I guess we can expect Nvidia to release a cut down version of their chip first: The 460/680, then release full versions of the cards: 580/780/Titan after the initial release.
ftfy
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess we can expect Nvidia to release a cut down version of their chip first: The 460/680, then release full versions of the cards: 580/780/Titan after the initial release.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.... Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it sounds like, in the previous quote, you are coming to the conclusion of the 7970 being a flop because the GTX680 came out +3months after the 7970 at a slightly lower price while offering ~10% more performance.
It was also tested with boost, which was new and testing/benching procedures at the time didn't really account for it. While it was obviously innovative, for GPUs, and allowed for higher performance in typical applications it also included extra variability that wasn't accounted for.
In just about a year after the GTX680 launched, the 7970ref was neck and neck with the GTX680.
The 680 was at minimum 20% faster than the 7970, sometimes getting close to 30% (go back and look at the [H] review). And it was handily above the 580 by even bigger margins.
How is a current review containing only the GTX 680 and the HD 7970 Ghz Edition supposed to give us an accurate representation of the GTX 680 vs. the HD 7970?If you look at any current benchmark reviews - you'll get a more accurate representation of the current state of the 7970 vs 680.
For example - you can look at the 7970 GE vs GTX 680 comparison here on the GTX 780 review:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review
I guess we can expect Nvidia to release a cut down version of their chip first: The 480/680, then release full versions of the cards: 580/780/Titan after the initial release.
I think you need to relook at the reviews. GTX680 was typically ~10% faster than the 7970, 15-20% faster in a few cases and lost by 5-10% in a few cases, tossing the outliers.The 680 was at minimum 20% faster than the 7970, sometimes getting close to 30% (go back and look at the [H] review). And it was handily above the 580 by even bigger margins.
You're right, it was innovative and unaccounted for, but the fact is nVidia had it and it worked. Tweaking it further with card vendor software allowed even crazier performance numbers all while ensuring the card micromanaged itself to prevent overheating, but still give the extra juice if it had the headroom.
No, not the Ghz Edition, in the GTX770 reviews the standard reference 7970 closed the gap and was trading blows with the GTX680.Yea, the GHz edition cards with new drivers drove it essentially neck and neck, but it took as you said a year...the nails would have been driven in the coffin of somebody's mind long before that assuming they didn't jump on the 7970 right away.
That is what I am getting at... flop/decimate/destroy/smash does not accurately portray the 7970 vs GTX680 battle.Don't take this as me saying you're wrong, because you aren't - AMD had the up on nVidia for 3 months and they eventually got the price right and the performance up to par. But the 680 decimated the 7970 and the fact that the 680 was made on mid-range silicon simply added insult to injury. nVidia definitely got whacked by the karma train on the second go around however. 780 released with a way high price point and performance to the R9 series, especially at 4k was atrocious.
"GTX680 sales going dry" and "They sold pretty much all the 680's they were going to sell" simply isn't something anyone could possibly know without a bunch of inside information from dozens of sources. Those are ridiculous statements to make and shows you have no logical leg to stand on.With GTX 680 sales going dry and new AMD cards on the horizon, there was nolonger any reason to hold it back.
That's the brilliance of Nvidia's timing.
They sold pretty-much all the 680's they were going to sell, so it wouldn't hurt them to release a faster card.
They also got a bit of a jump on AMD, which makes them look great from a PR standpoint (and gave them a longer sales-run before AMD had a competing product).
Because the timing was damn-near perfect for them, as explained above.
Not seeing the problem here, makes perfect sense.
The logic is cut and dry: If you can sell a mid-range part for high-end prices, do it as long as possible before releasing a replacement product so as not to cannibalize sales."GTX680 sales going dry" and "They sold pretty much all the 680's they were going to sell" simply isn't something anyone could possibly know without a bunch of inside information from dozens of sources. Those are ridiculous statements to make and shows you have no logical leg to stand on.
Again, I already said that Nvidia didn't sit on their hands and wait around doing nothing, so you're just agreeing with me. AMD gave Nvidia ample time to tweak the GK110 to perfection, so they might as well use said time to tweak GK110 to perfection, at their leisure.That is a ridiculous number of revisions/respins for something that they sat on and twiddle their thumbs waiting for AMD to compete...
You jump around from BS to BS as I disprove everything you say.The logic is cut and dry: If you can sell a mid-range part for high-end prices, do it as long as possible before releasing a replacement product so as not to cannibalize sales.
Pretty simple concept, honestly.
Again, I already said that Nvidia didn't sit on their hands and wait around doing nothing, so you're just agreeing with me. AMD gave Nvidia ample time to tweak the GK110 to perfection, so they might as well use it to tweak GK110 to perfection, at their leisure.
So you think it couldn't have been released even a single DAY earlier?
Please, get real. It could have come out earlier (they had the core finished and contractual obligations wrapped up). They simply had no reason to release it until they did.
Not jumping around at all, I'm simply restating what I've said previously, as it still applies.You jump around from BS to BS as I disprove everything you say.
Nope, didn't forget at all. Nothing wrong or contradictory with that quote, so I'm not sure why you're pointing it out.Did you forget you said this?
