GK104 = GTX 680 (confirmed), paper launching soon [SA]

Revdarian said:
Ok math 101 for math illiterate people, if card A is 35% faster than X, and card B is 45% than x, how much faster is card B over card A?

The way to calculate it is like this:
A= 1.35x
B= 1.45X

B/A = 1.45x/1.35x = 1.074

Card B is 7.4% faster than card A.


Class is dismissed.


EDIT TO ADD:

I was assuming that the numbers where % faster than the 580 as that is what was being talked about.
Click to expand...



you should have just stated what you were thinking instead of trying to be condescending. Now you just look like a fool
 
needmorecarnitine said:
you should have just stated what you were thinking instead of trying to be condescending. Now you just look like a fool
Click to expand...

Not a fool, i was talking about a different post, one by Lord Exodia.

BTW:
Ohh noessss, someone think i r fool on ze internetz!
<.<
 
Look, there is no disputing the bang for buck will be much lower at the top end this time around. Since amd wasn't backed into a corner this time by having to release later, they felt they could set the pricing bar - and the bar was set a good deal higher than past gens where they felt they needed to be the value proposition. NV likely has a card that is equal or a bit faster, so they will price their card the same as AMD's offering or a bit higher. It's an unfortunate result fo timing and near-equal performance. Whether $550-600 is worth it to have performance that can be had in last gens cards for $100 less, that's up to you and your decision. If you want to hold on to your current card(s) to see if prices go down or if the high-midrange is a better value, that's another option.
 
harmattan said:
Look, there is no disputing the bang for buck will be much lower at the top end this time around. Since amd wasn't backed into a corner this time by having to release later, they felt they could set the pricing bar - and the bar was set a good deal higher than past gens where they felt they needed to be the value proposition. NV likely has a card that is equal or a bit faster, so they will price their card the same as AMD's offering or a bit higher. It's an unfortunate result fo timing and near-equal performance. Whether $550-600 is worth it to have performance that can be had in last gens cards for $100 less, that's up to you and your decision. If you want to hold on to your current card(s) to see if prices go down or if the high-midrange is a better value, that's another option.
Click to expand...
its not just high end though. these high prices trickle down and make mid range cards come at much higher price tags too.
 
TD92 said:
gtx680.png


I find this image visually amusing.
Click to expand...
Images like this show how much some egocentric and childish people simply have no clue how the graphics industry works or the shortfalls they are currently experiencing. If AMD could get more 28nm stock it would have sold the 7xxx series at a lower price, the churn rate more than makes up for the decreased margin. They didn't sell them at a higher price to screw you over personally, what a load of ignorant bullshit.
 
I blame the high price of video cards to decrease in buyers and limited production due to fear of not being able to sell the new cards and high stock of older video cards. I don't think people are buying video cards like they used to so in order for AMD/NVIDIA to make a buck they have to increase prices.

My single GTX 560 ti 448 works great. I don't plan on buying a 28nm video card if an affordable worthwhile upgrade path isn't provided. $299.99 with at least a 30% improvement in FPS are the magic numbers for me to upgrade.

Those are my requirements. If AMD/NVIDIA doesn't build a card like this I will be enjoying my GTX 560 ti 448 till the 3 year warranty runs out and breaks. If I'm lucky NVIDIA/AMD will meet my needs soon and if not maybe this year during black Friday I will find a hot deal on a HD7950 or GK104 card for $299.99.
 
LOL $550 for 680 GTX. Boy some people expecting $299 and $399 cant bitch at AMD for pricing then.
 
SonDa5 said:
I blame the high price of video cards to decrease in buyers and limited production due to fear of not being able to sell the new cards and high stock of older video cards. I don't think people are buying video cards like they used to so in order for AMD/NVIDIA to make a buck they have to increase prices.
Click to expand...

Actually some things to consider.

I wonder how much the rise in ARM is contributing to this. I believe ARM is also currently making the transition to 28nm and of course this a market that has grown immensely and is a much bigger player than years ago. How much of TSMCs capacity has been spoken for?

Also no alternatives to TSMC? Both GPU makers have used UMC in the past as well as TSMC, but I don't recall any mention of either using UMC anymore? Is there any plans of AMD eyeing using Globalfoundries (at least for future designs)?

DASHlT said:
LOL $550 for 680 GTX. Boy some people expecting $299 and $399 cant bitch at AMD for pricing then.
Click to expand...

Can you be not happy at either?

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect performance/price to improve with new generations. I actually think this is more important than absolute performance improvements.
 
limitedaccess said:
Actually some things to consider.

I wonder how much the rise in ARM is contributing to this. I believe ARM is also currently making the transition to 28nm and of course this a market that has grown immensely and is a much bigger player than years ago. How much of TSMCs capacity has been spoken for?

