Posts: 754
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2015
Wholly crap, the chip us huge. To launch a chip so large on a brand new node, that's impressive. But then, the clock speed....the Tesla cards are usually clocked much lower than the consumer cards. So it is very interesting to see such high clocks.
Also, the white paper says the first Tesla will not be a full chip, so those impressive results could be even better with a full chip. Pascal looks like a massive leap.
I believe the architecture is really making a difference here and they are not relying on just the benefits a new node brings.
I have waited a long time for something interesting again in the pc world...things look very promising
Posts: 890
Threads: 44
Joined: Jul 2015
(04-21-2016, 06:10 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.p...69&page=80
NVIDIA white paper posted of Pascal.
This means they have had their editors day, and launch within 2 weeks. That was always how they used to do it anyway- send us/press cards, web conference, then 2 weeks for press to run benches and get their articles together. Sometimes as little as 10 days.
Interesting! Real pics already posted .. hope you're right!!!
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,531
Threads: 38
Joined: Feb 2015
Cool beans. The wait will be over soon.
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
GTX 1080 benchmarks appear, its core clock can hit up to 1860 MHz: http://techreport.com/news/30086/rumor-n...-in-3dmark
Posts: 1,531
Threads: 38
Joined: Feb 2015
Interesting. I wonder what they are going to reveal tomorrow.
Posts: 890
Threads: 44
Joined: Jul 2015
Only maybe 15-20% higher performance than GTX 980 Ti? UGHHH..... I hope we'll see more than the 3Dmark score leaks.
More info coming soon today?
Posts: 2,310
Threads: 59
Joined: Mar 2015
(05-06-2016, 03:28 PM)BoFox Wrote: Only maybe 15-20% higher performance than GTX 980 Ti? UGHHH..... I hope we'll see more than the 3Dmark score leaks.
More info coming soon today?
Depending on price, that could be fine.
At $599, they're an OK deal because you get high end 980 Ti (factory OCd) performance, and potential for more with OC. (factory or otherwise)]
At $499 they're a steal compared to what we have now and will sell a ton.
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2015
Due to the time difference I won't be awake for the live announcement, I have much a much better thing to be doing at 2am. 
Posts: 754
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2015
Thanks for the link. But wow!!
Did you read the comments? The 15% amd marketeers are really out bashing every pascal article hard. And it truly is over the top.
Here are some quotes
"IMO it is fugly.........give me some RADEON 5800 looks - that was a beauty"
"
Yeah...it's fugly. I'm a much bigger fan of AMD industrial design for their cards."
"It looks like Mythbusters tried to vacuum crush the cooler from the inside.
It is a wee bit shit looking IMO. But then again, I can't recall the last stock cooler I had that I didn't bang a block on... Well, I can. it was a Radeon HD 5850."
And on and on.
I guess we can prolly bet on polaris being plain jane, pretty sure it's gonna look like the 5850 since it's been brought up so many times.
I can't believe the crap these guys are posting. Geez, they are way too obvious
Posts: 2,310
Threads: 59
Joined: Mar 2015
(05-06-2016, 10:00 PM)ocre Wrote: Thanks for the link. But wow!!
Did you read the comments? The 15% amd marketeers are really out bashing every pascal article hard. And it truly is over the top.
Here are some quotes
"IMO it is fugly.........give me some RADEON 5800 looks - that was a beauty"
"
Yeah...it's fugly. I'm a much bigger fan of AMD industrial design for their cards."
"It looks like Mythbusters tried to vacuum crush the cooler from the inside.
It is a wee bit shit looking IMO. But then again, I can't recall the last stock cooler I had that I didn't bang a block on... Well, I can. it was a Radeon HD 5850."
And on and on.
I guess we can prolly bet on polaris being plain jane, pretty sure it's gonna look like the 5850 since it's been brought up so many times.
I can't believe the crap these guys are posting. Geez, they are way too obvious
AMD could zip tie dog shit to the front of their cards and those guys would post,"I much prefer AMDs eco-friendly Earth tones to the Transformer-esque monstrosity NVIDIA has spawned. Just another indication of how AMD is working to save the world while NVIDIA works to destroy it!".
