Nvidia 900 serise is only good for 1080p gaming

that's right, i said it. go spend the 100 or more compared to a comparable AMD gfx card and save those pennies on the electricity bill.

Yeah this was pretty well established by the 970 and the 980 but completely confirmed by the 960. Was looking at some old 760 benchmarks and it actually did better in most of the games at 1440p than the 960 does. Again, most likely due to the narrow memory bus and less CUDA cores.

Overall I think the 960 is a dud. Yeah lower power and noise but performance wise its a miss. Sorry, but I shouldn't have to turn off filters for a decent experience at 1080p and it should be able to do okay at 1440p (at least as good or better than the 760) and it just doesn't. Plus, you can get a 280, 285, or 280X for around the same price or less and it will perform better generally at both resolutions. Or you could spend $30-50 more and get an R9 290 which will spank it. 

Maybe drivers will improve performance but I doubt by very much. nVidia ya done goofed with this one. Even the nVidia fanboys who usually comment on all of Linus's videos are saying its not very good. You could also hear the tone of disappointment in Logan's voice when he was talking about the benchmarks. 

 Personally I haven’t been overly impressed with the 900 series so far. Yes they are good cards, but not really leaps and bounds over the 7series. Realistically the 980 isn't much better than the 780TI with the acception of power efficiency. 

 I feel like its a smart move to skip the 900 series and wait until we see a true big daddy maxwell card launch.

Nvidia will be groundbreaking once they make ITX versions of the x80 Cards.

What I'm worried about is the fact that if they do release a 980 Ti it may also have a stupidly narrow memory bus. Which would limit the card. Especially since such a card would be designed for high res gaming. 

Yeah its sad, there was potential but they blew it.  4k needs multiple gpu, so does 120+hz @1440p(some may argue even 60), and when I can get 2 290 for less than the price of a single 980 I and get a decent bit better performance I know which one I'm getting.  Heck a 290x is the same or less than a 970 and performs better at resolutions higher than 1080p.  Nvidia may be the 1080p "king" but amd is the way to go for anything more.

If they make a 980ti we all know it will have a small memory bus and that will hurt it, heck thats the reason why the technically weaker 290x beats the 980 at higher res.

well if its my money, and i had to pay $210 / $220 ish for  a GTX960 meh.

Then i would squeeze $30,- more and gran a R9-290 lol ☺

I cannot realy call this a sweet spot card, infact i think even a good old tahiti 280X would be a better bang for buck.

Damn right it is only good for 1080p. 

The 980 and 970 can push 1440 if you really want them to. But the 960 rocking a 128 bus and 2GB RAM? Sorry but 1080p is getting pretty close of not hitting the absolute max this card can push reasonably.

I know I am not happy with nvidia at all but even not liking them in mind, this is stupid. These are some outdated specs, which make it interesting that companies are making "gaming" versions and limited editions. Why? These are HTPC and very light gaming specs in my mind.

I've been playing CS:GO on Linux with a 980sc at 1440p and got a 3440x1440 second monitor on the side no issues at all. Am I doin it wrong?

Being honest the 9XX cards are just kinda meh, the prices were good for the week before AMD dropped the R9 290 to an amazing price. The lower TDP/Power usage is hardly much of draw unless you pay insane rates and the fact we still haven't seen that being leveraged for a ridiculous new card (Yes I know about Titan X/II rumors) just makes this series a disappointment until we see a monster card that pushes the limits, rather than a more efficient 780 ti that's still neck and neck with the 290x at 4k.

The issue isn't that they can't run it. The 980 will push most games at 1440p and even 4K just fine. The issue is that they suffer massive drops in performance when going up in resolution. For example, at 1080 a 980 will beat a 290X fairly easily but at 4K the 290X catches up and is actually faster in some titles and you're paying significantly less for it. 

Same with the 970 and 290. At 1080p the 970 is the way to go. It is more money but it is faster. At 1440p though the 970 performs about the same as the 290 and the 290 is much less money.

The issue is they aren't designed for high resolution. The narrow bus and relatively small amount of VRAM (at least in the 960) makes them poor performers when using lots of filters, MSAA, or gaming at higher resolutions. They still do decently (970 and 980) but not as well as they should. 

Sorry but I"m also of the mindset that the 980 is pointless. $250+ more than a 970 for, on average, 5-10 FPS more.... Not worth it IMO

WCCFTech discovered that the 128-bit bus is a bottleneck at higher than 1080p

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-radeon-r9-280-4k-benchmarks/

Oh I get it, it's not good because it's not the cheapest option. Anarekist you nailed the clickbait on this one, you should work for a website!

It isn't the cheapest or the best option. 

Well, I think it's mainly just the GTX 960.  128 bit bus...

Really, nvidia?

Sure sure, but still good.

Ubisoft working with nvidia makes sense now. 

"Bandwidth is just a number" 

Seriously though the 960/for where they are aiming it at and the specs it carries is just not justifiable price wise. Especially with the alternatives. They messed up which is all the more amazing after the 970 pricing was spot on.

I cant wait to see what resolution the new amd cards aimed for.

I checked prices at a place in the UK and a 280X, a Sapphire Vapox with 3 fans and a factory overclock, comes in £20 cheaper...and according to Bit Tech, beats the 960 up in most titles.