NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 shootout: Which card should you get for Dota 2?

Going after MOBA gamers

NVIDIA certainly has many cards (pun intended) up its sleeve. While AMD just trotted out the Radeon R9 Fury X, Fury, and its 300 series of rebranded graphics cards, NVIDIA isn’t even done with its GeForce GTX 900 series cards, which first made an appearance as the GeForce GTX 980 back in September 2014.

Now almost a year later, NVIDIA has a new, more affordable card for us. And coming so soon after the super high-end GeForce GTX Titan X and 980 Ti wowed us with their performance, it’s somewhat refreshing to see NVIDIA release a card for the average gamer.

With that said, NVIDIA still has a rather specific target audience in mind – multiplayer online battle arena, better known as MOBA, gamers. Players of competitive MOBA games like Dota 2, League of Legends and Heroes of the Storm require high frame rates, low input latency and great visual quality, and NVIDIA says the GeForce GTX 950 is designed to do just that.

But as is typical of more affordable cards, NVIDIA isn’t releasing a reference version, so we’ve rounded up custom versions of the GeForce GTX 950 from ASUS, Gigabyte and MSI to give you a better idea of which one you should get.

Before we look at the individual cards in greater detail, we’ll first take a look at the card’s architecture and how it differs from the GeForce GTX 960.

Hello again, Maxwell

The GeForce GTX 950 is based on the same GM206 GPU as the GeForce GTX 960, bringing with it support for key features like DirectX 12 and feature level 12_1, including support for more efficient rendering techniques like volume tiled resources, conservative raster, and raster ordered views.

The GM206 GPU on the GeForce GTX 950 is a pared-down version of the chip found on the GeForce GTX 960. Compared to the 8 SMMs and 1,024 CUDA cores on the latter card, the GeForce GTX 950 is equipped with 6 SMMs and just 768 CUDA cores (128 per SMM, 32 in each processing block), a 25% reduction. Like the GeForce GTX 960, each SMM houses 8 texture units, so a reduction in the number of enabled SMMs means that the texture units has similarly taken a 25% reduction to 48. The number of Raster Operator Units (ROPs) remains at 32, the same as on the GeForce GTX 960.

Most workloads are heavily dependent on the number of shaders or SMMs, so it goes without saying that the GeForce GTX 950 will suffer when compared against the GeForce GTX 960 in this respect.

With two Graphics Processing Clusters (GPC), the GeForce GTX 950 also has a 128-bit memory bus width, running at a 6,600MHz effective memory clock (down from the 7,000MHz on the GeForce GTX 960). The reference specifications list a base clock of 1,024MHz and boost clock of 1,188MHz. Finally, it comes outfitted with a modest 2GB of GDDR5 video memory.

Like its bigger brother the GeForce GTX 960, the card is powered by a single 6-pin PCIe connector. However, it features a lower Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 90 watts, compared to the 120 watts on the GeForce GTX 960. This is likely due to its cutdown architecture, with its disabled SMMs and 25% fewer CUDA core, and lower base clock speed.

But that's not all. The GeForce GTX 950 is more than just about a cutdown GM206 chip and in fact is highly optimized to deliver a smooth and responsive gameplay experience through speedier renders and latency optimizations that vastly improve response time. There's also optimizations to the software side of things with an improved GeForce Experience that helps you get more of the GeForce GTX 950 in a fuss-free manner for your respective games. We've covered these aspects and more in a dedicated GeForce GTX 950 feature article.

GeForce GTX 950 vs. the competition?

At US$159, there’s a lot of competition in the sub-US$200 range for the GeForce GTX 950, particularly from the GeForce GTX 960 and AMD Radeon R9 380, both of which are only slightly pricier at US$199. However, NVIDIA has singled out the US$149 AMD Radeon R7 370 as its nearest competitor. We’re not surprised to see it highlight advantages in power consumption, given that the Radeon R7 370 is actually based on the aging Pitcairn GPU that first debuted in 2012. In addition, while the Radeon R7 370 supports DirectX 12, it only supports feature level 11_1, whereas the GeForce GTX 950 will support feature level 12_1.