They're people who don't have much money that think it's a really big deal to get a free video card, so they would say their mom is really Satan to get them. Pathetic.
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
05-07-2016, 04:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2016, 04:12 AM by SteelCrysis.)
Posts: 754
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
It's not playing for me, I'm watching the AnandTech live blogging: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10305/the-...6-liveblog
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
GTX 1080 announced, it's a Pascal card, 16nm TSMC FinFET, GDDR5X, more efficient than the GTX 980, FASTER THAN SLI 980s AND TITAN X [didn't say in what game], Nvidia's numbers would be around 20–25% faster than Titan X/980 Ti.
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
05-07-2016, 07:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2016, 07:55 AM by SteelCrysis.)
HOLY FUCK GTX 1080 HITS 2.1 GHZ!!!!!! VRAM HITS 5508 MHZ!!!!!!
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
05-07-2016, 08:18 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2016, 08:21 AM by SteelCrysis.)
Pascal is more built for VR than Titan X, and has better performance and efficiency than Titan X when VR takes advantage of Pascal's special features. GTX 1080 has 8 GB of GDDR5X VRAM, is at USD 599, Founder's Edition at USD 699, will be released May 27.
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
05-07-2016, 08:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2016, 08:23 AM by SteelCrysis.)
GTX 1070 announced, 8 GB of GDDR5 VRAM, is at USD 379, Founder's Edition at USD 449, will be released June 10th. And the event's over.
Posts: 754
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 754
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2015
2x perf over titan x? How? When overclocked or something? Is it really that fast?
What about the 1070? It's faster than the titan x for 370 bucks
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 754
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2015
So the 1080 is 2x as fast as the titan X in VR. It is looking to be 25% faster or more than the titan x. The 1070 will be 379 and faster than a titan x. Yet I read people on anandtech whining that the 1070 will be gimped way further than the 970 was???
It actually looks like it will end up very much the same. The 970 was around 20% slower than the 980. So much so, you could not overclock and catch up. Even at 1550mhz, it still couldn't catch up the a 980.
People are really being silly. But the ones posting so far seem to be mostly diluted fanboys. The big and loud gang seem mute so far. I think they are trying to get their jaws strapped back to their heads so they can spend the rest of the night trying furiously to come up with some kind of attack plan. I have seen a few people posting, well we got to wait to see what AMD launches.
It's pretty clear. A 290ish performance at 150 watts is a huge flop man. A massive flop. AMD has some really big shoes to fill here. Even on price, they are gonna have a hard time selling those. Many many pc gamers have 28nm cards now. And the performance polaris is looking to be at, it's not enough to make many people go out and buy. It's 2013 performance. At 300 bucks, it's a fail. At 250, it's not anything to get excited over.
Pascal really really really moves the performance per dollar mark. Especially on the 1070. Pascal seems to be moving the performance per watt mark by a whole lot too.
I just think amd has some big large shoes to fill. They may be getting left behind, far behind this time. I truly believe AMD is gonna be in a difficult position and have been holding out on their launch. But really, this is speculation. Perhaps amd has been hiding the fact that their polaris is gonna run at 2000mhz core clocks. Perhaps the sub 1000th clocks are just to mislead.
You got to think about it. Polaris 10 seems to have similar core counts to gp104. Nvidia and amd core counts vs performance hasn't been equal but they aren't extremely way off either. We are looking at polaris running at half the gp104 speed alone. Not counting the differences that there may be in performance core to core. Gp104 looks to demolish this time.
But you hear people saying, "well at least we know that amd will win in mobile and Polaris will have better performance per watt". I say, I highly highly highly doubt that. The gp104 is looking really efficient at almost 2000mhz with their flagship. I am pretty sure that this translates to very good even for pascal lower tdp solutions. It seems highly unlikely amd will run away with efficiency this round. If polaris manages to edge out pascal mobile, it simply won't be by a lot. It seems like a tall task and I wouldn't bet on polaris being more efficient at all. They will sell chips that perform slower. You can get that for less tdp.
It seems to me though, if a 2000mhz pascal can be that efficient then a 1000mhz version cut down could be significantly more power efficient. So much so that I cannot imagine where it stands.