Also no alternatives to TSMC? Both GPU makers have used UMC in the past as well as TSMC, but I don't recall any mention of either using UMC anymore? Is there any plans of AMD eyeing using Globalfoundries (at least for future designs)?



Can you be not happy at either?

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect performance/price to improve with new generations. I actually think this is more important than absolute performance improvements.
Click to expand...

I dont care about the price to be honest. I accually expected a $500 price tag.

I planned to step-up to kepler....since i just bought these 480 gtx's for $210 a pop!

Evga ftw!
 
I don't think it's too bad. Besides, it allowed them to get the card shorter and fan larger, and allows for 3rd parties who use different cooling solutions to use the empty pins for 2 side-by-side sockets, or the extra pins on the double-decker for a 6+8 pin socket arrangement for improved OC headroom.

Plus, with them arranged the way they are, with quite a bit of space between them as well as one being sunk in further, I don't see a problem with inserting/pulling out cables.
 
Either way im really liking the reference cooler. Looks slick! ( Except the green geforce logo :/ )
 
WorldExclusive said:
My point exactly. If Nvidia does release the GK104 as the GTX 680 as the rumors say, I hope it receives "No Rating" from [H].
Hopefully Brent and Kyle calls nV out on this one.
Click to expand...

I'd say its 99% certain that we'll see GK104 in the form of GTX 680. Even Kyle himself have been referring to it as 680 in his previous post regarding Kepler.

The rumored GK100 or GK110 will probably go up against that AMD's rumored refresh discussed in AMD subforum. For now, 6970 and 680 is all we'll get.

IMO, with the way things are at the moment, there is no rush for AMD and nVidia to push out these parts asap. HD 7970 and GK104 is enough for most gamers, and there's always that crossfire/sli option for gamers with multi-monitors. If they maintain current card's prices, these new high end parts will have to be priced higher and nobody is going to get it because most simply don't need it anyway. Alternatively, they can cut the price of current cards, but why do that when they can milk it at the moment.:p
 
Last edited:
cannondale06 said:
after I posted it here I think someone in another forum said it was fake.
Click to expand...

I dunno I mean it looks just like the pics that techpowerup posted. Also has the right PCI-e plugs everyone knows about.

Also with the back shot. it "Kinda" Looks like the 2 dvi stacked on each other, which is what Charlie said, and the techpowerup pics showed.

I mean we all know Kepler is coming soon and the cards are in reviews hands...
 
DASHlT said:
I dunno I mean it looks just like the pics that techpowerup posted. Also has the right PCI-e plugs everyone knows about.

Also with the back shot. it "Kinda" Looks like the 2 dvi stacked on each other, which is what Charlie and the techpowerup pics showed.

I mean we all know Kepler is coming soon and the cards are in reviews hands...
Click to expand...
yeah it could be real and the person claiming it was fake was just kidding or trolling. since I am the one that posted it here though I just want to say that I don't know with 100% certainty if its legit.
 
i hope its real...and i also hope that a paper (or hard) launch will follow soon...i needa make some moves soon!

go GTX 580 SLI with reduced prices...or go GTX 680 SLI with premium prices, and hopefully a clear performance advantage over competition...right now, i'm hearing rumors that the GTX 680 will be the same price and same performance as a 7970, which I feel is very disappointing
 
dukenuke88 said:
i hope its real...and i also hope that a paper (or hard) launch will follow soon...i needa make some moves soon!

go GTX 580 SLI with reduced prices...or go GTX 680 SLI with premium prices, and hopefully a clear performance advantage over competition...right now, i'm hearing rumors that the GTX 680 will be the same price and same performance as a 7970, which I feel is very disappointing
Click to expand...

Or go 580 gtx in SLI (evga) then step-up to kepler 90 days later?
 
TroyX said:
at the end of the day amd and nvidia are pretty much partners when you think about it.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that's how it is in this oligopoly.

BTW, the GTX 680 is in reality a mid-range card as long as the 2 GB frame buffer and 256-bit bus are true.
 
fomoz said:
Exactly, that's how it is in this oligopoly.

BTW, the GTX 680 is in reality a mid-range card as long as the 2 GB frame buffer and 256-bit bus are true.
Click to expand...

????? How so? If it performs as it needs to, it's no longer mid-range. Especially the bus width, who cares so long as it performs?

2gb is fine, even for surround, unless you're going for 7680x1600 (3x 30") which virtually no one does: http://widescreengamingforum.com/article/palit-nvidia-gtx460-surround-1gb-vs-2gb-benchmarking
 
GoldenTiger said:
????? How so? If it performs as it needs to, it's no longer mid-range. Especially the bus width, who cares so long as it performs?

