Wednesday, December 10th 2014

NVIDIA to Launch GeForce GTX 960 in January

NVIDIA is reportedly preparing to launch its mid-range GeForce GTX 960 graphics card some time in January, 2015; according to a SweClockers report. The card could be launched in the sidelines of the 2015 International CES. The card will be based on the company's new GM206 silicon, and it won't be a cut-down GM204. Its only specifications doing rounds are the memory bus width of 128-bit, and standard memory amount of 2 GB. Out of the box, the card could offer performance comparable to a GeForce GTX 770, with much lower power draw, and a $200-ish price.

Source: SweClockers
Add your own comment

62 Comments on NVIDIA to Launch GeForce GTX 960 in January

#1
Dj-ElectriC
As described, the card will open quite a gap to the GTX 970. If so, there must be a middle part between them.
Posted on Reply
#3
GreiverBlade
woah woah woah ... so now the low end is 960???? (joke)

but still 2g on 128bit???? not a good legacy to the 660/760
wait'n see on reviews, i don't trust atm the "could offer 770 performances"
Posted on Reply
#4
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
I remember telling someone in some thread not to hold their breath over this card.
Posted on Reply
#5
EarthDog
Likely the premature '960 owners club' thread that was started here, LOL!

GreiverBlade said:
woah woah woah ... so now the low end is 960???? (joke)

but still 2g on 128bit???? not a good legacy to the 660/760
wait'n see on reviews, i don't trust atm the "could offer 770 performances"
You also have to remember that Maxwell has increased their memory compression algo's... Look at the 980 with 4GB and 256bit bus. ;)

These cards are really not meant for anything over 1080 in the first place...
Posted on Reply
#6
Crap Daddy
200$ for performance between 760 and 770 is not bad. If needed maybe a 760Ti based on GM204 later.
But of course this is just speculation.
Posted on Reply
#7
Shihabyooo
Edit: I don't know about standing to the 770. I'd wager it coming close to, with a 960Ti(?) standing between the 770 and 780.

EarthDog said:

You also have to remember that Maxwell has increased their memory compression algo's... Look at the 980 with 4GB and 256bit bus. ;)
That, and an overly generous memory clock. I think that's what Nv's been about since Kepler was introduced.
Posted on Reply
#8
Petey Plane
hastalabs said:
WTF 128 bit !!!!
if it performs the same and uses less power than the 770, what difference does it make? the 980 uses a narrower memory bus than previous generations. Don't get hung-up on numbers, when it's real-world performance and power usage that actually matters
Posted on Reply
#10
GhostRyder
I am sure there will be a 960Ti later with a 192bit bus if I had to guess similar to what they have done in the past.

GreiverBlade said:
woah woah woah ... so now the low end is 960???? (joke)

but still 2g on 128bit???? not a good legacy to the 660/760
wait'n see on reviews, i don't trust atm the "could offer 770 performances"
Its probably because the pricing difference between it and the 970. If they offered another slightly cut down 980 chip that was slightly below the 970 in terms of SMU's/performance they probably would butcher sales even worse so they went ahead and made significant changes for this card. Either way though it will be enough for 1080p with 2gb on a ~$200 card.
Posted on Reply
#11
renz496
personally i think it will be either 192 bit with 3GB VRAM or 256 bit with 4GB VRAM. even their 750Ti have 128 bit with 2GB VRAM for reference. and that is an entry level card.
Posted on Reply
#12
ZoneDymo
honestly who gives a shit, you already need pretty much nothing less then the top end to play the latest games on the highest settings.

Just fucking get us much faster card that push modern games at 4k at 60+ fps already gawd damn it
Posted on Reply
#13
Animalpak
ZoneDymo said:
honestly who gives a shit, you already need pretty much nothing less then the top end to play the latest games on the highest settings.

Just fucking get us much faster card that push modern games at 4k at 60+ fps already gawd damn it
And who need to play games at the highest settings ?

I know people who play competitive level in multiplayer and decreases the graphic details on purpose even with high end graphics card to get a higher FPS performance and speed.
So that they can frag you while your graphics card lags and limps to struggle to show the details of the map.

In my opinion todays single GPU's are not able to handle right 4k resolution maybe fall 2015 when 4k monitors will be under 400 dollars.