See, amd is claiming 2.5x increase in perf per watt for a card that may perform around that of a 390. Nvidia is showing 2x increase in per per watt for a card faster than a titan x =>25% or so and running +1800mhz. While both amd and nvidia could be exaggerating with best case scenarios, we also know that nvidia had a very notable perf per watt edge with maxwell already. So, this 2.5x amd speaks of, even if it is exactly that, mathematically does not appear to me much of an edge. And since we are speaking of best case 2.5x for amd and we see nvidia promoting 2x with their ultra fast flagship.....I am led to believe that this idea that Polaris will be ultra efficient compared to pascal seems illogical.
The numbers we have from amd and nvidia don't suggest this at all. Especially since amd bases their gains on their 28nm chips and nvidia bases theirs off maxwell.
It's just not adding up. I think anyone who thinks amd will base their 2.5x off their more efficient hbm water cooled fury (which still wasn't more efficient than the 980) they are dreaming. Their polaris 10 is not a replacement for fury x. I am thinking this will be based off the 290x or 7970ghz. And if it is any other chip that fury X, well...you do the math
Posts: 890
Threads: 44
Joined: Jul 2015
DisplayPort 1.4 support confirmed, whew..... at least that means support for HDR, if I'm not mistaken?
I find it interesting that after AMD made the noise about HDR, Nvidia doesn't want to make a squeak about it.
Posts: 890
Threads: 44
Joined: Jul 2015
(05-07-2016, 10:34 AM)ocre Wrote: So the 1080 is 2x as fast as the titan X in VR. It is looking to be 25% faster or more than the titan x. The 1070 will be 379 and faster than a titan x. Yet I read people on anandtech whining that the 1070 will be gimped way further than the 970 was???
It actually looks like it will end up very much the same. The 970 was around 20% slower than the 980. So much so, you could not overclock and catch up. Even at 1550mhz, it still couldn't catch up the a 980.
People are really being silly. But the ones posting so far seem to be mostly diluted fanboys. The big and loud gang seem mute so far. I think they are trying to get their jaws strapped back to their heads so they can spend the rest of the night trying furiously to come up with some kind of attack plan. I have seen a few people posting, well we got to wait to see what AMD launches.
It's pretty clear. A 290ish performance at 150 watts is a huge flop man. A massive flop. AMD has some really big shoes to fill here. Even on price, they are gonna have a hard time selling those. Many many pc gamers have 28nm cards now. And the performance polaris is looking to be at, it's not enough to make many people go out and buy. It's 2013 performance. At 300 bucks, it's a fail. At 250, it's not anything to get excited over.
Pascal really really really moves the performance per dollar mark. Especially on the 1070. Pascal seems to be moving the performance per watt mark by a whole lot too.
I just think amd has some big large shoes to fill. They may be getting left behind, far behind this time. I truly believe AMD is gonna be in a difficult position and have been holding out on their launch. But really, this is speculation. Perhaps amd has been hiding the fact that their polaris is gonna run at 2000mhz core clocks. Perhaps the sub 1000th clocks are just to mislead.
You got to think about it. Polaris 10 seems to have similar core counts to gp104. Nvidia and amd core counts vs performance hasn't been equal but they aren't extremely way off either. We are looking at polaris running at half the gp104 speed alone. Not counting the differences that there may be in performance core to core. Gp104 looks to demolish this time.
But you hear people saying, "well at least we know that amd will win in mobile and Polaris will have better performance per watt". I say, I highly highly highly doubt that. The gp104 is looking really efficient at almost 2000mhz with their flagship. I am pretty sure that this translates to very good even for pascal lower tdp solutions. It seems highly unlikely amd will run away with efficiency this round. If polaris manages to edge out pascal mobile, it simply won't be by a lot. It seems like a tall task and I wouldn't bet on polaris being more efficient at all. They will sell chips that perform slower. You can get that for less tdp.
It seems to me though, if a 2000mhz pascal can be that efficient then a 1000mhz version cut down could be significantly more power efficient. So much so that I cannot imagine where it stands.