For the sake of clarity, we’d like to point out that a DirectX version number (e.g. DirectX 11 or 11.1) is not the same as a feature level, which is typically signified with an underscore (instead of a point), as in feature level 12_1. A DirectX version update adds a new set of standardized capabilities that give developers more tools to do their jobs better. In the case of DirectX 12, that would be the ability to have lower API overheads, improved utilization of multi-core CPUs, and the ability to combine the graphics processing capabilities of non-identical GPUs.

On the other hand, a DirectX feature level is more like a subset of a DirectX version update. It defines the exact level of support a particular GPU offers while still supporting the underlying DirectX specification. As a result, the Radeon R7 370 will support the key benefits of DirectX 12 like lower API overheads, but it won’t be able to take advantage of aspects of feature level 12_1 like the aforementioned volume tiled resources and conservative raster.

So does the scoreboard read NVIDIA 1: AMD 0? Perhaps on paper, but the actual feature sets that define feature level 12_1 are probably not going to have any real impact on how the average gamer experiences their games.

Having said that, it's time to check out the contenders of the shootout and scrutinize their performance on the following few pages, so read on!

ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 950

The ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 950 is a familiar sight, with a similar design aesthetic as other Strix branded cards we’ve reviewed. At 220 x 125 x 40mm, it is the most compact card of the lot, so that’s something to take note of if you are going to be building an ultra-compact mini-ITX system.

It ships out of the box in OC mode, with a base clock of 1,165MHz and boost clock of 1,355MHz. The card’s Gaming mode comes with slightly less aggressive clock speeds, with a 1,140MHz base clock and 1,329MHz boost clock.

Here’s a quick look at the card’s specifications:

The dual-fan shroud means that it uses a DirectCU II cooler – instead of the newer triple-fan DirectCU III cooler – a decision probably motivated by the shorter PCB of the GeForce GTX 950 and less need for aggressive cooling given the lower specifications of the card.

Nevertheless, there are still two thick 10mm heatpipes to channel heat away from the GPU die, which are on prominent display when the card is viewed from the side.

As expected, the fans also feature ASUS’ wing-blade design for reportedly better airflow and static pressure, and are also to stop spinning entirely under low loads. This means that noise is kept to a minimum, with the fans only ramping up when the card needs extra cooling.

ASUS has also diverged from the display connectors in the reference specifications. Instead of three DisplayPort connectors, one HDMI port, and one dual-link DVI output, it’s gone with just a single DisplayPort connector, one HDMI port, and two dual-link DVI ports (one DVI-D, one DVI-I).

Like its bigger brother the GeForce GTX 960, the card is powered by a single 6-pin PCIe connector. However, it features a lower Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 90 watts, compared to the 120 watts on the GeForce GTX 960. This is likely due to its cutdown architecture, with its disabled SMMs, 25% fewer CUDA core, and lower base clock speed.

But unlike the ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 960, the card doesn't have a metal backplate, likely another cost-saving measure to help the card appeal to more budget-conscious MOBA gamers.

It’s also the only card in our shootout to use a fully automated manufacturing process, something ASUS calls its Auto-Extreme technology. This helps ensure greater consistency and quality in the manufacturing process, and the elimination of flux from the process also helps prevent dust buildup during manufacture.

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950 Xtreme Gaming

This card is the first graphics card from Gigabyte to bear the Xtreme Gaming branding, and it represents a departure from the slew of WindForce-branded cards that we’ve been reviewing so far.

It’s not a complete breakaway from the history of WindForce cards though, and the GeForce GTX 950 Xtreme Gaming still uses a dual-fan WindForce cooler, although the shroud now features accents of silver instead of an all-black design.

