![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
GTX 780Ti SLI will be faster than GTX 980 SLI
- Thread starter dragonageinquisition
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Unfortunately for AMD, the mining bug bit them hard in the ass and it was common for R9 290s and 290Xs to be as high as 780 launch prices...when nVidia did the price drop on the 700 series cards it was another one in the L column for team Red thanks to that artificial inflation. Competition is great though, it keeps the bullshit away and the companies on their toes making better products instead of handing us the same old shit with a a new number in front of it.
20% faster... at 1080p. 680 didn't 'decimate' the 7970 at higher resolutions. I had a 2560x1600 display at the time, bought the 7970 initially, and I remember the gap between it and the 680 wasn't that big. 7970 also overclocked like a beast, I don't know why AMD didn't bring out the GHZ edition sooner, everyone was getting 1 GHZ and above clocks on their 7970s.
three4seven
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,154
The 680 may have been 20% faster at launch - but this was due to poor AMD drivers (hence why in launch reviews - the GTX 680 performs better). AMD released drivers that resulted in significant performance gains a few months later that would result in the 7970 outpacing the 680 in many games.
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
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
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?
GM204 in Sept/Oct.
GM204b on 16FinFet in 1H '15, likely very limited availability.
GM200/210 on 16FinFet(+?) in 2H '15 once production is ramped to near full capacity.
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.
Looking at Anandtech as well, it is basically the same.
Again, boost also let the GTX680 be benched in optimal conditions, <5mins and not being pre-warmed. That can account for some ~5-10% of the performance advantage.
No, not the Ghz Edition, in the GTX770 reviews the standard reference 7970 closed the gap and was trading blows with the GTX680.
That is what I am getting at... flop/decimate/destroy/smash does not accurately portray the 7970 vs GTX680 battle.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the 7970 was also a midrange GPU that didn't sacrifice compute.
"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.
There was no timing involved, They needed to make a second new deadline for Oakridge, completed a respin once that contract was fulfilled and started building inventory. They released Titan and GTX780 as soon as it was viable, GTX780 they obviously had a bit of wiggle room. Hell, they needed another metal revision to even be able to release a fully enabled GK110.
You want to see what really happened...
GK100 | Q3 '11 - rough originally scheduled production start for Oakridge which was Cancelled/Scrapped
GK110-AB | Aug '12 - production start of Oakridge contract
GK110-A1 | Dec '12 - production start for Titan/GTX780 and ongoing Tesla supply
GK110-B1 | Jul/Aug '13 - production start for increased 15SMX yield aka K40, K6000 and GTX780Ti
That is a ridiculous number of revisions/respins for something that they sat on and twiddle their thumbs waiting for AMD to compete...
Last edited:
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
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 said time to tweak GK110 to perfection, at their leisure.
You jump around from BS to BS as I disprove everything you say.
Did you forget you said this?
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Not jumping around at all, I'm simply restating what I've said previously, as it still applies.
You haven't actually disproven anything. You said there was a flaw in my logic, but the logic is clearly just fine. Once again: 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.
You have not disproven the above logic in any way, shape, or form.
Nope, didn't forget at all. Nothing wrong or contradictory with that quote, so I'm not sure why you're pointing it out.
three4seven
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,154
I'm not here to join the grudge match, but we all know that the 7970 ghz edition is just a mild overclocked 7970:
from the anand 7970 ghz edition review:
Anandtech said:
For the record - I'm team agnostic - I have both AMD and nVidia cards (and actually still have my 7970 and GTX 680 4gb).
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" 
This question is to Unknown One or anybody else that believes that Nvidia held back the GK110 because of the performance and price of the 7970. Please show me some evidence of this.
On the other hand there is a lot of evidence to show that Nvidia didn't have anything else available at launch.
First there is the Oakridge computer itself, designed for Kepler cards and due for completion in Q4 2011. Couldn't be completed because no Kepler cards available. Order wasn't filled until September 2012.
Second there is Nvidia's own numbering scheme. GF100 was for the first generation big Fermi, GF110 was the refresh. So the GK110 is a refresh of the first generation kepler products.
Third, the way Nvidia do business. They don't hold back. And never have done, even when they had complete market dominance around the time of the 8800 series cards. They still released the 9800 cards even though AMD had nothing to touch the 8800 cards.
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?
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.
This question is to Unknown One or anybody else that believes that Nvidia held back the GK110 because of the performance and price of the 7970. Please show me some evidence of this.
On the other hand there is a lot of evidence to show that Nvidia didn't have anything else available at launch.
First there is the Oakridge computer itself, designed for Kepler cards and due for completion in Q4 2011. Couldn't be completed because no Kepler cards available. Order wasn't filled until September 2012.
Second there is Nvidia's own numbering scheme. GF100 was for the first generation big Fermi, GF110 was the refresh. So the GK110 is a refresh of the first generation kepler products.
Third, the way Nvidia do business. They don't hold back. And never have done, even when they had complete market dominance around the time of the 8800 series cards. They still released the 9800 cards even though AMD had nothing to touch the 8800 cards.
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?
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.
That's what I've been saying, because of the initial performance of the 7970 at the time of the 680 launch, nVidia was in prime position to launch GK104 as a high-end product regardless of GPU brand. And as it would happen, the Kepler architecture was such a vast improvement over Fermi that this GK104 mid-range part (that nVidia had shitloads of due to bad yields) whooped everything's ass by such a large margin at launch that it was easy to market it as the new "high-end GPU" and a logical upgrade from a 580 or a better value (at launch) than a 7970.