See, amd is claiming 2.5x increase in perf per watt for a card that may perform around that of a 390. Nvidia is showing 2x increase in per per watt for a card faster than a titan x =>25% or so and running +1800mhz. While both amd and nvidia could be exaggerating with best case scenarios, we also know that nvidia had a very notable perf per watt edge with maxwell already. So, this 2.5x amd speaks of, even if it is exactly that, mathematically does not appear to me much of an edge. And since we are speaking of best case 2.5x for amd and we see nvidia promoting 2x with their ultra fast flagship.....I am led to believe that this idea that Polaris will be ultra efficient compared to pascal seems illogical.
The numbers we have from amd and nvidia don't suggest this at all. Especially since amd bases their gains on their 28nm chips and nvidia bases theirs off maxwell.
It's just not adding up. I think anyone who thinks amd will base their 2.5x off their more efficient hbm water cooled fury (which still wasn't more efficient than the 980) they are dreaming. Their polaris 10 is not a replacement for fury x. I am thinking this will be based off the 290x or 7970ghz. And if it is any other chip that fury X, well...you do the math
AMD's just a scaredy cat chicken on a new fab process (14nm GloFo), just like back on 55nm TSMC when Nvidia was just moving to 65nm with 8800GT. ATi went tiny on 55nm with HD 3870, which wasn't any faster than HD 2900XT on 80nm.
Perhaps this is history repeating itself all over again.
Nvidia has new arch, shrinks from 90nm to 65nm.. 9800GTX is barely any faster than 8800 Ultra...
ATI - barely new arch, shrinks from 80nm to 55nm.. HD 3870 is arguably faster than HD 2900XT (and loses badly to 8800GT, let alone 9800GTX).
AMD would have to go real, real cheap with this if AMD wants to succeed.
If history actually does repeat itself, then AMD won't be cheap with Polaris 10, but then as a result will be cheap with Vega during an emergency attempt to regain lost marketshare - a la HD 4870 priced at $300 disrupting GTX 280's launch at $649, which was only like 20% faster or so.
Perhaps it's all part of the history Bible lessons.. 
Posts: 2,310
Threads: 59
Joined: Mar 2015
05-07-2016, 06:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2016, 06:55 PM by RolloTheGreat.)
Last I heard AMD was down to 20% in the discrete market, they don't have a lot of marketshare to lose or recover.
These cards defintitely make all Fury and 970/980 generation obsolete, will be a big hit for NVIDIA and continue their dominance.
If the founders edition 1080 offers factory OC I'm in for one launch day. If it offers standard performance and a better binned chip for non warranty OC I'm in for standard.
Has to be tough for the shill brigade these days. AMD is just getting stomped flat on both fronts.
Shill Handler: OK guys, our position is this: Tell everyone they need to wait for the GREAT parts AMD is coming out with soon, tell them they don't want to make a $600 mistake. When Polaris launches, we'll keep up that same argument, but say we were talking about Vega all along. Meanwhile we'll say Polaris offers great bang for buck and we'll throw in a few games. Your Polaris cards will be in the mail soon.
Shills: Yes master we hear and obey. Thank you master.
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
05-07-2016, 08:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2016, 09:04 PM by SteelCrysis.)
Yes, DP 1.4 supports HDR 4K @ 120 Hz. Enjoy the trailer, and notice the single 8-pin connector:
Posts: 754
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2015
05-07-2016, 09:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2016, 09:10 PM by ocre.)
BoFox Wrote:AMD's just a scaredy cat chicken on a new fab process (14nm GloFo), just like back on 55nm TSMC when Nvidia was just moving to 65nm with 8800GT. ATi went tiny on 55nm with HD 3870, which wasn't any faster than HD 2900XT on 80nm.
Perhaps this is history repeating itself all over again.
Nvidia has new arch, shrinks from 90nm to 65nm.. 9800GTX is barely any faster than 8800 Ultra...
ATI - barely new arch, shrinks from 80nm to 55nm.. HD 3870 is arguably faster than HD 2900XT (and loses badly to 8800GT, let alone 9800GTX).
AMD would have to go real, real cheap with this if AMD wants to succeed.
If history actually does repeat itself, then AMD won't be cheap with Polaris 10, but then as a result will be cheap with Vega during an emergency attempt to regain lost marketshare - a la HD 4870 priced at $300 disrupting GTX 280's launch at $649, which was only like 20% faster or so.
