As described, the card will open quite a gap to the GTX 970. If so, there must be a middle part between them.

WTF 128 bit !!!!

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"

I remember telling someone in some thread not to hold their breath over this card.

Likely the premature '960 owners club' thread that was started here, LOL!

GreiverBladewoah 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...

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.

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.

EarthDogYou 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.

hastalabsWTF 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

2GB? Screw that! O.o

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.

GreiverBladewoah 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.

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.

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

ZoneDymohonestly 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.

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.

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

"and a $200-ish price"

We all know how that's going to end.. closer to $300 or so.

techy1why 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.

bubbleawsome2GB? Screw that! o_O

For a card packing the power that it will, 2gb is more than sufficient.

SweClockers said 128, but some other shipping manifest said 192. Could be both (960 vs 960 Ti?)

AnimalpakAnd 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

AnimalpakAnd 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?

ZoneDymoThis 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.

bubbleawsome2GB? 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

bubbleawsome2GB? 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.

ZoneDymoyou 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.