The fans are also the same as the ones used on WindForce cards, with a triangular protrusion and raised ridges to increase airflow and, according to Gigabyte, direct air through the fan. Of course, they are also semi-passive fans, so they can stop spinning entirely during low loads.

The Xtreme Gaming is the highest clocked card of the lot, with a base clock of 1,203MHz and boost clock of 1,405MHz.

Here’s a snapshot of the card’s specifications:

The new Xtreme Gaming series of cards are designed for better overclocking performance, and Gigabyte manufactures the cards using its GPU Gauntlet Sorting technology to cherry-pick chips for better power efficiency and overclocking capability.

Round the side of the card, the WindForce logo is flanked by two LED-illuminated “Silent” and “Stop” indicators, both of which will light up when the fans stop spinning, which should also help provide a visual indication of how hard the card is working. The WindForce logo itself is also LED backlit, and can be customized with up to seven different colors using Gigabyte’s OC Guru II utility.

When it comes to display connectors, the card has gone with the reference specification, with three DisplayPort connectors, one DVI-I port, and one HDMI output.

Power is supplied via a single 8-pin PCIe connector, the only card in our shootout to require more than a 6-pin connector. This is probably intended to bolster the card’s overclocking capabilities, and as we’ll see later, the Gigabyte card did indeed turn out to be the best overclocker.

Finally, the card is equipped with a brushed metal backplate with four industrial-looking screws in the center that we quite like. Again, it’s the only card in our lineup to feature a backplate. We were actually pleasantly surprised to find a backplate on a budget card like this one, and it’s nice to see certain premium features finding their way onto more affordable cards.

MSI GeForce GTX 950 Gaming 2G

The MSI GeForce GTX 950 Gaming 2G is the largest card of the lot. At 270 x 137 x 37mm, it is longer and wider than both the ASUS (220 x 125 x 40mm) and Gigabyte (240 x 132 x 42mm) cards.

The dimensions aren’t going to be a problem for most cases, but users who want a cheap build with the smallest space footprint may find themselves more inclined toward the smaller ASUS and Gigabyte offerings.

The card’s bulk is probably due to MSI’s desire to accommodate the two large Torx fans, which are a fair bit bigger than those of its counterparts. MSI appears to have been unwilling to downsize its Twin Frozr V cooler despite the lower 90 watt TDP of the GeForce GTX 950, and its PCB also looks to be a larger custom one that matches the dimensions of the cooling shroud.

The card ships in OC mode, with a base clock of 1,127MHz and boost clock of 1,317MHz. For less heat and noise, users can opt to switch to Gaming mode, which has a base clock of 1,102MHz and boost clock of 1,279MHz. Alternatively, there’s also Silent mode, which takes the card down to reference speeds with a 1,026MHz base clock and 1,190MHz boost clock. As it stands, the MSI card has the most number of modes for users to choose from, and they can toggle between all three via the MSI Gaming App.

Here’s a snapshot of the card’s out-of-the-box specifications:

The Twin Frozr V cooler on this card shares the same red-and-black design as other cards in MSI’s Gaming series. The two Torx fans can also operate independently of each other, giving the card finer control over both noise and temperature.

The MSI Gaming dragon insignia on the card’s side can also be customized with one of five lighting effects – No Animation, Breathing, Flashing, Double Flashing and Random – to suit your preferences. It’s not much, but it’s a nice touch for users who want a little control over their card’s aesthetics. This would be especially useful if the chassis has window to show off the components powering your rig.

In the way of display connectors, the card adheres to the reference design with three DisplayPort connectors, one DVI-I port, and one HDMI output.

It is powered by a single 6-pin PCIe connector, the same as the ASUS card.

It is also lacking a metal backplate. Normally, that wouldn’t be a cause for much comment as this is intended to be a budget card. But given that Gigabyte has raised the bar on budget card features with the backplate on the Xtreme Gaming, we couldn’t help but think that the MSI card could use a backplate, especially given that it is longer and wider than its counterparts and could hence use the extra structural support.