Perhaps it's all part of the history Bible lessons..
But...but...butt....haven't you heard? We always get 200% performance jumps when there is a new node shrink and that is why the gp104 sucks. It's only twice as fast as a the GTX980. Oh, and it is such a power hog, did you see that? 180 watt tdp!!!! It's just totally unacceptable for a card that is 25-30% faster than titan x.
Oh and nvidia is crazy releasing a card that is faster than titan x for $379.
What a dud!!!
AMD claims polaris is 2.5x as efficient so they win. Nvidia claims 2x for pascal.
2.5 > 2
So it's clear as day. AMD will blow away nvidia this round
Posts: 178
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2015
I think you all must be struggling here.
The Radeon Pro Duo is only a mere $1500 and barely sips energy at a miniscule 350 watts, you really need to keep that in mind.
Here we have nVidia violating us with a board that is barely any faster, uses a STAGGERING 180 watts and costs an OBSCENE $599- how can you people be so confused.......?
On a more serious note- I absolutely understand why on a technical, competitive and financial basis nVidia is using this strategy, but I'm really not a fan of getting a x80 part based on a x04 GPU. Completely understand all of the utterly valid reasoning behind it, and I also totally get with how shockingly inept AMD is there is no reason to do it differently(they absolutely *could*, but it would hurt the margins pretty badly).
Posts: 754
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2015
(05-08-2016, 07:29 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote: I think you all must be struggling here.
The Radeon Pro Duo is only a mere $1500 and barely sips energy at a miniscule 350 watts, you really need to keep that in mind.
Here we have nVidia violating us with a board that is barely any faster, uses a STAGGERING 180 watts and costs an OBSCENE $599- how can you people be so confused.......?
On a more serious note- I absolutely understand why on a technical, competitive and financial basis nVidia is using this strategy, but I'm really not a fan of getting a x80 part based on a x04 GPU. Completely understand all of the utterly valid reasoning behind it, and I also totally get with how shockingly inept AMD is there is no reason to do it differently(they absolutely *could*, but it would hurt the margins pretty badly).
Lol. That's funny.
I want to hit on a few things.
1st is the fact that AMD themselves found it important to come out and make clear that Polaris was a mid-range mainstream card. The points they are selling it on clearly indicate it's not gonna compete in the high end. Perf per watt increase- 2.5x compared to who knows which last gen card. But we can be sure that it won't be last gen nvidia cards, the 2.5x will be based on probably the 290x which I expect polaris 10 to perform like. Which is supported by AMD'S other selling point they have been promoting- expanding the available market with lower priced cards. They have pretty mum on performance.
2nd-
Fury pro 2 duo X or whatever they call it. I guess they had meetings to try to come up with the awesomest over the top name ever and somehow they come up with the that name by merging Radeon and core 2 duo. All jokes aside, the fact the card just launched...it is telling. This is amd trying to compete in the high end. Polaris simply will not.
3rd-
Cpu technology has run up to a wall and scaling over it has proved very difficult. As much as anyone wants to try to call nvidia greedy, there is also the real reality. We are not seeing the gp100 today because it just isn't possible. The technology is moving and advancing slower. It is taking more time and more money, more than ever before. So as these launches are staggered, it would be a big blow if cash flow dried up at the same time. You see, the gp104 will out perform the high end. Releasing it could be like cutting off their head, their high end made irrelevant. If the price of the 1080 was 350 bucks with gp100 so far out, it is a big issue. Not only are investors gonna be concerned, the cash flow is needed. I know you might be specifically talking about the 50$ increase up from the 980 but before I talk about that it is important to look at the way things have been moving these past few generations. Let's start with 28nm. The 680 launched at a time when the gk 100 could not be viable for the mass gaming market. We heard a lot about how nvidia had low yields but there was also the even bigger issue of wafer availability. This is always overlooked. It also contributed to the high launch price of the original titan. The intent was to price it high as it was restricted to be a low volume part. You would have to imagine the frustration if you were nvidia, to have designed and spent all this money for a monster chip but stuck with this reality that wafer limitations would keep it from mass market for years. But that was the reality. If you look back, you can find signs of that frustration in articles before kepler. The fact that TSMC would not be making large wafers anymore. That hit hard for nvidia, whatever happened at TSMC to abandon their larger wafers really put a damper on NVIDIA's large die strategy.
