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

GoldenTiger said:
Got some benches with multiple VRAM sizes? "Fine" is a very broad term.
Click to expand...
Personally, I would say that my setup is "fine" when I'm running BF3 and Crysis II DX11 maxed out 7680x1440, 4xMsAA and 16xAF with Vsync and my FPS never drops below 60.

I don't have any benches since I've never seen any benches at this res, but keep in mind that 1440p is 1.78 times more pixels than 1080p.
 
fomoz said:
Personally, I would say that my setup is "fine" when I'm running BF3 and Crysis II DX11 maxed out 7680x1440, 4xMsAA and 16xAF with Vsync and my FPS never drops below 60.

I don't have any benches since I've never seen any benches at this res, but keep in mind that 1440p is 1.78 times more pixels than 1080p.
Click to expand...

I run 2560x1600, myself. It's 2x the pixels. VRAM is not the primary limiting factor for our resolutions, but rather GPU speed. Both titles you mention, by the way, will fill or try to fill any VRAM they detect, more than they actually need to still run full-speed.
 
GoldenTiger said:
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
Click to expand...

This is not even true today. In 6-12 months, it won't even be close to true.

GTA IV was unplayable without 2 GB (like, wouldn't even load, not just poor frame rates), and they don't test Crysis 2 or BF3 which are two of the hardest hitting games today.

4 GB versions only for this guy.
 
thebski said:
This is probably barely true today, if it is even true. I can assure you this won't be true by the time these cards are 6 months old, and 12 months is out of the question.

4 GB versions only for this guy.
Click to expand...

There are more recent tests done by forum members in various places you can go google, I linked the article because it is a more concise summary. Games haven't changed that much. Currently it is mostly marketing hype, just like "needing" (sarcasm) a 1500w PSU to power your single GPU setup.

EDIT in response to your edit:

thebski said:
GTA IV was unplayable without 2 GB (like, wouldn't even load, not just poor frame rates), and they don't test Crysis 2 or BF3 which are two of the hardest hitting games today.
Click to expand...

Crysis 2 and BF3 weren't out at the time of the article. Both of those as I said before are hard to pin down what they need because they fill a TON if it's available, yet run perfectly with less if it's not. However, from the test data I *have* seen in articles like that and on forums, 2GB will be enough for them at any practical settings level for 2560x1600.
 
by the way, while 2GB of VRAM might not cripple your fps, you have to look at other potential uses ( which I think BF3 uses, as well as the witcher 2) which is preloading textures into VRAM so when you move to a different part of an open world env, you don't have to load all of the textures from disk. This only really applies to games with non-linear worlds and gameplay, but still a bonus to have making smoother transitions into different parts of maps / worlds.
 
GoldenTiger said:
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!).
Click to expand...
Their enthusiast card is gonna start with at least 3 GB, just like the 7970 (which was conceived as an enthusiast card).

If the GTX 680 equals the 7970's performance, it will cost $549. It would be dumb on nVidia's part to price it lower since they'll have no problem selling their cards simply because of their brand. For example, If they price it at $499, then AMD will just drop their price too and they'll both lose $50 revenue per card for no good reason.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
by the way, while 2GB of VRAM might not cripple your fps, you have to look at other potential uses ( which I think BF3 uses, as well as the witcher 2) which is preloading textures into VRAM so when you move to a different part of an open world env, you don't have to load all of the textures from disk. This only really applies to games with non-linear worlds and gameplay, but still a bonus to have making smoother transitions into different parts of maps / worlds.
Click to expand...

Extra VRAM does seem to minimize load hitching (then again, so does an SSD but not as well) in these cases, yes. However, I'm not so convinced by current test data that more than 2GB is needed in these titles. I'm not saying it's useless by any stretch, though, but it's more of an "edge-case" thing currently than an actual "need" as some people are calling it.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I run 2560x1600, myself. It's 2x the pixels. VRAM is not the primary limiting factor for our resolutions, but rather GPU speed. Both titles you mention, by the way, will fill or try to fill any VRAM they detect, more than they actually need to still run full-speed.
Click to expand...
When you're pushing 2.7x less pixels, you're not even close to my resolution :p
 
fomoz said:
When you're pushing 2.7x less pixels, you're not even close to my resolution :p
Click to expand...

Wait, so you're running something beyond 7680x1600 even? What monitors are you using? :rolleyes: You said you were on 2560x1440 before (1440p). (Edit: I misread that apparrently, you did specify surround of that).

Anyway, I just looked at your sig, and I'm actually at 4.1mp vs. your 11.05mp. However you term it, as I said before a case like yours is an edge case that virtually no one runs, so my comments don't apply to you.
 
Doesn't BF3 utilize something like 1.5GB vRAM at 1080p with all goodies on? I'd imagine it can get quite high with eyefinity and the like on.