How is a current review containing only the GTX 680 and the HD 7970 Ghz Edition supposed to give us an accurate representation of the GTX 680 vs. the HD 7970?
Anandtech said:In fact the hardware is absolutely identical right down to the GPU – there have been no changes to the PCB, the cooling, or the VRMs, and even the Tahiti GPU is the same revision that has been shipping in the 7970 since the beginning.
The simplest explanation is usually the right one, and the simplest explanation is that they didn't have any higher end product and the GK104 had to step in and become the high-end card.
If the alleged leaked numbers for the 980 are real, then I'm a happy camper. If it is a bit faster than a 780Ti AND uses less power AND costs less AND has more memory, well I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
Again, where's the BS? What are you taking issue with within those two quotes?LOL I can't believe this argument is still going on. And the BS by Unknown One has reached new highs. So now it's the "brilliance of Nvidia" and "perfect timing"
Learn to read, this has been explained multiple times.Yet, you are trying to convince me that Nvidia held back this once because AMD didn't have a great card? It has never stopped them before, so why now?
Again, learn to read. Already said that anything based on the GK110 would have to come out after the launch of the GTX 680 (I've been saying this from the beginning, seriously...)The simplest explaination is usually the right one, and the simplest explaination is that they didn't have any higher end product and the GK104 had to step in and become the highend card.
Again, where's the BS? What are you taking issue with within those two quotes?
I claimed they timed the launch of consumer hardware based on the GK110 pretty much perfectly, and you have issued NOTHING to negate this point. The launch WAS well timed. If you disagree, you should probably actually make an argument for your alternative view, rather than just saying "lol BS"
So, so far, no BS. Point stands.
You're also taking what I've said out of context. If you actually go back and read, you'd notice that I'm talking about how brilliant they are at screwing consumers out of their money.
Learn to read, this has been explained multiple times.
"If you can sell a mid-range part for high-end prices, do it as long as possible before releasing a replacement product so as not to cannibalize sales."
Why would they release a product that would do nothing but cannibalize the sales of another of their own products? Makes no sense.
Again, learn to read. Already said that anything based on the GK110 would have to come out after the launch of the GTX 680 (I've been saying this from the beginning, seriously...)
My point was simply that GK110-based consumer hardware didn't have to come out AS late as it did.
Once again, please, learn to read.Stop it already, the whole argument was started by you claiming that Nvidia artifically created the situation by not releasing the full fat kepler around the time of 680/670 launch because AMD had nothing to compete.
Sure they did, even going by Kyle's quote, they chose to launch the GK110 based parts when they did, even when competition from AMD was still a long ways off.They didn't artifically create anything damn thing.
No goal posts have been moved, my original point remains.Don't bother writing back. I can't deal with your selective misquoting and constantly changing the goal posts to win the argument.
Sure they did, even going by Kyle's quote, they chose to launch the GK110 based parts when they did, even when competition from AMD was still a long ways off.
Reaper, where were you when the 680 launched??? Every freakin news site covered the 680 launch before it was released, talked about the 104 part being mid range based period. Boxes labeled 680/670/660 didn't have to be redone or anything super crazy. It was as simple as putting one version out instead of the other which is what they did. They had test silicon in the form of all of them on the test bench and saw how remarkable their mid range was and sent that for final launch production. Hell it leaked on all the rumor mills 6 months before launch that the mid range was better then expected, then it went quiet till before launch. Geeez. Companies hold back on competition all the time.
Because it's not like you can't alter digital pictures or anything .I3-4130 970 GTX = X3963 http://videocardz.com/52259/galaxy-geforce-gtx-970-gc-pictured
I3-4130 780 GTX = X4228 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8566471
I3-4130 780ti GTX = X5200 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8594037
Now of course canned benchmarks mean nothing, but looking at this graph. If you sold your 780 GTX in preperation for a 970 GTX. Looks like you will be downgrading yourself.
Just something to think about.
Because it's not like you can't alter digital pictures or anything .
Even if that benchmark screen is real, I don't see the issue. For one it's like comparing apples to oranges if the system configurations are not identical. But if you're just going by the 3DMark score alone it's not too far off a GTX 780.
Just something to think about .
... I see what you did there .Exactly my point Shows the new GPU is a mid-range next-gen product.
Nope, I can read just fine. Not sure what you're taking issue with, I'm just going by the quote you brought up.Oh my god, you really can't read can you?
Kyle says quite clearly that Nvidia released the Titan because they thought AMD were going to release something special and Nvidia had to release something to counter it.
Not my fault that the quotes you brought into the argument easily support the point I'm making.Just wow. You really will misquote, misread and change anything to suit your argument.
Does the quote from Kyle Bennett that you brought-in count? Because that clearly supports the argument that Nvidia had complete control over the timing of the GK110 launch. There was certainly no market pressure, aside from stagnating sales of the high-end GTX 670 and GTX 680.I am not derailing this thread any further. And I won't respond unless you post factual proof. And if you do, I will happily concede that I was wrong. But I know I am not.