The combination of many factors led to the way things have unfolded. I believe this became an issue mainly because the naming scheme nvidia uses, see no one sees that AMD has actually followed a similar path. Tahiti was not all that large and turned out to be "mid range" for 550 bucks. Hawaii was the big die, the larger GCN with the bigger bus. AMD may have put off producing it but chip design to fab takes years. AMD knew nvidia was going with a large die flagship and knew that capacity was not there. They knew realisticly, nvidia could not produce many and they jumped on the opportunity by dropping Tahiti when they did and at the price they did. AMD thought for sure they would have the high end, all to themselves. But, they done this with their mid sized GCN chip. Hawaii was not possible at the time but was absolutely their planned big boy. Hawaii was the big GCN. AMD knew way before 28nm launch that nvidia was making a mammoth kepler chip for their high end and amd tried to out maneuver. It was a well planned strategy for amd, they had a beefed up mid sized die they thought would own the top end while nvidia fell flat engeenering a mammoth flagship that couldn't be produced in quantity for years. AMD planned their large die hawaii to come in for the 2nd punch, a 1-2 tko.
Looking at the specs of gk104 it sure didn't look like much compared to what amd was gonna drop with Tahiti. 256bit bus and the original clock speeds for the 670ti. Heck there were even performance indicators for the early gk104, we had benchmarks.
It's just that nvidia was able to extract way more out of the gk104. A part of me thinks that the whole 670ti leak was intentional. Nvidia knew about how big the Tahiti was and they knew they were in a tough position. But I believe they planted the 670ti leaks by giving these cards and bios to sources they knew were not reliable..for keeping secrets.
I don't think they were planning on those clocks at all, either that or they hesitated to launch. But....the clocks were so low for the 670ti. Nvidia was low balling it and I think it was on purpose.
I believe this intended leak set the stage for what played out. I believe this put the fire on amd and they rushed the 7970 out at the clock speeds that still gave them somewhat efficiency.
AMD did not think they had to worry. They believed they had a path, that the 7970 was gonna be the fastest chip for a long time. Hence the 550 price.
No matter if you can agree that nvidia planted the 670ti leak, clearly the 670ti benchmarks had an effect on AMD. It gave them confidence. I believe it played a role and ultimately led to nvidia edging out the 7970 while also being able to undercut the price. That was the only way to bring excitement to an otherwise unimpressive transition to 28nm.
The movement forward has been slow these past few generations. It is taking more and more money, more time and engineering to get these smaller gains. The fact that the low end is dropping out for dgpu and the node shrinks don't come with lower prices anymore....its all adding up to higher prices.
And lastly, I believe the gddr5x is contributing to the extra 50 bucks for the 1080. I think it will take some time before that memory is cheap and widely available
Posts: 2,310
Threads: 59
Joined: Mar 2015
(05-08-2016, 07:29 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote: I think you all must be struggling here.
The Radeon Pro Duo is only a mere $1500 and barely sips energy at a miniscule 350 watts, you really need to keep that in mind.
Here we have nVidia violating us with a board that is barely any faster, uses a STAGGERING 180 watts and costs an OBSCENE $599- how can you people be so confused.......?
On a more serious note- I absolutely understand why on a technical, competitive and financial basis nVidia is using this strategy, but I'm really not a fan of getting a x80 part based on a x04 GPU. Completely understand all of the utterly valid reasoning behind it, and I also totally get with how shockingly inept AMD is there is no reason to do it differently(they absolutely *could*, but it would hurt the margins pretty badly).
Ben you just have not figured out yet:
Whatever AMD does is exactly the right and best way for it to be done.
Once you accept that truth, the posts you see on tech forums will make perfect sense.
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
Ocre, it's the 660 Ti, not the 670 Ti.
Posts: 754
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2015
(05-09-2016, 02:54 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Ocre, it's the 660 Ti, not the 670 Ti.
Wrong.
You must not be familiar with the 40 to 28nm transition. Before the GTX 680 and 7970 there was a card leaked out called gtx 670ti.
