a nice monitor/tv and get a small card (gtx960) running 1080, and let the tv upscale to UHD. this will be more "fun" than a gtx970 on a 32" monitor, which will even have a lower ppi than i will get from the tv...

See previous long post...

All you have done there (in my opinion) is argue that 4K is pointless unless you have the means to run at a native resolution. Up-scaling sucks and if (as you put it) you have to pause the video to tell the difference then you may as well stick with FHD, at least for the time being. However, if people wish to run out and waste their money just because they believe 'it's all better in 4K' then so be it. The sooner companies make their profits from these idiots the better for the rest of us as we'll buy in to it later when everything is much cheaper and more applicable. Ironically, a lot of these people will hook up their 4K TV to a console.

Depending on the price, this may be a decent upgrade for my GTX 650ti1gb in my server/game stream rig. I am hitting a vram limit in alot of games @1440x900 even when using no MSAA. GTX 650ti 1gb Core Clock 928MHz no boost bios Memory 5400MHz 128bit 86gbs bandwith Even though the 950 has the same shader count of 768, its maxwell gpu, and has more bandwith and 2gb vram. It has 1055t @ 3.6ghz + boost, 6GB DDR3 1333 OCZ Fatal1ty 550w I also have a EVGA 600b I could throw in it and use my GTX 650ti as a physx card.

@JF Maybe read it again. Im stating that a 1080 signal (upscaled to uhd res) and compared on two 4k tvs side by side will have identical image quality with the same vid in uhd. Im working in a military store for the past 3y selling almost everything larger than 50" in uhd. I doubt people would spend 4-7000 on a nice 6570in UHD, if there is no gain in IQ. The fact that a 55X85C is going for 1400-1500, and a 50in is ~1000$, which is basically what a 1080 set with same feats would have cost last year, even your argument that their "wasting money" is more or less irrelevant. I would rather spend 10K on a 70-75in sony 4k, than waste my money on getting my morning coffee for 5 bucks a cup...

Depending on the price, this may be a decent upgrade for my GTX 650ti1gb

Definitely. I saw a big difference just swapping my 750ti against the same card with 2gb. I had a 960 for a week (before returning it; was used) and it almost doubled performance over the 750ti, but power consumption stayed roughly the same...

Definition of HTPC disagrees with you again. But it does not mean that You can't do some gaming on gtx950, you'll just have to do it on 1080p mostly.

and what 4K (native) movies are you going to watch on 4K TV (yes, I know there are few and unless you are going to play them over and over again I don't see the point of 4K HTPC)? Especially with gtx 750 or 950 w/e. Enable madashi and you are @2fps in a movie. Can gtx 750 even smoothly run 1080p movie in 3D?

and what 4K (native) movies are you going to watch on 4K TV (yes, I know there are few and unless you are going to play them over and over again I don't see the point of 4K HTPC)? Especially with gtx 750 or 950 w/e. Enable madashi and you are @2fps in a movie. Can gtx 750 even smoothly run 1080p movie in 3D?

Preferences, something so many fail to realize that determines what is used. A ton of people dont use 3d. For one, my HTPC is still a dual core Atom N25 with Hyperthreading, 4gb DDr3, and GT 218(ion2) 512mb and handles 1080p flawlessly. Many people had the same arguments about 1080i/p for along time back in 2006. Just because you dont see the point of a 4k HTPC, doesnt mean that there isnt one and that someone else wont have a point to have one. I for one cant wait to build a 4k HTPC and get an 4k tv.

Depending on the price, this may be a decent upgrade for my GTX 650ti1gb

Definitely. I saw a big difference just swapping my 750ti against the same card with 2gb. I had a 960 for a week (before returning it; was used) and it almost doubled performance over the 750ti, but power consumption stayed roughly the same...

The 960 for me is priced to high for just using it to stream games to my phone/laptop. The monitor is a HPw1907 1440x900 res. A $100 gtx 660 2gb would do just fine but kepler is old now. Thats why I really am considering the 950 cause I gotta get my step son a gpu as well. He is currently on a HD 5850 1GB so thats where I will either get him a HD 7950 or GTX 760.

I don't see 4K movies so hence - I see no point. It's not a matter of preference but a matter of availability. Anyway, I asked legitimate questions, if you, like me, don't use 3D, then my question wasn't for you 😉

@Fox2232 the content-fps doesnt change when 2D>3D, no matter if 4k or not. "all" movies/films have a fixed frame rate of 24/25/30/60 (unless pc signal), and will stay the same. if switching to 3D on an "active" panel will result in "full resolution" for both eyes, but will result in lower refresh rate (dropping down to 60Hz (glasses) vs. 120/240Hz on the panel). on a "passive" panel, no change in refresh rate, but resolution drops to half (per eye). e.g. a movie will not drop from 30 to 15Hz when using 3D. will only happen with pc games.

1st there is variable frame rate for movies. Not that it matters. 2nd 30 to 15 fps is meant that HDMI 1.4a/b can do 4k only at 30Hz which means 30 full frames per second. If you want to deliver full 4k content for left and right eye, then you do it in side-by-side 7680x2160 (15fps) due to bandwidth limitation or as frame sequential 3840x2160 L-R (15x L-image + 15x R-image per second). Basically stating that HDMI 1.4a/b is not capable to deliver 30fps 4k movie in 3D. So while misunderstood, your post may come handy to someone.

@gx-x at least on sony's i dont need more than 1080p (@40-50Mbit) to make it identical in picture quality to what 4K offers. and netflix etc. streaming uhd is about the same detail i get from the movie running in 1080p (BD@50Mbit). do you need a race track to tell the difference between a corvette/porsche and a 4 door station wagon? do i need to drive the race track every day when i own a corvette/porsche?? same for 4K. yes i can see a bit more detail on a native uhd feed, but the gain on 1080 content is good enough, that (our) customers rather buy the 65 in UHD, than a 70/75 in FHD. my 750 has no probs running 3D movies in FHD, or the 4K demos i have... @Fox2232 1st. the variable frame rate will still be between 23.xxx and <120 for 99% of the tv/movie content, which matches the 24-60 i listed. 2nd. there is no full UHD res (per vid-feed) for 3D in 1.4a. it allows for a max of 1080/24p (or 720/60p) per "eye", hence 3D movies will run at 24p (or more) when playing.

Even a 750ti is 120€ atm, 950 seems little bit faster. Idk, alot of cards at low-mid range, if nvidia dont price right it wont be competitive.

750 ti can be found here in the US for about $113 on Newegg.

I'm looking for the best GPU under 200€ in relation performance/watt, do you think this can be the one? I thought that GTX750Ti was only 60W, and that makes it a better choice.

@mica Get the 960. No big difference in power consumption vs my 750ti, but almost double the performance (3Dmark11 in extreme)..

Thank you. Should i keep my Pentium K or will I see a huge performance increase buying Core i5-4690K? Assuming that I will buy the GTX960. (I bought the Pentium K because until April 2016 this PC is just for work, with Linux). That way i was able to spare some Euros to buy good RAM and monitor.)

Thank you. Should i keep my Pentium K or will I see a huge performance increase buying Core i5-4690K? Assuming that I will buy the GTX960.

Yes, definitely. Any i5 will bring huge performance boost.

Depends what is the bottleneck. At 1080 resolution and up its rarely the cpu. Sure, firing up a titan/sli stuff i would definitely see a gain, but than that doesnt apply to your 960. I would put the OS on a decent ssd (all ocz drive from the past 12m, or latest crucials), and get a nicely clocked gpu. Asus and Gigabyte are doing the highest oc AFAIR..