Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Upgrades Hardware

NVIDIA Launches $159 Mainstream Maxwell-Based GeForce GTX 950 85

Posted by timothy 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NVIDIA Launches $159 Mainstream Maxwell-Based GeForce GTX 950 More

NVIDIA Launches $159 Mainstream Maxwell-Based GeForce GTX 950

Comments Filter:

  • 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?

    • 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.

      • 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/E

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          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.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • 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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dbIII ( 701233 )
          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.

    • Re:Is this better? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20, 2015 @05:00PM (#50357823)

      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

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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

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

    • 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-

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      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.

  • Meh... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Thursday August 20, 2015 @04:59PM (#50357819)
    I'll wait five years to pick up this card for $50 and buy this year's video games for $5 each on Steam.

  • Overkill for MOBAs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by flink ( 18449 ) on Thursday August 20, 2015 @05:07PM (#50357861)

    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.

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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by flink ( 18449 )

        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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.
  • 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.

    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      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.

  • Can you run it fanlessly like the 750 ti?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • 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 [gigabyte.com] 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 fin

  • a significant upgrade? really? (Score:3)

    by slacka ( 713188 ) on Thursday August 20, 2015 @07:06PM (#50358413)

    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.

  • 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 slightl

    • 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... [techpowerup.com]

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

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

      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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cas2000 ( 148703 )

        > 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 p

    • 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.

  • 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.)

    • 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.

      • It has high GPU clock and really high memory clock.

        • 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.

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close