This was at a time when every rumor was pointing to gk100 being DOA due to major capacity and yield limitations. Everyone in the media knew that nvidia could not launch their big chip and it would be put off for a long time.
There was indications that nvidia would only be able to launch their gk104 chip and ride it out.
It was in that time frame there was very real looking leaks of a chip called the GTX 670ti.
Not only were their performance charts, we also had clock speeds (even memory if I remember correctly), physical pictures of the card, and even finished box art.
These were full flat gk104 chips with extremely conservative clocks and a different sticker. The thing is, how could nvidia be ready to launch at such a low clock and memory speed when the gk104 was capable of so much higher performance?
I believe the whole thing could have been planted. Because the 670ti did not launch at all. Yet, it appeared to be finalized and ready to go....down to the boxes being printed.
Even more interesting is that their were people that had these cards and ran benches with them. This is where I think some of the performance leaks came from. These people were eventually issued a new bios which they claimed transformed the card from a 700 mhz slow memory card to the way faster 1000mhz that had turbo boost along with super high speed memory for that time. Just a bios update and new driver then it turned into a very different card.
I find it hard to accept that nvidia didn't know their silicon and what speeds it could run. That they didn't know this before creating a severely gimped gk104 that was already out in people's hands with a retail box and shroud. That they didn't know the memory and bus capabilities ahead of time. It seems crazy to me.
We know that once early silicon is back, the engineers throw them thru the ringer. They figure out all characteristics, the general clock speed vs voltage range, the power consumption curve and so so much more. It's irrational to think otherwise.
See, the 680 launched way faster, at way higher clocks and bandwidth and all that in a smaller power envelope compared to the 7970. A whole lot less power than a 580. I tend to believe far too much leaked out on a cars that never launched.
You know, we never see the retail box unless the cards are just about to be shipped out.
Posts: 178
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2015
Okay Ocre, in no way am I saying nVidia should be doing things this way, just going to lay out an alternative path they *could* have taken which I would have found more agreeable.
GP100 is already in production, based on the information we had it was prior to GP104. Now, if they had a fully GPU functional GP100 base and started binning them from day one and launched in say August instead of May, they could have saved all the say 1/4 defective cores for Titans, 1/3 defective for 1080s, 1/2 defective for 1070s. If they had done that and then launched the GK104 parts as 1060Ti and 1060 we could be looking at this lineup-
Titan- $1K
1080- $650
1070- $450
1060Ti- $350
1060- $270
Now the x60 parts would have less and slower RAM so they wouldn't be as fast, but we'd still be looking at an overall *significantly* faster top to bottom lineup.
Don't get it confused in any way, I completely understand *why* they do it the way they do, just saying as an enthusiast I'd rather see the big boy sooner. For the record, I had the exact same issues when the 680 launched, which I why I waited for the 780.
If they launched with that lineup, AMD's new architecture would be looking at their highest end part fighting for fifth fastest GPU, and honestly, that would likely shut the viral marketers up which to me would be the best possible thing that could happen to enthusiast forums.
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
Bad news, report says that Founder's Edition cards have nothing special, and will be shipping first: http://techreport.com/news/30096/report-...st-to-ship
Posts: 2,310
Threads: 59
Joined: Mar 2015
(05-09-2016, 06:29 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote: Okay Ocre, in no way am I saying nVidia should be doing things this way, just going to lay out an alternative path they *could* have taken which I would have found more agreeable.
GP100 is already in production, based on the information we had it was prior to GP104. Now, if they had a fully GPU functional GP100 base and started binning them from day one and launched in say August instead of May, they could have saved all the say 1/4 defective cores for Titans, 1/3 defective for 1080s, 1/2 defective for 1070s. If they had done that and then launched the GK104 parts as 1060Ti and 1060 we could be looking at this lineup-
Titan- $1K
1080- $650
1070- $450
1060Ti- $350
1060- $270
Now the x60 parts would have less and slower RAM so they wouldn't be as fast, but we'd still be looking at an overall *significantly* faster top to bottom lineup.
Don't get it confused in any way, I completely understand *why* they do it the way they do, just saying as an enthusiast I'd rather see the big boy sooner. For the record, I had the exact same issues when the 680 launched, which I why I waited for the 780.
