GTX 880 and 800 Series to be More Powerful But Cheaper than the 700 Series

Status
Not open for further replies.
octoberasian said:
If those specs are real, and let's say they are for now, how much faster would it be compared to the current 770 or 780 if using the Maxwell-based 750Ti as a base?

(Even if it's possible to speculate and scale it up from the 750Ti.)
Click to expand...

Well if the specs are true that's about 50% weaker then current 780ti/Titan on ROP, Pixel Filtrate, Texture Filtrate bus Width, Bandwith etc... don't know what to say its more like 680/770.
This card it not true replacement for 780/780ti/Titan...

Hmm and i thought i can finally replace my now going on 1.5 year old Titans.
 
octoberasian said:
If those specs are real, and let's say they are for now, how much faster would it be compared to the current 770 or 780 if using the Maxwell-based 750Ti as a base?

(Even if it's possible to speculate and scale it up from the 750Ti.)
Click to expand...

I hypothesize it being about 85 percent faster or more, with it specced as shown on that page, than a plain 780 is now. I actually did a pretty big writeup in February how I think maxwell can scale, here :).. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1806694&highlight=

That was just before the 750ti launched but the leaked figures were accurate as it it turned out.

A 3200 maxwell card be a big deal.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I hypothesize it being about 85 percent faster or more, with it specced as shown on that page, than a plain 780 is now.
Click to expand...


LOL

looks as if someone is drunk, 85% faster... 880 will be about 30 percent at most if these specs and 28nm are accurate.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I hypothesize it being about 85 percent faster or more, with it specced as shown on that page, than a plain 780 is now. I actually did a pretty big writeup in February how I think maxwell can scale, here :).. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1806694&highlight=

That was just before the 750ti launched but the leaked figures were accurate as it it turned out.

A 3200 maxwell card be a big deal.
Click to expand...


lol I don't know where people are getting this 1.3x faster per core thing about Maxwell besides that slide.

128 Maxwell cores was about 90% equal to 192 Kepler last I checked during the 750 Ti reviews.
 
This is disturbing...

There were a lot of threads orientated on 880. No need to continue in this thread.

Just wait till release, it is near the corner.
 
Liger88 said:
lol I don't know where people are getting this 1.3x faster per core thing about Maxwell besides that slide.

128 Maxwell cores was about 90% equal to 192 Kepler last I checked during the 750 Ti reviews.
Click to expand...

That works out to about 1.35x faster per core.
 
Liger88 said:
lol I don't know where people are getting this 1.3x faster per core thing about Maxwell besides that slide.

128 Maxwell cores was about 90% equal to 192 Kepler last I checked during the 750 Ti reviews.
Click to expand...

Was that clock-for-clock?
 
ragecase said:
LOL

looks as if someone is drunk, 85% faster... 880 will be about 30 percent at most if these specs and 28nm are accurate.
Click to expand...

The 780ti is 25 percent faster already ;). What was that about someone being drunk again?

If those specs are right, then it will handily beat a gtx 780 by around 85 percent, no questions asked. Read up on maxwell arch if you think otherwise
 
I will only be speaking for Myself here but even if it's only 10% faster than a 780Ti with it being cheaper I am going to hop on that card so fast my 480's have had enough :D.
 
xp3nd4bl3 said:
Was that clock-for-clock?
Click to expand...


No idea that's kind of my point I was trying to make though. Nvidia throws around two stupid statistics like 128 cores is 90% the compute ability of 192. Then throws the 1.3x core to core, but they're not really saying much because the architecture has changed. They've been saying how the clusters are more efficient which in turn make the cores more efficient and the clock speeds are definitely not equal Maxwell to Kepler thus far. They've also talked about how Maxwell allows them to use less cores to achieve the same performance and in the same sentence have said they can add more cores. That has yet to be seen unless they are talking about the obvious 20nm transition and not 28nm like the 750 Ti.

With the crippled memory bus, shady slides, and lack of official data from Nvidia on the 750/750 Ti Maxwell architecture makes it more confusing. Nobody really knows what Maxwell's going to be at this point because Nvidia doesn't want the 750/750 Ti to be reliable examples of the architecture.

If you take the 640 cores from 960 (750 Ti vs 660) you'll see a 1.33x difference, but you also see a much weaker card and right now with no absolute certainty can anyone say it's 1.3x better Kepler to Maxwell. Too many differences between those cards spec wise (bus, cache, clocks) to be accurate.
 