Before we dive into the results, here’s a table lining up the specifications of the cards:

Test Setup

We tested each card on the following graphics testbed:

• Intel Core i7-5960X

• ASUS X99-Pro (Intel X99 chipset) motherboard

• 2 x 4GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2133 (Auto timings: CAS 15-15-15-36)

• Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB SATA 6Gbps solid state drive (OS)

• Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB SATA 6Gbps hard drive (benchmark + games)

• Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit SP1

• Intel INF 10.0.20

The GeForce GTX 950 effectively rounds up the bottom of the NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 900 series of cards, and we’ll be comparing it with similarly priced (i.e. sub-US$200 reference pricing) cards from both NVIDIA and AMD. This happens to also include the Radeon R9 380, so while we expect quite a large performance gap between the GeForce GTX 950 and the R9 380, the comparison should provide a more complete picture of how the GeForce GTX 950 stacks up against the cards in our sub-US$200 price band.

Here’s a full list of the cards tested and their driver versions:

• ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 950 (ForceWare 355.82)

• Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950 Xtreme Gaming (ForceWare 355.82)

• MSI GeForce GTX 950 Gaming 2G (ForceWare 355.82)

• ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 960 (ForceWare 353.30)

• ASUS Strix Radeon R9 380 DirectCU II OC 2G (AMD Catalyst 15.20)

• ASUS Strix Radeon R7 370 DirectCU II OC 4G (AMD Catalyst 15.20)

• Sapphire Vapor-X R9 270X OC (AMD Catalyst 14.12)

Benchmarks

As this is our first test run of the GeForce GTX 950, we’ll be running our complete suite of synthetic and gaming benchmarks to get an idea of the full performance characteristics of NVIDIA’s new cards.

• Futuremark 3DMark 2013

• Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

• Crysis 3

• Tomb Raider

• Hitman: Absolution

• Thief

We used the Fire Strike Extreme test in 3DMark 2013 for our power and temperature tests.

Before diving into the results, here’s a table to show how the cards compare against one another on paper:

3DMark 2013

Thanks to its higher clock speeds, the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950 Xtreme Gaming was unsurprisingly the fastest GeForce GTX 950 in our gaming tests. In 3DMark Fire Strike, it was approximately 5-6% quicker than both the ASUS and MSI cards. As it turns out, the respective clock speeds of all the cards are fairly good predictors of their performance. The ASUS card had the second highest clock speeds and came in second, while the MSI card had the mildest clock speeds and came in last.

All three GeForce GTX 950 cards also came out ahead of the cheaper ASUS Strix Radeon R7 370 and Sapphire Vapor-X Radeon R9 270X, but fell behind the ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 960 and Radeon R9 380. The ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 950 was around 13% slower than the GeForce GTX 960, which is probably the card that gamers will use as a yardstick when deciding whether or not to buy the GeForce GTX 950. In addition, its performance was about 30% better than the Radeon R7 370, which is quite a notable margin given their close price point.

The differences narrow in the more demanding Fire Strike Ultra test, which taxes the cards with a 4K resolution benchmark. These cards don’t exactly belong in the high-end, enthusiast segment of the market, and are unsurprisingly out of their depth here. The GeForce GTX 950 was now just over 6% slower than the GeForce GTX 960, and both NVIDIA cards even managed to inch ahead of the Radeon R9 380. Regardless, the figures in this test are moot as they are far from delivering a playable experience and are overburdening the graphics cards.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

Shadow of Mordor is quite a taxing game, even more so at the resolutions and settings we test it at. As expected, the GeForce GTX 950 isn’t delivering more than 20fps here. Even the Gigabyte card, which was the fastest of the lot, managed an average fps of just 17.18fps, which would make for a barely playable experience.