If they launched with that lineup, AMD's new architecture would be looking at their highest end part fighting for fifth fastest GPU, and honestly, that would likely shut the viral marketers up which to me would be the best possible thing that could happen to enthusiast forums.
Ditto.
However; since a 1070 is supposed to have Titan X level performance, I could see buying two.
I'm frankly disappointed the "founders edition" is just the reference card. I was hoping for something factory OCd for my extra $100, not just earliest release. They should call it "Funders Edition" if that is the case- because we'll be funding JHHs retirement.
I hope what we've seen about this is wrong.
Posts: 4,458
Threads: 904
Joined: Feb 2015
This guy explains that the Founder's Edition has no additional features, that it's a new name for reference cards, and Nvidia will keep selling it for the entire life of the card, unlike previous generations of Nvidia reference cards. He also says the GTX 1080 that hit 2.1 GHz was an ordinary card and not cherry picked:
Posts: 890
Threads: 44
Joined: Jul 2015
I guess it's just NV's excuse to sell reference cards with NV's own fan/heatsink design at a premium...
Remember how many people were dying for a GTX 970 with an exhaust cooler just like GTX 980? Nvidia finally released one months after GTX 970 launch, and people were happy to pay around $50 extra for this.
Now GTX 1070 FE is $80 extra over vanilla version, I think.
And GTX 1080 FE is $100 extra.
These are the cards people would be buying for SLI, unless they're waiting for a water-cooled version. I guess they would happily pay extra for NV-quality exhaust cooler.
Posts: 890
Threads: 44
Joined: Jul 2015
(05-09-2016, 07:57 AM)ocre Wrote: (05-09-2016, 02:54 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Ocre, it's the 660 Ti, not the 670 Ti.
Wrong.
You must not be familiar with the 40 to 28nm transition. Before the GTX 680 and 7970 there was a card leaked out called gtx 670ti.
This was at a time when every rumor was pointing to gk100 being DOA due to major capacity and yield limitations. Everyone in the media knew that nvidia could not launch their big chip and it would be put off for a long time.
There was indications that nvidia would only be able to launch their gk104 chip and ride it out.
It was in that time frame there was very real looking leaks of a chip called the GTX 670ti.
Not only were their performance charts, we also had clock speeds (even memory if I remember correctly), physical pictures of the card, and even finished box art.
These were full flat gk104 chips with extremely conservative clocks and a different sticker. The thing is, how could nvidia be ready to launch at such a low clock and memory speed when the gk104 was capable of so much higher performance?
I believe the whole thing could have been planted. Because the 670ti did not launch at all. Yet, it appeared to be finalized and ready to go....down to the boxes being printed.
Even more interesting is that their were people that had these cards and ran benches with them. This is where I think some of the performance leaks came from. These people were eventually issued a new bios which they claimed transformed the card from a 700 mhz slow memory card to the way faster 1000mhz that had turbo boost along with super high speed memory for that time. Just a bios update and new driver then it turned into a very different card.
I find it hard to accept that nvidia didn't know their silicon and what speeds it could run. That they didn't know this before creating a severely gimped gk104 that was already out in people's hands with a retail box and shroud. That they didn't know the memory and bus capabilities ahead of time. It seems crazy to me.
We know that once early silicon is back, the engineers throw them thru the ringer. They figure out all characteristics, the general clock speed vs voltage range, the power consumption curve and so so much more. It's irrational to think otherwise.
See, the 680 launched way faster, at way higher clocks and bandwidth and all that in a smaller power envelope compared to the 7970. A whole lot less power than a 580. I tend to believe far too much leaked out on a cars that never launched.
You know, we never see the retail box unless the cards are just about to be shipped out.
Wow, it's been so long ago (28nm being so long in the tooth) that I actually pretty much forgot about this, but now I remember thanks to you!
AMD's move is just pathetic - AMD should have had a hidden Ace up its sleeve, ready to trump the game after NV launched GTX 1080. Nvidia already knows that it's like 8800GT/9800GTX vs HD 3870 all over again, with AMD being careful on new 14nm GloFo process.
I think that AMD desperately wants to beat NV to the punch with HBM2 memory, so AMD is probably placing all bets on this waiting game (early 2017).
|
