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

Micas said:
I'm interested in Kepler for SLI on a 3 monitor setup (5760x3600), mostly for racing and flight sims.. maybe a few other games. The memory issue is a bit confusing to me, but I'm hoping that the reviews on GK104 are detailed enough to include benchmarks with surround. If 2gb per card (yes, I know it's not additive) are not sufficient to avoid texture swapping, then I'll need to wait for GK110 I guess.

It's a pretty safe bet that Nvidia won't be releasing details on GK110 when GK104 is released in order to avoid people like me that would wait and buy 110 instead of the 104 now. I have a SB @ 4.5 and so on to support faster GPU's than the SLI 460s I'm using now, but what I'm hoping to do is get something that will last a few years like the 460s did. I don't mind paying up to $1500 for the pair to make that happen.

Think GK110 is going to be the 780GTX?
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat although I'm only running 5760x1080 (is 5760x3600 a typo? please 'splain this)

I think the 680 would be a good bump, but I don't think 2 of those will get me the overwhelming, overkill performance I want.
 
DoubleTap said:
I'm in the same boat although I'm only running 5760x1080 (is 5760x3600 a typo? please 'splain this)

I think the 680 would be a good bump, but I don't think 2 of those will get me the overwhelming, overkill performance I want.
Click to expand...

Yes, dumb error... should be x1200. I'm also interested in just over powering everything if I can. It's hard to tell without benchmarks, but it's possible that 4GB versions of the 680 might do the trick. I'm not at all bothered to wait until the GK110 release - but the irritating thing is the lack of information to make a decision.
 
There is one guy in this thread with 11 different accounts. lmao he argues with himself. In fact he dominates this whole thread. What a load of garbage.
 
shansoft said:
It's not related to VRAM, but the feeling is nearly identical when the VRAM requirement is only slightly over your max VRAM. It feels choppy but the fps stay up there.
Click to expand...

I dunno, BF3 is not choppy for me at all. *shrug*
 
lmao

There is a 3 page section on this thread where 1 guy with different accounts is arguing with himself lol
 
secretsauce said:
No one givesw a shit about the performance of these cards on single screen
Click to expand...

Not quite true. You might not care, but I would like to get as close to 120 fps on a 120hz monitor. For me gaming on multiple screens is just not that important.
 
fxaa and mlaa and all the other new aa's LOOK LIKE SHIT

its putting gaming graphics progress in reverse. blurring to remove jaggies is the most stupid idea i ever seen.

Its like smearing a can of Crisco accross your monitors.

Games look WAY more shaper with them off



oh and there is a question mark in the title of that acrticle meaning "pure delicious rumor"
 
secretsauce said:
Do you play high or average resolution? 5760x1080 and up is high . Thats where the difference is.

No one givesw a shit about the performance of these cards on single screen
Click to expand...

yes plenty of people do, just because you have decided to use multi-monitor doesn't mean the rest of the world did too, and some people prefer to play their games at max settings using a single card.
 
secretsauce said:
fxaa and mlaa and all the other new aa's LOOK LIKE SHIT

its putting gaming graphics progress in reverse. blurring to remove jaggies is the most stupid idea i ever seen.

Its like smearing a can of Crisco accross your monitors.

Games look WAY more shaper with them off



oh and there is a question mark in the title of that acrticle meaning "pure delicious rumor"
Click to expand...
How would you remove jaggies other than by blurring?
 
secretsauce said:
Do you play high or average resolution? 5760x1080 and up is high . Thats where the difference is.

No one givesw a shit about the performance of these cards on single screen
Click to expand...

Yeah, actually, they do. Eyefinity/nV Surround are extremely niche markets... I'd wager under a tenth of one percent (0.1%) of discrete video card users play their games that way. You do have some on these forums and in games that talk about using it, but it's an exceedingly rare thing as far as the overall market is concerned. I'm glad you enjoy your Surround setup, but projecting your own usage of something as what everyone uses/cares about isn't correct.

Now, 2560x1600 is a high resolution. 1920x1080 is what most run nowadays, which is half of that. 5760x1080 is 6.22mp, while a 30" S-IPS LCD @ 2560x1600 is 4.2mp, or over two-thirds of that.
 
I use eyefinity. 3 screen gaming is the future. When the new consoles come out it might be the only thing really seperating it from them. One thing is for sure, game developers will forget about pc like it does not even exist. Emagine this, consoles 1920x1080p native at 60fps all games high textures. There will be alot of money in the console buisness and only bragging rights in the pc. PC will be pushed even farther away. Everyone spending thousands of dollars to play what a $300-400 console will do seemlessly. But it will never be able to play eyefinity ;)
 
secretsauce said:
I use eyefinity. 3 screen gaming is the future. When the new consoles come out it might be the only thing really seperating it from them. One thing is for sure, game developers will forget about pc like it does not even exist. Emagine this, consoles 1920x1080p native at 60fps all games high textures. There will be alot of money in the console buisness and only bragging rights in the pc. PC will be pushed even farther away. Everyone spending thousands of dollars to play what a $300-400 console will do seemlessly. But it will never be able to play eyefinity ;)
Click to expand...

I disagree completely. Those are the same arguments used for the last several rounds of consoles... and while the PC market has not been growing as much for gaming lately, it's still a strong, gigantic market with numerous advantages. A year out from the new console launches, we'll have higher resolution textures, better effects/models, twice the resolution still (2560x1600), smoother framerates (yeah, they claimed they'd be doing 1080p@60fps+amazing settings last time too, it's not happening on the hardware they're talking about with equal settings), etc.

That still is unrelated to how Eyefinity/nV surround is, in your opinion, not a niche market despite being so.
 
secretsauce said:
Do you play high or average resolution? 5760x1080 and up is high . Thats where the difference is.

No one givesw a shit about the performance of these cards on single screen
Click to expand...

Looks like you didn't even read the conversation leading up to that post. Maybe you should just refrain from commenting about things you don't understand.

I'll throw you a bone, though; we weren't talking about multi-monitor, nor were we talking about Kepler.
 
secretsauce said:
There is one guy in this thread with 11 different accounts. lmao he argues with himself. In fact he dominates this whole thread. What a load of garbage.
Click to expand...

secretsauce said:
lmao

There is a 3 page section on this thread where 1 guy with different accounts is arguing with himself lol
Click to expand...

Well, that's much more interesting than watching someone making a fool of theirselves.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I disagree completely. Those are the same arguments used for the last several rounds of consoles... and while the PC market has not been growing as much for gaming lately, it's still a strong, gigantic market with numerous advantages. A year out from the new console launches, we'll have higher resolution textures, better effects/models, twice the resolution still (2560x1600), smoother framerates (yeah, they claimed they'd be doing 1080p@60fps+amazing settings last time too, it's not happening on the hardware they're talking about with equal settings), etc.

That still is unrelated to how Eyefinity/nV surround is, in your opinion, not a niche market despite being so.
Click to expand...

Pc is way ahead right now but we are getting more and more console port crap. Consoles are getting bigger despite pc advancements. With the advancement of hardware the past coupkle of years it is changing the game. It will not be like when the xbox came out. These new consoles will be powerful. Half the games on pc look the same on consoles. Developers will be smart and dedicate to only new console hardware. That is just a wise decicsion. When a $300 console next comes out that is equal to a $1500 pc we know what will happen
 
Remember the original rumor of kepler? Nvida has said nothing right?

Will their desktop cards come out soon or could they come out in the summer or later?

Has Nvidia officially when they will come out?

In the meantime we are going to get a 6gig 7970? Now that is definatly over kill
 
Has anyone ever thought as to when the might come before the latter card? Has announced yet?
 
secretsauce said:
Remember the original rumor of kepler? Nvida has said nothing right?

Will their desktop cards come out soon or could they come out in the summer or later?

Has Nvidia officially when they will come out?

In the meantime we are going to get a 6gig 7970? Now that is definatly over kill
Click to expand...

I want to know too (any dates yet?), but 7970 6GB is the perfect card imho. I just want the Nvidia equivalent to drop with a 6GB card, I don't want to do SLI + my mobo lacks SLI. Also 1 cards solutions work with any game. I can't wait to see their next line-up, such a mystery :confused:
 
Kepler cards are in reviewers' hands, so no, I can't imagine it not coming out for months still ;).
 
secretsauce said:
In the meantime we are going to get a 6gig 7970? Now that is definatly over kill
Click to expand...

As I wrote before, 2GB per screen x3 or 1GB for 5-6 screens seems perfect to me.

Then go up to Quad CF for shader processing... sweet spot!

Can't wait for them to come out!
 