2gb is fine, even for surround, currently, unless you're going for 7680x1600 (3x 30") which virtually no one does: http://widescreengamingforum.com/article/palit-nvidia-gtx460-surround-1gb-vs-2gb-benchmarking
Click to expand...

It depends on the game. Very few games need more than 2GB but atm I can hit around 2.3GB in Skyrim with loads of mods, and that's only at 2560x1600. If I'm paying top dollar for a card, I expect to run everything out...

BF3 is another VRAM heavy game... you will not be able to max it in 24" surround with 4xMSAA and high post-process on.

I remember loads of people here switching to the 580 3GBs when they came out, why would they step down to a 2GB card?
 
fomoz said:
BTW, the GTX 680 is in reality a mid-range card as long as the 2 GB frame buffer and 256-bit bus are true.
Click to expand...

Ehh, it depends on what/if they launch after it in this generation.

A lot of things point to it being the high-end (or at least one of the high-end) card this generation:

1) "GTX 680" naming scheme
2) Direct competition with AMD's flagship card
2) Pricing :(

Even if it was originally supposed to be a 670 Ti or whatever, that's still one of the high-end cards based on naming scheme. Really it just depends on what the GK110 releases as.

x3sphere said:
BF3 is another VRAM heavy game... you will not be able to max it in 24" surround with 4xMSAA and high post-process on.
Click to expand...

BF3 is a VRAM "aware" game. There's a difference. But yeah, on a multi-monitor setup you would probably need around 2 GB (possibly a bit more) to max out BF3.
 
x3sphere said:
It depends on the game. Very few games need more than 2GB but atm I can hit around 2.3GB in Skyrim with loads of mods, and that's only at 2560x1600. If I'm paying top dollar for a card, I expect to run everything out...

BF3 is another VRAM heavy game... you will not be able to max it in 24" surround with 4xMSAA and high post-process on.

I remember loads of people here switching to the 580 3GBs when they came out, why would they step down to a 2GB card?
Click to expand...

You'll run out of horsepower (framerate) long before VRAM becomes an issue in virtually every title that could become a memory or performance issue. Also, just because a game allocates 2.3GB of VRAM doesn't mean it NEEDS it, just that it can use it if it's available. It's like Windows 7 SuperFetch in that regard. People seem to gloss over that point though quite consistently. For most people, 16GB of RAM is useless currently, but they go for it anyway; they wouldn't be "stepping down" if they went to 8GB of faster RAM ;).

When both GTX 680 2GB and 4GB are out, you'll find quickly that virtually everything runs 100% as well on the 2gb as the 4gb once benches are done by review sites.

fomoz said:
It's not fine for my surround :p
Click to expand...

Got some benches with multiple VRAM sizes? "Fine" is a very broad term.
 
MavericK96 said:
Ehh, it depends on what/if they launch after it in this generation.

A lot of things point to it being the high-end (or at least one of the high-end) card this generation:

1) "GTX 680" naming scheme
2) Direct competition with AMD's flagship card
2) Pricing :(

Even if it was originally supposed to be a 670 Ti or whatever, that's still one of the high-end cards based on naming scheme. Really it just depends on what the GK110 releases as.



BF3 is a VRAM "aware" game. There's a difference. But yeah, on a multi-monitor setup you would probably need around 2 GB (possibly a bit more) to max out BF3.
Click to expand...
As I said before, it screams being a mid-range card. It doesn't make any sense for their next-get "true" flagship to have less VRAM and smaller bus than their previous flagship.
 
GoldenTiger said:
You'll run out of horsepower (framerate) long before VRAM becomes an issue in virtually every title that could become a memory or performance issue. Also, just because a game allocates 2.3GB of VRAM doesn't mean it NEEDS it, just that it can use it if it's available. It's like Windows 7 SuperFetch in that regard. People seem to gloss over that point though quite consistently. For most people, 16GB of RAM is useless currently, but they go for it anyway; they wouldn't be "stepping down" if they went to 8GB of faster RAM ;).



Got some benches with multiple VRAM sizes? "Fine" is a very broad term.
Click to expand...

still not sure how BF3 works with VRAM but i constantly see 3-3.1gb usage with 3600x1920(VRAM read by MSI AB)
 
fomoz said:
As I said before, it screams being a mid-range card. It doesn't make any sense for their next-get "true" flagship to have less VRAM and smaller bus than their previous flagship.
Click to expand...

The bus width doesn't matter at all, so long as it brings the performance. VRAM isn't lower than their previous flagship of 1.5GB, at a 2.0GB buffer. The 3gb 580 was a "special edition" type card, as will be the 4GB 680. Mind you, everyone knows this was likely originally going to be slated to be a mid-range card, but you're picking the wrong reasons to feel like it is "overpriced" (and we don't even know the MSRP!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top