Next 900 series card. Nvidia GTX 960
Release: About Jan 22nd and around $300 or below.
 
Low tier 2GB but comes with all-new GM206 processing unit in tow. This will replace the GM204 found inside both the GTX 970 and 980, and guarantee decent speed at lower power consumption levels and noise.


http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/budget-nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-gpu-expected-in-january/#ixzz3MOhgg97q

I saw something similar, but they were 4 gb and $250
 
 
http://www.kitguru.net/co...d-4gb-of-gddr5-memory/
 
 
also see
 
http://www.gdm.or.jp/voices/2014/1220/97775

Tropickz

Pgcmoore
I saw something similar, but they were 4 gb and $250
 
 
http://www.kitguru.net/co...d-4gb-of-gddr5-memory/

Didn't see that one, but guess it will all come to light at CES Jan 6th.

this location seems to be the mother of all rumors, but like you said. Ces is coming, and we all know how Nvidia likes to surprise us
 
http://www.gdm.or.jp/voices/2014/1220/97775

My bets on the GTX 970 for Bang4buck, Nvidia keeps the 60's GPU's this high of a price point, they will loose sells, the 60's have always been a money maker for Nvidia, too bad GREED is the way of Tech these days....

I dunno the 660 Ti got away like a bandit at 279, and so did the 660 at 229

I agree, if its $200 and has the rumored GTX 770 performance it would be a hit.

2gb of ram makes it not much of a gaming card but if it does drop at the $200 price point it could make a good bang for the buck folding card

candle_86
depends ZS, 2gb is fine for 1080p in 99% of all games, the x60 series has traditionaly been behind the big boys ram count.
 
6600GT 128mb vs 256mb 6800 Ultra
7600GT 256mb vs 512mb 7900GTX
8600GTS 256mb vs 8800GTX 768mb
9600GT 512mb vs 9800GTX 1gb
now GTX 260 was an odd ball, but it could be argued the GTS250 was the true linage so again 512mb vs 1gb GTX280
now the GTX 460 1gb vs 1.5 for GTX 480
GTX 560 same as above
GTX 660 and 760 where the odd balls of this scheme, carrying the same ram amount as the big boys as standard capacitiy.
 
Now what im hoping the 760 delivers is what its supposed to deliver, whats its lineage gives it, it should preform at about 60% the speed of the GTX980 for about 60% less.

I'm not arguing the lineage but imo 2gb is not enough vram for a gaming card anymore. More and more games have been released over the last 2 years that use more than that at 1080p. Vram seem to be what has limited cards(more so in SLI setups) than gpu power in that last few years, 2gb just seems to gimp a good gpu.
 
I am still interested in the 960s from a folding standpoint once nividia sorts out the driver issues with maxwell and FAH. I think it could be the best value for overall cost if it does release at $200

candle_86

-ZS-Carpenter

candle_86
depends ZS, 2gb is fine for 1080p in 99% of all games, the x60 series has traditionaly been behind the big boys ram count.
 
6600GT 128mb vs 256mb 6800 Ultra
7600GT 256mb vs 512mb 7900GTX
8600GTS 256mb vs 8800GTX 768mb
9600GT 512mb vs 9800GTX 1gb
now GTX 260 was an odd ball, but it could be argued the GTS250 was the true linage so again 512mb vs 1gb GTX280
now the GTX 460 1gb vs 1.5 for GTX 480
GTX 560 same as above
GTX 660 and 760 where the odd balls of this scheme, carrying the same ram amount as the big boys as standard capacitiy.
 
Now what im hoping the 760 delivers is what its supposed to deliver, whats its lineage gives it, it should preform at about 60% the speed of the GTX980 for about 60% less.

I'm not arguing the lineage but imo 2gb is not enough vram for a gaming card anymore. More and more games have been released over the last 2 years that use more than that at 1080p. Vram seem to be what has limited cards(more so in SLI setups) than gpu power in that last few years, 2gb just seems to gimp a good gpu.
 