SnowBeast
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 1,312
Can we change the thread title to "GTX 680 vs 7870 or some crap argument that doesn't need to be beaten as long as a dead horse"? Or is that too long for a thread title?
I guess people are just hoping for another GTX 680 to come along. It was 20-25% faster than the GTX 580, and over 30% when you overclocked both. And this was at launch when Kepler wasn't fully optimized. And it did this using 100W less than the GTX 580. And to think people actually complained about that...
This time around I'm expecting power reduction, but without the performance gain. But if there isn't much to be had going to a 780 to 980, then what will big Maxwell bring? 40% over GK110? Where as GK110 was hitting figures as high as 100% faster than the GF100. I hope there is a performance increase with the GTX 980, because if there isn't, big Maxwell probably won't be worth the upgrade and I'll have to wait for Titan 3.0 to get that.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
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"
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.
Last edited:
Porter_
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 8,467
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.
Pure nonsense. The Gk100 had been scrapped and Nvidia had nothing until the GK110 was ready. Couldn't even fill the Oakridge order until September,
And I would trust Kyle Bennett over you any day of the week. Here is the quote from his review
"I want to comment and share opinion here on several fronts when it comes to GeForce GTX Titan. While you will find all kinds of rumors and statements made about the GK110 silicon, it was never meant to end up on a retail video card. 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. AMD has gotten a lot better in the last couple of years of holding its cards close to its vest and simply put NVIDIA read its competition wrong and felt as though it was going to be in a position that it had to have a new product; and it did not. So we have a Titan launch and AMD has nothing hardware-wise."
So you can thank AMD for Nvidia's perfect timing. LOL and the 780 wasn't ready, so it wasn't been held back at all or else they would have just released it in February.
They didn't artifically create anything damn thing.
Don't bother writing back. I can't deal with your selective misquoting and constantly changing the goal posts to win the argument.
Now lets go back to topic please:
Aargh, 3dMark, give us some gaming benchmarks! We all know 780Ti SLI is faster than 290X CF in epeenmark and seems to be also faster than 980 SLI, but the tables turn when doing real gaming benchmarks and upping resolution.
That 256bit bus on these little babies makes me doubt about their performance in high resolution / multi-monitor setups
Aargh, 3dMark, give us some gaming benchmarks! We all know 780Ti SLI is faster than 290X CF in epeenmark and seems to be also faster than 980 SLI, but the tables turn when doing real gaming benchmarks and upping resolution.
That 256bit bus on these little babies makes me doubt about their performance in high resolution / multi-monitor setups
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Once again, please, learn to read.
I've quite clearly stated, time and time again, that anything GK110-based would have to have come out after the launch of the GTX 680.
They could have been launched sooner, but not along-side the 680. That could have never happened (and I never said it could have happened)
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 could have also chosen to wait further, but they didn't. No competition = they get to choose EXACTLY when they want launch a product.
No goal posts have been moved, my original point remains.
Last edited:
SnowBeast
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 1,312
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.
Moving on. What's the latest leaks with our Graphical Wattage Savings Card? "GO GREEN WITH GREEN!"
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.
Just wow. You really will misquote, misread and change anything to suit your argument.
Good day, I am not derailing this thread further. Apologies to everyone else. But, if you ever do get into a discussion with Unknown one you will understand.
Can I see a link to those rumours that showed the mid range was better than normal and Nvidia delibrately held back their top end card because of that. Thanks.
And yes, everybody knew that the Gk104 was the mid range part. But, they released it as high end, not because they were holding anything back but because the GK100 part wasn't available.
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.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,580
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.
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.
Last edited:
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,380
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
.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,580
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
Exactly my point
Shows the new GPU is a mid-range next-gen product.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,380
... I see what you did thereExactly my point
.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
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.
Last edited:
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Even if those are accurate (which I doubt), why are you comparing the 780 to the 970 instead of the 980?
Surely the 970 is intended as a replacement for the 770,not the 780?
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.
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.
It was counter to rfeality but Nvidia THOUGHT that there was competition from AMD and that perception became their reality.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
How, exactly, am I misunderstanding Kyle's quote if what I said was TRUE?
As soon as possible? Generally AMD and/or Nvidia try to launch cards at about the same time, not jump the gun.
But this basically supports my point. Nvidia readied the GK110 for release as soon as they had a reason to do so (even if that reason turned out to be moot later-on)
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.
Because you do not understand that according to Kyle's quote Nvidia did not know it was true.
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.
Last edited:
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
I understood (and restated) that point just fine. It's irrelevant in the argument against my point, however.
It came to light that AMD had nothing, and Nvidia went-through with the launch anyway, on their own timetable (as there was no market pressure).
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.
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).
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
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.
Well acording to Kyle the Titan launch was in direct response to competition from AMD so you now seem to grasp that.
As for Nvidia's reasons for the timing of launching subsequent cards all you have is speculation.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
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.
Again, like I've been saying, they sat on it (idly tweaking it at their leisure) until they had a reason to actually use the design in a consumer product, at which point, they got it ready for release.
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"
They were literally able to time the launch of various GK110 cards to compete with themselves (luring GTX 680 owners towards "newer" cards) with no interruptions from AMD.
You have always made it sound as if Nvidia released the cards on their own timetable with no thought what so ever to any outside force.
Now for the FIRST TIME you mention that AMD might have been a factor. So, yeah, you have now tweaked your position.
That dinky i3 could be bottlenecking the 970, or at least it'd completely tank the physics score, which would drag down the overall score. Would've been more useful if they released the graphics score. What a troll lol