Power consumption was measured after 10 minutes of load under three scenarios: Furmark GPU stress test, Unigine Valley looping at the Extreme HD preset and desktop idle. The measurement was taking using an Energenie ENER007 power meter and measured for the whole system, excluding the monitor.
While Furmark and desktop idle provide stable and consistent power read-outs, Unigine Valley does not so the power reading is taken as the highest value in Scene 1 of 18.
The efficiency displayed by the GTX 950 and 960 is impressive, AMD's equivalents (the R7 370 and R9 380) cannot match Nvidia in this performance segment.
Eh, i don’t know if it’s worth buying, especially with 470 and 460 on the doorstep.
Could you include a 960 standard in the comparison for completeness ?
Seems off not to include the RX 480 in the result charts. Yes, the 960 is old, but it seems pointless to pretend newer cards aren’t competition.
This is something I’ll address in my next graphics card review, it will include the Rx 480, GTX 1070 and more. Thanks for the feedback. I disagree that it’s pointless though, the GTX 960 (£150~175) is a different price bracket to the Rx 480.
They should have RX 480 included!
Anyway. We want to compere the cards.
390 and 970 is they cheap?
200$ 960 vs 200$ 480? Even in the conclusion it should have been referenced that buyers should look that way or consider that the 1060 is coming out soon as well.
Awesome, the 1060 review should be interesting. Also is there potential to review the 4gb RX480 as that has a starting price of £175? Would be interesting to see how memory affects performance.
…Use google m8
Yep, working on that – a Rx 480 is now with me so will be testing in due course and try to get this review’s graphs updated before 1060.
In the UK (we are a UK site) Rx 480 is a £240+ card and not (yet) available in 4GB variants. However, yes I will revisit now I have an Rx 480 with me and update graphs/judgement accordingly.