As we crank the resolutions up above 1600p, the ASUS Strix Radeon R7 370 OC 4G managed to take the lead, perhaps thanks to its 4GB of GDDR5 memory. However, the results for resolutions exceeding 1600p are ultimately irrelevant from a practical standpoint as none of the cards deliver anything close to remotely playable frame rates.

Clearly, the GeForce GTX 950 is out of its league at resolutions exceeding 1080p, as are the other cards at this price point.

Crysis 3

The Gigabyte Xtreme Gaming card maintained its lead among its brethren in Crysis 3. At a resolution of 1920 x 1200 with anti-aliasing turned off, the difference between the Gigabyte card and its competitors was also around 5%. The ASUS and MSI card actually turned out very similar performances, coming within a frame of each other in all four of our tested settings.

On a more general note, it looks like anti-aliasing imposes quite a hit on the GeForce GTX 950’s performance, so that’s something to take note of when deciding what settings to use. All the tested cards did better at a 1600p resolution with AA turned off than they did with AA turned on at a 1200p resolution.

As the middle-of-the-pack card, the ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 950 was around 12% to 15% slower than the GeForce GTX 960 in Crysis 3. However, it was ahead of the Radeon R7 370 for the most part by 15%-20%, a respectable lead given that there is only a US$10 difference between the two cards according to their reference pricing.

The most demanding test combined a 1600p resolution, Ultra settings, and 8x MSAA, and as we observed in Shadow of Mordor, none of the cards were able to push out playable frame rates. Just as in the prior game, the frame rate differences between most of the cards did not matter much, given the generally abysmal performance.

Tomb Raider

The ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 960 took the lead in Tomb Raider, posting figures that put it about 20% ahead of the GeForce GTX 950. That’s a fairly significant lead, and it also managed to edge out the ASUS Strix Radeon R9 380. To the GeForce GTX 950’s credit, all the cards once again outdid the Strix Radeon R9 370, coming in at well over 30% faster. The Radeon R9 370 actually performed rather poorly here, losing out to even last generation’s Sapphire Vapor-X R9 270X.

As a two-year old game that is starting to show it’s age, Tomb Raider might be the game – compared to the rest of our benchmarks – that best illustrates the cards’ relative performance to each other in less demanding MOBA games like Dota 2 and League of Legends. The GeForce GTX 950 acquits itself decently here when compared to the Radeon R7 370, its closest priced competitor, even if it is still of course slower than the GeForce GTX 960. And thanks to its aggressive clock speeds, the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950 Xtreme Gaming again outmatched its competitors as the only GeForce GTX 950 card to break 50fps.

Hitman: Absolution

All the NVIDIA cards did less well here compared to the ASUS Strix Radeon R9 380, which took a 38% lead over the ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 950 in the least demanding 1200p, 0xAA benchmark.

Hitman: Absolution continues to be quite a demanding game with anti-aliasing cranked to the maximum, and that’s evident by the huge performance hit all the cards took when we turned anti-aliasing on. However, the Radeon R9 380 maintained an equally strong 28% lead over the GeForce GTX 950 going into the 1200p, 8xAA benchmark, and was quite far ahead of the GeForce GTX 960 as well. Comparing the two NVIDIA cards also put the latter card at approximately 10% faster than the GeForce GTX 950 on average.

Another thing to note is that the ASUS Strix Radeon R7 370 and Sapphire Vapor-X R9 270X performed quite well compared to the NVIDIA cards, even though they lagged behind by quite a bit in the other benchmarks. This is probably due to the fact that Hitman: Absolution is part of AMD’s Gaming Evolved program, which means the game has actually been optimized for AMD’s cards and drivers.

Thief

The ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 960 turned out to be around 15% to 20% faster than its newer but smaller sibling in Thief. On the other hand, the GeForce GTX 950’s lead over the ASUS Strix Radeon R7 370 fluctuated quite a bit, ranging from anywhere from near parity to a 16% difference.