Keep going with this thread. It's entertaining.

bgz3ba.gif
 
pelo said:
Doesn't BF3 utilize something like 1.5GB vRAM at 1080p with all goodies on? I'd imagine it can get quite high with eyefinity and the like on.

Keep going with this thread. It's entertaining.

[*IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/bgz3ba.gif[/IMG]
Click to expand...

We already discussed this... you lied when you posted your book-reading GIF animation since you haven't actually been reading :p.
 
hey hey, just because it's baseless and likely doodoo-ridden doesn't mean it's not entertaining.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Wait, so you're running something beyond 7680x1600 even? What monitors are you using? :rolleyes: You said you were on 2560x1440 before (1440p). (Edit: I misread that apparrently, you did specify surround of that).

Anyway, I just looked at your sig, and I'm actually at 4.1mp vs. your 11.05mp. That's not 2.7x less, but however you term it, as I said before a case like yours is an edge case that virtually no one runs, so my comments don't apply to you.
Click to expand...
Well, isn't this what enthusiast products are for? :)
 
GoldenTiger said:
Extra VRAM does seem to minimize load hitching (then again, so does an SSD but not as well) in these cases, yes. However, I'm not so convinced by current test data that more than 2GB is needed in these titles. I'm not saying it's useless by any stretch, though, but it's more of an "edge-case" thing currently than an actual "need" as some people are calling it.
Click to expand...

yes SSDs do help, and that is why I initially went with a small SSD for an MMO, however right on the VRAM is the next step

a lot of games coming out and current are using open worlds, Diablo 3, Tera, Skyrim, Witcher 2, BF3, I'm sure there are more i'm too lazy to look them up :p
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
yes SSDs do help, and that is why I initially went with a small SSD for an MMO, however right on the VRAM is the next step

a lot of games coming out and current are using open worlds, Diablo 3, Tera, Skyrim, Witcher 2, BF3, I'm sure there are more i'm too lazy to look them up :p
Click to expand...

Guild Wars 2 ;).

Myself, I'll be grabbing a pair of the 2GB models assuming reviews pan them out as good cards, and if it looks to not meet my VRAM needs I'll return them and wait on 4GB models. I tend to doubt for a single monitor (even 2560x1600) it'll be needed, though. For those rarer cases like 7680x1440/1600, yeah, I can see them being useful :D.

pelo said:
hey hey, just because it's baseless and likely doodoo-ridden doesn't mean it's not entertaining.
Click to expand...

Your post was such a great contribution. /sarcasm. It is much depreciated. ;). The rest of us are having a discussion, bye now.
 
I realize there's a massive difference between 1.25 GB and 2 GB, but I have 1.25 GB right now on 570's in SLI and at 5760x1080 (which is obviously greater than 2560x1600) it's no where near enough. Crysis 2 and BF3 basically use up the memory on a single monitor. BF3 plays at about 8-9 FPS in surround. I realize it's both due to memory and actual chip power, but I think BF3 would damn near use up 3 GB if you'd give it to it at surround resolutions.

I don't want to have to worry about memory ever again (by ever I mean the 12 months that these are current gen), so I'll be sure I don't. As I said, 4 GB versions only for me.
 
thebski said:
I realize there's a massive difference between 1.25 GB and 2 GB, but I have 1.25 GB right now on 570's in SLI and at 5760x1080 (which is obviously greater than 2560x1600) it's no where near enough. Crysis 2 and BF3 basically use up the memory on a single monitor. BF3 plays at about 8-9 FPS in surround. I realize it's both due to memory and actual chip power, but I think BF3 would damn near use up 3 GB if you'd give it to it at surround resolutions.

I don't want to have to worry about memory ever again (by ever I mean the 12 months that these are current gen), so I'll be sure I don't. As I said, 4 GB versions only for me.
Click to expand...

I can agree with you on all of that. 1280MB wasn't enough on my 570 SLI @ 2560x1600 in BF3... I would think 2GB would be enough, but after thinking more, I'm beginning to wonder if you people all had a point :p. Maybe I will need to wait for 4GB versions :p, but I'll probably try the 2GB ones first.
 
[evo];1038489330 said:
the way that graph is stretched out is very misleading me thinks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they've done exaggerated scaling as have other companies, for eons... gotta look at the numbers.
 
So if I'm reading this shitty graph right, the 680 will perform anywhere between 5 to 45% (BF3 4xAA) better than 7970????
 
mzs_biteme said:
So if I'm reading this shitty graph right, the 680 will perform anywhere between 5 to 45% (BF3 4xAA) better than 7970????
Click to expand...

Yeah... looks like an overall average of 20% on most titles per that graph though. If BF3 is an indication of upcoming titles though... it could become a better card as time goes on, almost, in terms of average then-"current" game performance. For now, it looks good though.
 
What resolutions, what quality, what AA (on some), what AF....those slides are meaningless even if true.
 
fps4ever said:
What resolutions, what quality, what AA (on some), what AF....those slides are meaningless even if true.
Click to expand...