Until then, Nvidia and AMD will not waste time and money to give us a full capable 4k ( 80 FPS average ) single GPU.
Posted on Reply
#14
Octavean
Honestly, at the moment I am interested in something like an upcoming GTX 960 because of its ~$200-ish price point and its likely support for HDMI 2.0. I just bought a 55" LG UB8500 4K Smart TV and it would be nice to be able to do 60Hz on the attached Media Center system. Spending ~$350 for a GTX 970 just for that is a bit more then I would like.
Posted on Reply
#15
techy1
why do you (most of you) care so much about bits and GB's so much? I do only care about price/preformance - if the preformance (in reviews - gaming) will be on GTX 770 level for 200$ - I do not give a damn what bus and GB's it has
Posted on Reply
#16
crsh1976
"and a $200-ish price"

We all know how that's going to end.. closer to $300 or so.
Posted on Reply
#17
EarthDog
techy1 said:
why do you (most of you) care so much about bits and GB's so much? I do only care about price/preformance - if the preformance (in reviews - gaming) will be on GTX 770 level for 200$ - I do not give a damn what bus and GB's it has
You would if it affected your gameplay... If you run out of vram, it 'pages out' to the system ram which is slower and can cause hitching. Sometimes this does not translate to FPS.
Posted on Reply
#18
Hilux SSRG
bubbleawsome said:
2GB? Screw that! o_O
For a card packing the power that it will, 2gb is more than sufficient.
Posted on Reply
#19
xorbe
SweClockers said 128, but some other shipping manifest said 192. Could be both (960 vs 960 Ti?)
Posted on Reply
#20
Jborg
Animalpak said:
And who need to play games at the highest settings ?

I know people who play competitive level in multiplayer and decreases the graphic details on purpose even with high end graphics card to get a higher FPS performance and speed.
So that they can frag you while your graphics card lags and limps to struggle to show the details of the map.

In my opinion todays single GPU's are not able to handle right 4k resolution maybe fall 2015 when 4k monitors will be under 400 dollars.

Until then, Nvidia and AMD will not waste time and money to give us a full capable 4k ( 80 FPS average ) single GPU.
I remember in Call of Duty 2 when it was in its prime with its competetive Search and Destroy 5v5 leagues... 95% of players had specific graphics configs that changed things in the gameplay, they weren't after Eye Candy, they were after a steady 250FPS. And if you could achieve this in cod2, things like recoil and other things with some tweaking were noticeably less, which in result made the players better. Etc.... I know this takes place in quite a few games.

Just wanted to mention though, I am still using a 650TI with 2GB of VRAM and it runs BF4 perfectly fine on Normal-Medium detail.

This newer 960 I expect would do the same, and beyond. (Hopefully at least High detail with good avg fps)

The look of this 960 reminds me of my old 8800GT look
Posted on Reply
#21
ZoneDymo
Animalpak said:
And who need to play games at the highest settings ?

I know people who play competitive level in multiplayer and decreases the graphic details on purpose even with high end graphics card to get a higher FPS performance and speed.
So that they can frag you while your graphics card lags and limps to struggle to show the details of the map.

In my opinion todays single GPU's are not able to handle right 4k resolution maybe fall 2015 when 4k monitors will be under 400 dollars.

Until then, Nvidia and AMD will not waste time and money to give us a full capable 4k ( 80 FPS average ) single GPU.
This reply is so stupid I dont even know where to start.
1. People who play that competitive are few and far between, not even 5% of the people who play those games play like that and I highly doubt this mediocre performance card will be bought by those 5%, playing competitive like that probably means they wont settle for anything less then the best.

2. "while your graphics card lags and limps to struggle to show the details"
EXACTLY, AKA, we need fucking faster cards then this mediocre performing piece of shit gtx960, honestly i dont even get where your mind is with this "counter" argument.

3. in my opinion gpu's are not able to handle 4k res? how the F is that an opinion? wth has that to do with opinions?

4. why would you want so 200+ etc fps when your monitor cannot even show that? what is the point?
Posted on Reply
#22
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
ZoneDymo said:
This reply is so stupid I dont even know where to start.
1. People who play that competitive are few and far between, not even 5% of the people who play those games play like that and I highly doubt this mediocre performance card will be bought by those 5%, playing competitive like that probably means they wont settle for anything less then the best.

2. "while your graphics card lags and limps to struggle to show the details"
EXACTLY, AKA, we need fucking faster cards then this mediocre performing piece of shit gtx960, honestly i dont even get where your mind is with this "counter" argument.

3. in my opinion gpu's are not able to handle 4k res? how the F is that an opinion? wth has that to do with opinions?

4. why would you want so 200+ etc fps when your monitor cannot even show that? what is the point?
It's not worth arguing about.
Posted on Reply
#23
Petey Plane
bubbleawsome said:
2GB? Screw that! o_O
this is obviously not meant to be a 4k card. 2gb is more than adequate for the card's intended resolution of 1080p
Posted on Reply
#24
Ikaruga
bubbleawsome said:
2GB? Screw that! o_O
yea, because there are so many games which are struggling to render if you only have 2GB video memory, so many, really..... /sarcasm

based on the performance of the 750ti and the 970, a middleground 960ti with 192bit bus width and 3GB memory could be easily a "best buy" of its time.
Posted on Reply
#25
Blue-Knight
ZoneDymo said:
you already need pretty much nothing less then the top end to play the latest games on the highest settings.
Blame the game developers for that.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment