Anyone messed around with this?
http://store.steampowered.com/app/267130/

Seems like a CPU hog than GPU.

There are multiple factors in play, some off the top of my head;
1. Architecture of the GPU
2. Memory addressing/compression techniques involved
3. Process step in semiconductor fabrication (ie 32nm, 22nm, 14nm and so forth)

So it's not as clear cut as comparing 128bit to 256bit to 384bit to 512bit etc etc.

I think you're confusing which side of the argument I'm on.

Not an apple orange comparison. nVidia purposely cripple gtx960.
Yeah, but I am comparing bandwidth also. Its quite low.

Benchmark is cheating because nVidia have optimized the driver to do compression. In real life, compression is less efficient causing GTX 960 to be way slower compared to benchmark FPS.

GTX960 is doomed. It will not sell. Unless some gamer are too blind to see the terrible bandwidth it has.

The cooler is really that bad? I thought GTX 960 doesn't produce much heat, review say that even the reference cooled cards are below 70C under load. AFAIK reaching that high temps (above 80C) means you lose boost speed.

Anyway you can't change the cooler like that, if its from older nvidia cards (say GTX 760, GTX 560) it might fit, but from AMD to nvidia it's nearly 100% unlikely it will fit.

Below is my test

card + setting	load temp on Furmark BIT
Palit GeForce GTX 960 Super JetStream (auto)	72
Palit GeForce GTX 960 Super JetStream (manual – full)	61

1. burn in card makes the card run warmer than usual.
2. the above is using a higher clocked card with custom cooler
3. above temps are taken with room temps around 25c.

From my experience the GTX 960 even on reference cooler shouldn't be reaching 80c on games unless
1. fan set to auto (not always the best setting)
2. casing airflow is not good
3. room is really really warm, as in above 30c.

Reference cards often run at lower clocks too, much lower than the one as on the Palit JetStream.

I'm currently running the card on folding@home with room temperature, fan duty at 42%. temperature holding at low 70s.

Even though it has 4GB,i expect the prices of the 4GB versions from the likes of Asus,Gigabyte and MSI to be priced around the cheapest GTX970 which costs RM1099 or even more than it.Not worth it.

They pretty much expecting "if you are rich enough to buy titan x, you probably rich enough to have custom loop for it..."

Its those min fps u need to see. Anyway expect at rm4-4.5k
390x 4gb 3.5k

Dont see titan x as 4k gpu. If it was jen would have been proud to announce it. He knows theres a bandwidth issue with maxwell on texture streaming. They slapped on thr 12gb just to keep the 999 price tag. Its a useless amount since the texture streaming seems to overwhelm the bandwidth. From what i saw at the 4k.

Infact if u look at the whole launch is about the middleware nvidia is releasing for deep thinking.

Its just a bigger maxwell. Nothing new like og titan.

Amd is totally gunning at 4k. I have to side with the red camp. Expecting a nvidia smackdown derby.

Q3 2015 another wave of advancing GPU tsunami, wonder how it turns out  if amd releasing 390/x and budget price point we might see nvidia slashing price again? went to inquiry on the titan x afternoon, cnytrix tech got 6 pre-order on the titan x, l'm on the 7th, but hesitated 

If you were to buy nvidia mid-range gpus, would u take a GTX760 or 960? Give me ur reasons pls. Thx

How about the memory bus? Why gtx960 only 128bit?

techpowerup gave a small conclusion on that part, so far it ate close to 6GB VRAM

then COD AW ate about 7+GB?

In term of pricing, ASUS Malaysia has set the RRP for its Titan X at RM 4,388. As for GIGABYTE’s version, it is apparently different from one retailer to another. For example, Viewnet is selling it at RM 4,699 while Tech Armory of SS15 Subang Jaya priced it at a much lower price point of RM 4,499.

Gentlemen, gm 200 cut aka 980ti incoming!!

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-coming-summer/

1440p better get titan x cos 980 just ok only for 1440p which is not sweet at all.