It's a typical marketing slide: one can easily assume max for a given game, and it does specify the AA (if missing you assume none). I thought 16x AF was pretty standard nowadays.

The scale is pretty hilarious though.
 
That is one hilarious graph scale! :D

MORE COWBELL!

On a more sobering note... Info on Kepler pricing seems to indicate nvidia is price matching AMD.

Link

It's Fud, but ...
 
GoldenTiger said:
It's a typical marketing slide: one can easily assume max for a given game, and it does specify the AA (if missing you assume none). I thought 16x AF was pretty standard nowadays.

The scale is pretty hilarious though.
Click to expand...

Never ASSUME anything in graphic card wars! :D
 
You can tell the bottom picture is fake too. Nvidia doesn't write "geforce" in that font and makes the first and third letters larger. It's always "GeForce", and has been since forever (it is on the slide itself). :D

These rumors are all unconfirmed nonsense until confirmed by the actual products, by which point they are pointless. This is actual footage from the semi accurate headquaters. Now you know how they come up with this (also I get this stuck in my head whevever I read one of these threads...retro techno kind of fits...).
 
Maybe I just have my blinders on after seeing people post about their 200+ clock increases on 7970s. The built in "turbo boost" seems underwhelming. A 50mHz increase? Will it be able to do much more if one manually OCs it?
 
DeathPrincess said:
You can tell the bottom picture is fake too. Nvidia doesn't write "geforce" in that font and makes the first and third letters larger. It's always "GeForce", and has been since forever (it is on the slide itself). :D

These rumors are all unconfirmed nonsense until confirmed by the actual products, by which point they are pointless. This is actual footage from the semi accurate headquaters. Now you know how they come up with this (also I get this stuck in my head whevever I read one of these threads...retro techno kind of fits...).
Click to expand...

Same font is used in this picture of the card.

http://www.fudzilla.com/images/stories/2012/March/General News/nvidia_gtx680ch_1.jpg

So could still be real.
 
Yakk said:
On a more sobering note... Info on Kepler pricing seems to indicate nvidia is price matching AMD.
It's Fud, but ...
Click to expand...

$550 then? No way I'm getting Kepler then. 570 is enough to play the 1920x1080 in good settings. Maybe not 16x AA/AF, but 4x and all the things like bloom turned on, makes it playable.

Sorry Nivida/AMD, I won't be buying your expensive cards to play on games, that I can put on my Xbox or PS3 without any need to upgrade gear. Seems i'll keep PC to strategy / MMOs, while rest of games I'll play on consoles. Seems I grown up from changing gfx card every generation.

Unless I get less power usage then 570, and more oomph, while at sane price, I'm staying with 570. Maybe I'll get the 7970 cheaply from people who sell it for 680, but no way I'm paying $550 for a gfx card.
 
MorgothPl said:
$550 then? No way I'm getting Kepler then. 570 is enough to play the 1920x1080 in good settings. Maybe not 16x AA/AF, but 4x and all the things like bloom turned on, makes it playable.

Sorry Nivida/AMD, I won't be buying your expensive cards to play on games, that I can put on my Xbox or PS3 without any need to upgrade gear. Seems i'll keep PC to strategy / MMOs, while rest of games I'll play on consoles. Seems I grown up from changing gfx card every generation.

Unless I get less power usage then 570, and more oomph, while at sane price, I'm staying with 570. Maybe I'll get the 7970 cheaply from people who sell it for 680, but no way I'm paying $550 for a gfx card.
Click to expand...

Same. Maybe I'll wait for the cut down card that will probably launch a month later. Probably a Gtx 670 or something. Hopefully that card will have a sane price tag and come in under $400.
 
MorgothPl said:
$550 then? No way I'm getting Kepler then. 570 is enough to play the 1920x1080 in good settings. Maybe not 16x AA/AF, but 4x and all the things like bloom turned on, makes it playable.

Sorry Nivida/AMD, I won't be buying your expensive cards to play on games, that I can put on my Xbox or PS3 without any need to upgrade gear. Seems i'll keep PC to strategy / MMOs, while rest of games I'll play on consoles. Seems I grown up from changing gfx card every generation.

Unless I get less power usage then 570, and more oomph, while at sane price, I'm staying with 570. Maybe I'll get the 7970 cheaply from people who sell it for 680, but no way I'm paying $550 for a gfx card.
Click to expand...

If you need more power just get another 570 and do SLI. At 1080p it works great.
 
StricKeN said:
Maybe I just have my blinders on after seeing people post about their 200+ clock increases on 7970s. The built in "turbo boost" seems underwhelming. A 50mHz increase? Will it be able to do much more if one manually OCs it?
Click to expand...

Those clock speeds look kind of funny - the other rumors all had a base clock of 7xx, with it "turboing" up to 9xx or so. So if they decided to go with a 1GHz clock, that would explain the smaller turbo headroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top