Even if those are accurate (which I doubt), why are you comparing the 780 to the 970 instead of the 980?I3-4130 970 GTX = X3963 http://videocardz.com/52259/galaxy-geforce-gtx-970-gc-pictured
I3-4130 780 GTX = X4228 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8566471
I3-4130 780ti GTX = X5200 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8594037
Now of course canned benchmarks mean nothing, but looking at this graph. If you sold your 780 GTX in preperation for a 970 GTX. Looks like you will be downgrading yourself.
Just something to think about.
Nope, I can read just fine. Not sure what you're taking issue with, I'm just going by the quote you brought up.
So, going by the quote, they got new hardware polished up and ready to ship, but it turns out there was no competition from AMD. That means Nvidia could have chosen to sit on the GK110 even longer if they wanted to.
As I said, no competition from their primary competitor gave them total control over the timing of their product launch. That was not an inaccurate statement.
Not my fault that the quotes you brought into the argument easily support the point I'm making.
You have a quote where Kyle clearly says that Nvidia launched the GK110 even when there turned out to be no competition from AMD. That's clearly Nvidia making a conscious decision as to when they release their new products. The only point of contention is how fast they could have readied a GK110-based part if they had decided they wanted to launch even sooner.
Does the quote from Kyle Bennett that you brought-in count? Because that clearly supports the argument that Nvidia had complete control over the timing of the GK110 launch. There was certainly no market pressure, aside from stagnating sales of the high-end GTX 670 and GTX 680.
How, exactly, am I misunderstanding Kyle's quote if what I said was TRUE?You have completely missunderstood Kyle's quote. You keep saying that Nvidia had no competition from AMD so they could afford to wait. That is TRUE.
As soon as possible? Generally AMD and/or Nvidia try to launch cards at about the same time, not jump the gun.HOWEVER, Nvidia THOUGHT that AMD was going to launch a competiting prodct so Nvidia wanted to release something as soon as possible to counter what they THOUGHT was competiton from AMD.
Right, but then there was no competition from AMD, so Nvidia had free reign to launch their hardware whenever they pleased (as there was no market pressure).It was counter to rfeality but Nvidia THOUGHT that there was competition from AMD and that perception became their reality.
Because you do not understand that according to Kyle's quote Nvidia did not know it was true.How, exactly, am I misunderstanding Kyle's quote if what I said was TRUE?
Right, but then there was no competition from AMD, so Nvidia had free reign to launch their hardware whenever they pleased (as there was no market pressure).
This is probably why the $1000 Titan launched first. No competition, no reason to low-ball, no reason to rush releasing the cheaper cards.
I understood (and restated) that point just fine. It's irrelevant in the argument against my point, however.Because you do not understand that according to Kyle's quote Nvidia did not know it was true.
Because that's EXACTLY what he's saying. They readied the GK110 for a consumer launch when they thought they had a reason to do so.How can you read this quote and come to that conclusion
What we are seeing in Titan is a reaction from NVIDIA to what it thought AMD was going to launch and NVIDIA did not want to be seen as having no answer.
Nvidia thought there was competition, therefore there WAS competition.
That is wrong, Nvidia launched due to competition from AMD. After the launch Nvidia found out there was no competition, not before.Well, turns out AMD didn't have anything to show, so Nvidia got to launch whenever they felt the time was right. Simple (and exactly what I pointed out previously
Not sure what you're on about, Nvidia launched GK110 based products over a matter of months, not all at once. They had plenty of time to find out that AMD had nothing to respond with, and not launch anything past the niche $1000 Titan.That is wrong, Nvidia launched due to competition from AMD. After the launch Nvidia found out there was no competition, not before.
Well acording to Kyle the Titan launch was in direct response to competition from AMD so you now seem to grasp that.Not sure what you're on about, Nvidia launched GK110 based products over a matter of months, not all at once. They had plenty of time to find out that AMD had nothing to respond with, and not launch anything past the niche $1000 Titan.
Face it, Nvidia was fully in control of the launch cycle of those cards, as they had no competition to worry about.
They took the GK110 design they'd had sitting around, and (on the chance that AMD might be releasing something) readied it for release, exactly as I said from the beginning.Well acording to Kyle the Titan launch was in direct response to competition from AMD so you now seem to grasp that.
Not speculation at all. AMD launched nothing, which means Nvidia's decision to launch additional GK110-based cards was of their own free will (as there was no real market pressure to do so). "Oh, there's nothing from the red team? Sweet, we get to milk this"As for Nvidia's reasons for the timing of launching subsequent cards all you have is speculation.
They took the GK110 design they'd had sitting around, and (on the chance that AMD might be releasing something) readied it for release, exactly as I said from the beginning.
.
I3-4130 970 GTX = X3963 http://videocardz.com/52259/galaxy-geforce-gtx-970-gc-pictured
I3-4130 780 GTX = X4228 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8566471
I3-4130 780ti GTX = X5200 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8594037
Now of course canned benchmarks mean nothing, but looking at this graph. If you sold your 780 GTX in preperation for a 970 GTX. Looks like you will be downgrading yourself.
Just something to think about.