As can be observed in our Thief benchmark and the ones preceding it, the less demanding the benchmark, the larger the performance differential between the Strix GeForce GTX 950 and the Radeon R7 370. Given that MOBA games are generally easy to run, this bodes well for the GeForce GTX 950’s performance against its closest competitor.

Interestingly enough, the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950 Xtreme Gaming lost its lead to its ASUS counterpart here. Both cards were essentially neck-and-neck for all practical intents and purposes, but the ASUS card managed to eke out a sliver of a lead in three out of four of our tested settings. The MSI card did poorly in Thief, coming in around 10fps behind (a 13% difference with the Gigabyte card) its faster clocked competitors at 1200p and Normal preset.

Temperature and Power Consumption

The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950 Xtreme Gaming continued to impress in our temperature tests. After looping 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme for a little while, we recorded a peak temperature of 62ºC, which was the same as the MSI card despite the latter’s lower clock speeds. In this case at least, it looks like the larger Twin Frozr V cooler and Torx fans on the MSI card isn’t helping it pull ahead.

We also weren’t surprised to find that the NVIDIA cards ran cooler than the current generation AMD 300 series cards, as Maxwell has traditionally trumped AMD in this area. The hottest GeForce GTX 950 - the ASUS card - recorded a peak temperature of 65°C, which was still lower than the 68°C recorded on the Radeon R7 370.

There were no surprises in the power consumption department and the three GeForce GTX 950 cards performed in accordance with their clock speeds. The MSI card consumed the least power because of its low clock speeds, while the Gigabyte card consumed the most. The GeForce GTX 950 recorded a peak power consumption figure of 209 watts in 3DMark FireStrike Extreme on the Gigabyte card, lower than the 217 watts consumed by its bigger sibling, the GeForce GTX 960. Again, this is to be expected given that it’s a less powerful card with two disabled SMMs and lower base and memory clock speeds.

Overclocking

The Gigabyte card again put out the best performance among the tested GeForce GTX 950 cards in our overclocking tests. We were able to achieve a base clock of 1,283MHz, which translated into a boost clock of 1,485MHz. For the memory, we were able to push it to an effective clock rate of 7,080MHz, which is fairly impressive given the already high out-of-the-box speed of 7,000MHz.

However, because of the high factory overclocks, the proportional gain in performance for the Gigabyte card was less than that for the ASUS and MSI cards. In 3DMark Fire Strike, the improvement was just under 3%. In comparison, the ASUS card managed just under a 4% improvement. Because of its lower clock speeds, MSI card turned out the largest proportional gain at 5.7%.

The overclocking tests also serve to highlight the strength of the Gigabyte’s card performance. Even without overclocking, it performed better than overclocked ASUS and MSI cards in 3DMark Fire Strike.

The GeForce GTX 960 was a marginally better overclocker than its less powerful counterpart, posting a 6% increase in 3DMark Fire Strike and managing an 11% increase in its base clock speed, versus 9% on the ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 950. However, compared to the Radeon R7 370 and R9 270X, the GeForce GTX 950 looks like a very decent overclocker indeed as those two AMD cards were barely able to squeeze out performance improvements from overclocking.

A Cheaper GeForce GTX 960

If you keep up with developments in the graphics card market, you’ll probably remember that NVIDIA also launched the GeForce GTX 960 to target MOBA gamers. And now with the GeForce GTX 950, it’s pushing that angle more aggressively than ever with nifty optimizations via GeForce Experience and claims of lower latency.

While it’s true that NVIDIA has crafted quite a compelling argument to position the GeForce GTX 950 as the perfect card for MOBA gamers – MOBA games do indeed benefit from lower latency and aren’t very demanding to run – we can’t help but wonder if the genre is just a convenient catch-all for budget cards that won’t run more demanding games. But don’t get us wrong. We’re not questioning the merits of NVIDIA’s pitch (in fact we quite agree with it), but rather whether NVIDIA actually needs a card below the GeForce GTX 960.