Liger88 said:
With the crippled memory bus
Click to expand...

I still think it's too early to harp on the memory bus-width. Isn't Maxwell supposed to be MUCH less dependent on memory bandwidth thanks to additional Level 2 cache?

For example, GK107 (Kepler) only has 256k of L2 cache. GM107 (Maxwell) has a whopping 2mb of L2 cache. Increasing the amount of cache by 8 times must have helped mitigate the memory-bus issue somewhat.
 
Unknown-One said:
I still think it's too early to harp on the memory bus-width. Isn't Maxwell supposed to be MUCH less dependent on memory bandwidth thanks to additional Level 2 cache?

For example, GK107 (Kepler) only has 256k of L2 cache. GM107 (Maxwell) has a whopping 2mb of L2 cache. Increasing the amount of cache by 8 times must have helped mitigate the memory-bus issue somewhat.
Click to expand...

Depends. At 1080p it doesn't play a role but the performance degrades rapidly above that. I can see problems at 4K unless the cards are 256 bits wide or better, which they will be.
 
I hope the 880 and 870 are coming soon. Sold my 780 and sticking with integrated graphics until 880 or 870 is released. Playing my backlog of Wii U games in the meantime.
 
mls1995 said:
I hope the 880 and 870 are coming soon. Sold my 780 and sticking with integrated graphics until 880 or 870 is released. Playing my backlog of Wii U games in the meantime.
Click to expand...

Same here! Tired of my 2GB 670 and not being able to run "Ultra" on games like Wolfenstein and Watch Dogs that requires 3GB or more VRAM.
 
As I said before, the first leaks will income in the first week of July. and here they are.


Info spire!
 
Last edited:
16GB, wow. I though 3GB was a little small on the 780, but 16GB seems like overkill...I like it! I bet this is Quadro though. Here's hoping the 880 has 8GB, that would be perfect. I'll take two now plz.
 
16gb... not. it's 8gb and guru just got it all wrong.

h5GQ4H24MFR: 4gb x 2 sides = 8GB
 
MorgothPl said:
Maybe this is one of those? http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/mystery_nvidia_graphics_card_spy_photos_surface.html

16GB VRAM, 8+6+6 power connectors.... if NVIDIA releases that beast, it will be MY PRECIOUSSSSSS :D
Click to expand...

blade52x said:
Nvidia is going to put 8+6+6 power connectors on it, and lock the thing to 250W. :p
Click to expand...
The extra 6-pin on top is probably only for testing purposes. Unless I'm mistaken, one 6-pin has three leads that are good for 2.08 amps and three grounds. An 8-pin adds two ground to allow the three leads to draw 4.16 amps. So a 6-pin is good for 75W, and an 8-pin is good for 150W. Altogether in 8+6+6 it's 300W. Why would they not just use two 8-pins? If Maxwell is supposed to be using less power than Kepler, then I could easily believe the final retail product having one 8-pin and one 6-pin. Which I think would be great!
 
16 GB would be utterly pointless. i think 8 GB will be more than enough even all the way to 8K.
 
Odellus said:
16 GB would be utterly pointless. i think 8 GB will be more than enough even all the way to 8K.
Click to expand...
Games are already eating around 3GB at 1920x1080. 8k (33,177,600 pixels) is 4 times the resolution again from 4k (8,294,400 pixels). A 4k surround resolution of 6480x3840 (24,883,200 pixels) has been shown to be hitting the VRAM wall in some games using up the 6GB of VRAM available on Titans. Adding another 4k worth of pixels could easily push that close to 10GB. With hardware demands going up, how can we say that 16GB will be pointless in another year or 2? People always say the same thing through out GPU generations: 768MB is too much, 1.25GB is pointless, 2GB will be enough, 4GB is more than enough, etc.
 
Armenius said:
Games are already eating around 3GB at 1920x1080. 8k (33,177,600 pixels) is 4 times the resolution again from 4k (8,294,400 pixels). A 4k surround resolution of 6480x3840 (24,883,200 pixels) has been shown to be hitting the VRAM wall in some games using up the 6GB of VRAM available on Titans. Adding another 4k worth of pixels could easily push that close to 10GB. With hardware demands going up, how can we say that 16GB will be pointless in another year or 2? People always say the same thing through out GPU generations: 768MB is too much, 1.25GB is pointless, 2GB will be enough, 4GB is more than enough, etc.
Click to expand...

it will be pointless for these cards because they're going to be barely enough for demanding games at 4K, let alone 8K. the 880 probably isn't going to be much faster than a 780 Ti and the 780 Ti is scraping by in certain games with average framerates around 30-40. what would the point be of playing a game at 5-10 fps instead of 0.1?
 