Regarding 2gb, I don't think its an issue at all except at high 3d surround resolutions. For 3d surround more VRAM makes a profound difference, but for a single screen it doesn't really matter. 1.5gb was fine for 2560 resolution unless you used absolutely excessive levels of AA and/or game mods (Skyrim comes to mind). I think AMD wanted all of their cards to cater to eyefinity where 1.5gb doesn't really cut it, still I think they should have released 1.5gb cards at better price points. I doubt there would have been controversy over a 440$ 7970 with 1.5gb VRAM, or even a 375$ 7950 with 1.5gb.
 
secretsauce said:
I use eyefinity. 3 screen gaming is the future. When the new consoles come out it might be the only thing really seperating it from them. One thing is for sure, game developers will forget about pc like it does not even exist. Emagine this, consoles 1920x1080p native at 60fps all games high textures. There will be alot of money in the console buisness and only bragging rights in the pc. PC will be pushed even farther away. Everyone spending thousands of dollars to play what a $300-400 console will do seemlessly. But it will never be able to play eyefinity ;)
Click to expand...


Eyefinity is ok for single player RPG's and such, but 120hz displays are for real/competitive gaming, ie: online FPS.

Running a 120hz display with high IQ like SSAA and/or AO takes more GPU power than Eyefinity.
 
I hope it's good. AMDs cards are a rip off right now. I'm thinking of just getting a $250 GTX 570 which is equivalent to rip off price of $359 for 7870 but I'll wait to see what nvidia challenges them with. $100 more for what? Little cooler and quieter? No thanks. Right now I'm without a desktop card since I borked it with a bios flash.
 
ZoNe said:
I hope it's good. AMDs cards are a rip off right now. I'm thinking of just getting a $250 GTX 570 which is equivalent to rip off price of $359 for 7870 but I'll wait to see what nvidia challenges them with. $100 more for what? Little cooler and quieter? No thanks. Right now I'm without a desktop card since I borked it with a bios flash.
Click to expand...

I will be in the same boat soon. I have a 570 which I have until next week to return for a refund. I was hoping to see a kepler hard launch before then so I could just trade it in but it looks like I'll be spending a few days (weeks?) with integrated intel video.

OTOH, maybe the store will discount the card enough to make me keep it :)
 
secretsauce said:
Pc is way ahead right now but we are getting more and more console port crap. Consoles are getting bigger despite pc advancements. With the advancement of hardware the past coupkle of years it is changing the game. It will not be like when the xbox came out. These new consoles will be powerful. Half the games on pc look the same on consoles. Developers will be smart and dedicate to only new console hardware. That is just a wise decicsion. When a $300 console next comes out that is equal to a $1500 pc we know what will happen
Click to expand...

As long as console GPUs resemble PC GPUs, PC gaming will survive just fine on enhanced console ports, with the occasional leap in graphics from dedicated PC devs (e.g. Crysis). Frankly that's good enough for me. All the "ports" I've bought recently have looked and played better than their console counterparts, and that's why I have a PC. Skyrim, Batman AC, Crysis 2, DX:HR, ME3 - seeing these at full 60fps with enhancements (albeit small ones) is worth $1000+ in my book. It's not even about mouse+keyboard for me anymore, as I play pretty much everything besides twitch shooters with a 360 gamepad. Now, if Sony, MS and Nintendo developed their own proprietary GPUs, the PC would be in serious trouble (hint: they won't, and I think the days of exotic CPUs is pretty much dead too). There is another avenue for differentiation, and that is the control scheme, but I have a hard time imagining a control method that prevents a game from being ported to PC.

Armchair pundits have been predicting the death of PC gaming for over a decade, but what they forget is this: if there is hardware, games will always come.
 
secretsauce said:
I use eyefinity. 3 screen gaming is the future. When the new consoles come out it might be the only thing really seperating it from them. One thing is for sure, game developers will forget about pc like it does not even exist. Emagine this, consoles 1920x1080p native at 60fps all games high textures. There will be alot of money in the console buisness and only bragging rights in the pc. PC will be pushed even farther away. Everyone spending thousands of dollars to play what a $300-400 console will do seemlessly. But it will never be able to play eyefinity ;)
Click to expand...

Well, it will likely be AMD providing the GPUs (or APUs) for all three major consoles, so the transition from console>PC will be much smoother. I'd imagine this would boost the graphics on PC gaming as a result; same APIs + similar hardware makes it far easier on developers.
 
walkman said:
So, why were you posting in this thread?
Click to expand...

Really? :rolleyes:

Where in the thread title does it say anything about multi-monitor gaming? And sure, it's a Kepler thread, but we were discussing VRAM limitations, which is related to Kepler in that people keep bitching about 2 GB not being enough. That is where the whole discussion came from.

That particular conversation didn't have anything to do with what secretsauce was talking about, so he should have kept his mouth shut. But he got banned, anyway, so obviously he was just a troll and we can move on.
 
I bet the new graphics cards from Nvidia will not force AMD to lower prices. Just my luck, I was planning to finally upgrade my desktop computer (which I have not done since 2006!) this summer and now graphics cards and especially hard drives are much more expensive than usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top