I am still interested in the 960s from a folding standpoint once nividia sorts out the driver issues with maxwell and FAH. I think it could be the best value for overall cost if it does release at $200

except the extra cost of 4gb is about 30 dollars, that would put it not at 220 but at 250, to close to the 970 and R9 290 which beats a GTX 770, and would not turn a profit. A midrange card is meant for a certain segment, and 2gb is fine, you can play at 1080p just fine with 2gb, just turn on AA or AF, just like in 2004, those remain the domain of the big boys, and just in 2004, you can turn down settings, you shouldn't expect to push the envelope for 200 bucks.

You seem to have taken me wrong. I know it will be a fine mid line card for a budget gaming build like the majority of the x60 series cards have been. I like that is only has 2gb of ram from a folding standpoint as it cuts cost for something that folders do not need(extra vram). It hopefully has what is speculated, decent cuda core count, decent core clock and low power consumption all at a near perfect price for a dedicated folding card.

Fennicillin
WCCFTech are reporting 3 models. 960, 960 ti and 965.

you have a link?
very interested in this
nevermind, I found it
 
http://wccftech.com/gtx-9...hmarks-specs-revealed/

Wasnt it wccftech the site that was extremly pro amd and was saying the 980 underperformed the 780ti and barely used less energy than it?

Fennicillin
Their graph showing the R9 290 10% better than the 780 in the hierarchy is suspect at best.

It should stand out more that the claimed source does not provide the system configuration, which benchmarks were showcased, or what settings were applied to achieve those results.  I wouldn't settle on a rumor as long as one card is supposed to score higher than the other to consider the source legit.
 
For instance, there are games at particular settings and resolutions that show R9-290 is faster than GTX780; but if someone doesn't play those games at/or those resolutions, can they disregard that data?  Many with nVidia cards tend to; and those with AMD cards also tend to ignore where nVidia shines.  Bias is everywhere, objectivity is difficult; there is no such thing as obvious.
 
Here's the irony, IMO: The most popular games are all CPU-bound multi-player, while most graphic card and CPU reviews test games in single-player, which makes them GPU-bound.  The claim is that due to the spontaneousness of multi-player, there is no way to standardize it and get an average.

mobsterc
I don't think they will introduce the 960 before the new amd lineup.

R9-285 is the competitor, AMD has had a monopoly in that price-performance level, it was the only new card debuted after R9-29x's.
 
That being said, the only possible reason for the massive price difference of the GTX970 versus GTX980 is that nVidia wanted some of those midrange folks that don't mind the price difference from R9-285 and the GTX770 at the time.  Before Maxwell v2 came, those cards were in the lower $300 to upper $200 range.
 
But GTX960 variants can't get too slow, otherwise they dip into Maxwell v1 range (GTX750/750Ti); if anything, GTX960 variants are meant to fit the gap between the two that nVidia has been ignoring this whole time, effectively giving it to AMD to reign over.

http://videocardz.com/54374/asus-evga-and-zotac-geforce-gtx-960-pictured
 

 
 
 

 

-ZS-Carpenter
imo 2gb is not enough vram for a gaming card anymore.

Going by Steam's monthly hardware survey, the percentage of users that have graphics cards with more than 2GB is less than 5% out of the tens of millions that use Steam to game.  By claiming 2GB isn't enough, you're disregarding the significance of those 95% as PC gamers-- they are literally keeping PC gaming alive, maintaining developer return on investment.  Most people will not go big, they will go home; and that is very bad for all of us: We can't save PC gaming if everyone else loses interest.  
 
So what is stopping the majority of PC gamers from leaving PC to console?  Cheap options that you don't see the point of and provide a necessary series of stepping stones from basic.  Maybe it is time to reverse that opinion and embrace more hardware types for gaming?  

-ZS-Carpenter

lehpron
 
 Steam's monthly hardware survey,

that also says that 43.3% of users have 4 physical CPUs, 48.7% have 2 physical CPUs for windows based rigs.....hardly a reliable source.

I can't see the link right now, but wasn't there a comment that said that it meant to say 4 physical cores, not 4 physical CPU's?