Last edited:
Odellus said:
it will be pointless for these cards because they're going to be barely enough for demanding games at 4K, let alone 8K. the 880 probably isn't going to be much faster than a 780 Ti and the 780 Ti is scraping by in certain games with average framerates around 30-40. what would the point be of playing a game at 5-10 fps instead of 0.1?
Click to expand...

And that math would be dead wrong. Nvidia wouldn't release it if 780Ti could hold the market for another year till 20nm was ready. It would be more cost efficient for them over the next year if that were even close to true.

"Maxwell 128 cores was on par with kepler's 192 cores is what was established earlier. According to Nvidia, breaking the unified SMX design into smaller blocks simplified the chip and allows for higher compute efficiency. Each SMM block of 128 cores is able to hit roughly 90% the performance of a 192-core SMX"

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...hyper-efficient-quiet-a-serious-threat-to-amd

So actually 90% of the same power from only 128 cores. Now take that 3200 cores Maxwell leaked shot. Roughly 4600-4700 Kepler cores would be needed to match it performance wise. That's nearly 2 780GTX's in one same size die as GTX 780. Quite powerful actually, and because its on 28nm, high heat is expected till the 20nm respin. That's when the true efficient version will be out.

Really its all speculation till Kyle and Brent get them on the benches. But I like my version. ;)
 
Armenius said:
Games are already eating around 3GB at 1920x1080. 8k (33,177,600 pixels) is 4 times the resolution again from 4k (8,294,400 pixels). A 4k surround resolution of 6480x3840 (24,883,200 pixels) has been shown to be hitting the VRAM wall in some games using up the 6GB of VRAM available on Titans. Adding another 4k worth of pixels could easily push that close to 10GB.
Click to expand...
To get from 6GB to 10GB by merely increasing frame sizes, you need to add the equivalent of ~127 full-frame buffers.

I'm pretty certain no shipping or theoretical title would add ~124 G-buffers when you add a 4K display to an existing 4K display array.
 
SnowBeast said:
And that math would be dead wrong. Nvidia wouldn't release it if 780Ti could hold the market for another year till 20nm was ready. It would be more cost efficient for them over the next year if that were even close to true.

"Maxwell 128 cores was on par with kepler's 192 cores is what was established earlier. According to Nvidia, breaking the unified SMX design into smaller blocks simplified the chip and allows for higher compute efficiency. Each SMM block of 128 cores is able to hit roughly 90% the performance of a 192-core SMX"

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...hyper-efficient-quiet-a-serious-threat-to-amd

So actually 90% of the same power from only 128 cores. Now take that 3200 cores Maxwell leaked shot. Roughly 4600-4700 Kepler cores would be needed to match it performance wise. That's nearly 2 780GTX's in one same size die as GTX 780. Quite powerful actually, and because its on 28nm, high heat is expected till the 20nm respin. That's when the true efficient version will be out.

Really its all speculation till Kyle and Brent get them on the benches. But I like my version. ;)
Click to expand...

they're not going to release an *80 card that's as powerful as two of last gen's *80 cards. at least not unless amd does something just as crazy first. the 5-10 fps part i was talking about 8K, by the way, in case it wasn't clear, not 4K.
 
A 25 SMX unit seems as though it might be feasible, but may be a stretch in terms of die size. It all rather depends on how much cache ends up on the chip.
 
I keep seeing GM204, GM207, and GM210 thrown around, which one is the highest end Maxwell card that Nvidia is planning on releasing?

The GM210 is the 8GB VRAM engineering sample shown on VideoCardz website?

And, the supposedly 2GB VRAM GTX 880 is the GM204 or GM207 with 3200 cores?
 
700 series is a rip off I feel ripped off for buying a 670 FTW in June 2012 for 400.00
If you think your getting a good deal you're not =)

I upgraded from a 550ti which I didn't know wasn't all that great bit it was good enough for Duke Nukem Forever at the time and Rift.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top