It’s true that NVIDIA has traditionally released GeForce GTX X50 cards sometime after the release of its GeForce GTX X60 cards, and this would simply be continuing a longstanding trend. However, last year’s GeForce GTX 750 and 750 Ti debuted the new first-generation Maxwell architecture, and was not simply a cutdown version of the GK107 Kepler GPU on the GeForce GTX 760. But with the GeForce GTX 950, we’re contending with just a pared-down GM206 GPU, and some software optimizations to boot.

Is the GeForce GTX 950 right for me?

It’s great that NVIDIA is releasing a new card at an even more affordable price point. It’s even a fairly good card. Since we've obtained a whole boatload of ASUS cards on the AMD and NVIDIA side of things, we'll be focusing on the ASUS series of cards to derive the performance and price worthiness of the GTX 950 GPU to level the playing field.

As we noted in the previous section, the GeForce GTX 950 beats the ASUS Strix Radeon R7 370 4GB – its closest competitor – quite handily at lower 1200p resolutions (1,920 x 1,200 pixels) and with anti-aliasing turned off. To put things simply, the less demanding the game or settings, the greater the performance difference. This bodes well for the GeForce GTX 950’s claim to being the standard bearer for cash-strapped MOBA gamers all around. At S$319, the Strix GeForce GTX 950 is also even cheaper than the Strix Radeon R7 370 4GB, which has an official SRP of S$339 (although you can probably find it retailing for less).

The GeForce GTX 950 is really a cheaper and less powerful GeForce GTX 960. So what’s to stop you from ponying up a bit more for the GeForce GTX 960? For one, the new GeForce Experience optimization features are still only supported on NVIDIA’s latest card, so that’s one advantage it has. At S$319, the ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 950 is also S$50 cheaper than the S$369 Strix GeForce GTX 960 2GB. Is the 10% to 20% difference we noticed in some games worth S$50, at the expense of the one-click optimization feature? That’s really for you to decide, but do note that the NVIDIA Control Panel settings it controls can all be tweaked manually, and GeForce Experience will eventually support optimization for other cards.

Ultimately, we expect the GeForce GTX 950 to be fairly well received. The mainstream end of the line-up has traditionally commanded a larger share of the market. Of course, it also helps that Dota 2 and League of Legends are exceedingly popular. If you’re working on a really tight budget, we’d definitely recommend the GeForce GTX 950.

And the winning GeForce GTX 950 card is...

The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950 Xtreme Gaming was the clear winner here. When it comes to shootouts of cards based on the same reference design, performance differences are often only in the range of a few frames, which means that things like temperature, overclocking performance, and power consumption matter more.

The Gigabyte card comes ahead in three out of four of our assessment areas, thus handing it the winner’s crown. It lost out in terms of power consumption, but this is arguably an area that matters less to most end users, and an inevitable result of having the highest clock speeds.

It’s compact size also works out in its favor – it is a good 30mm shorter than the MSI GeForce GTX 950 Gaming 2G – as a card like the GeForce GTX 950 is likely to appeal to small system builders who just want a functional gaming system. In our humble opinion, budget-oriented cards should above all be compact and easy to fit into equally compact cases.

Furthermore, the inclusion of a metal backplate also helps it to stand out from the crowd. Budget cards like the GeForce GTX 950 don't usually come with one, so the Gigabyte card managed to score bonus points in the area of build quality and general robustness.

At S$329, it's the most expensive GeForce GTX 950 we tested, but its good performance relative to its competitors and features like a metal backplate help justify the small premium it commands.

As the first card in Gigabyte’s Xtreme Gaming series of graphics cards, the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950 Xtreme Gaming makes a quite convincing entry onto the scene. Its aggressive factory overclocks, strong performance relative to its competitors, and good cooling performance combine for a winning formula.