NVIDIA GK104 Coming Soon?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ICDP said:
Sorry guys, try all you want. Any site that tests games a t 1024x768 cannot be taken seriously.

It's [H] or nothing for me, and [H] said 10%, so ~10% it is. Either way, my argument was that the HD 7950 is similarly priced to the GTX 580 with twice the VRAM. So it is slightly faster, has more VRAM, and is similarly priced. So compared to the GTX 580, HD 7950 has better price/perf ratio, especially the GTX 580 3GB.

This was in response to some people here who keep insisting that the 7900 series have poor price/perf ratio compared to GTX 580.
Click to expand...

That's right. We should ask for benchmarks at 640x480x16 just like the old days :D
 
Florin22xxl said:
Hm people still dont see it?its obvious what nvidia prices will be. The same prices as AMD 7.... line(or even a bit more)the only difference will be they will offer more power. Nvidia has never had a generation price/perf. ratio,why would they star now ?especialy when kepler will be at least 20% faster than amd. Ofc
Amd will lower prices and gain price/perf. ratio once again.
Click to expand...

GTX 460?
 
MavericK96 said:
Except they were gouging from release, so that particular "evidence" does not necessarily support the demand argument.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. If they're still selling an the inflated price, the demand is high. Again, basic microeconomics.
 
Mr. K6 said:
Yes it does. If they're still selling an the inflated price, the demand is high. Again, basic microeconomics.
Click to expand...

Lack of competition plays a role in AMDs sales also.
The people that usually buy the latest hardware have the upgrade bug, so they get impatient and must buy what's available.
When nV delivers their competing product, lets see if AMDs demand remains high.

For my personal price limits, I reserve the $500+ range for dual GPUs.
The performance out of the box isn't enough to command a $500-600 price tag.
 
Last edited:
WorldExclusive said:
Lack of competition plays a role in AMDs sales also.
The people that usually buy the latest hardware have the upgrade bug, so they get impatient and must buy what's available.
When nV delivers their competing product, lets see if AMDs demand remains high.

For my personal price limits, I reserve the $500+ range for dual GPUs.
The performance out of the box isn't enough to command a $500-600 price tag.
Click to expand...
Your personal preferences are your personal preferences. This doesn't negate anything I've said.
GoldenTiger said:
By this quote, clearly not so basic.
Click to expand...
It's very basic. It seems some of you can't stand a highly-priced AMD product being in demand.
 
Stoly said:
That's right. We should ask for benchmarks at 640x480x16 just like the old days :D
Click to expand...


TPU's results across all single display resolutions are valid, they have them all indiviually for you to look at anyway. Low resolution results are good to see where CPU bottleneck begins and ends aswell.
 
Mr. K6 said:
It's very basic. It seems some of you can't stand a highly-priced AMD product being in demand.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The price may be high for what the product is and compared to previous generations, but either supply is too low and/or demand is high which keeps the price up. It's price/performance ratio doesn't mean a damn thing when pricing the final product because worth is relative to each individual. Obviously many enthusiasts like ourselves see it as overpriced, but that still won't change the price until enough people vote with their wallet so that sales go down. Enough people obviously are willing to buy enough of them to keep the stock low or sold out in some places. The second the product stops selling well at a certain price point or AMD supplies more product than demand, the price will drop.
 
demowhc said:
TPU's results across all single display resolutions are valid, they have them all indiviually for you to look at anyway. Low resolution results are good to see where CPU bottleneck begins and ends aswell.
Click to expand...

This... seems some people can't grasp such basic concepts though.
 
A deeper, fundamental explanation of the many correct observations posted above.

an excerpt:
The law of diminishing marginal utility is at the heart of the explanation of numerous economic phenomena, including time preference and the value of goods; and it also plays a crucial role in showing that socialism is economically and ethically inferior to capitalism.
The law of diminishing marginal utility, as developed by Carl Menger (1840–1921), is axiomatic in nature; that is, it is irrefutably true. In mainstream economics, however, this fundamental economic law is typically interpreted as resting on psychology, namely the law of satiation of wants.
Such an interpretation, however, does not actually conceive the law of diminishing marginal utility as a fundamental economic law — which has truth value irrespective of time and place — but as a fleeting explanation of certain economic phenomena, which may or may not hold in a given situation.
Given the importance of the law of diminishing marginal utility for economic theory and policy, it is important to keep advertising that the law of diminishing marginal utility is irrefutably true — because it follows from the axiom of human action. For ignoring this truth leads to fallacious and erroneous conclusions, and eventually to false economic theory and economic policies.
Click to expand...
The prices are what they are because they sell at these prices. When they don't, or the price becomes non-competitive (same thing), they will fall.

One thing to remember is that inflation is occurring right now at increasingly accelerating levels. Price points must rise when each dollar is worth less, or when the "in" costs of the goods sold increase.
 
Last edited:
GoldenTiger said:
This... seems some people can't grasp such basic concepts though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, basic concepts like...

1) It's no longer 1999, so 1024x768 is not a valid resolution to test modern $400-$500 GPUs.

2) CPU bottlenecks are not important in GPU benchmarks, simply because if you hit the CPU wall ALL the cards will be the same. The idea in GPU testing is to totally remove any false bottlenecks or external factors that will skew results. This way we get a valid indication what the fastest GPU is under controlled conditions without external factors skewing tha data. You may as well test with Vsyc enabled as look for CPU bottlenecks in GPU tests. Both will give false results, look at the CoD 4 tests on TPU to see what I mean. Serioulsy, are you trying to tell me that testing a HD 7970 in CoD 4 at 1024x768 resolution is a valid test? :rolleyes:

Why do you think [H] go out of their way to ensure the CPU will NOT be a bottleneck in their tests?
 
Quit bitching, they test all gpus at all resolutions. You are complaining htey test high end gpus at low resolutions? You should also complain they test low end gpus at high resoltuions. But why does it matter? They show all results. Just don't look at the ones you don't care about.
 
ICDP said:
Yeah, basic concepts like...

1) It's no longer 1999, so 1024x768 is not a valid resolution to test modern $400-$500 GPUs.

2) CPU bottlenecks are not important in GPU benchmarks, simply because if you hit the CPU wall ALL the cards will be the same. The idea in GPU testing is to totally remove any false bottlenecks or external factors that will skew results. This way we get a valid indication what the fastest GPU is under controlled conditions without external factors skewing tha data. You may as well test with Vsyc enabled as look for CPU bottlenecks in GPU tests. Both will give false results, look at the CoD 4 tests on TPU to see what I mean. Serioulsy, are you trying to tell me that testing a HD 7970 in CoD 4 at 1024x768 resolution is a valid test? :rolleyes:

Why do you think [H] go out of their way to ensure the CPU will NOT be a bottleneck in their tests?
Click to expand...

[H] tests the gameplay experience which is what most people care about when making a decision on buying video cards. It is a valid approach given their rationale and goals for their video card reviews.

Other sites decide to use a different approach to try to determine the "fastest" video card performance, and use benchmarks/resolutions which are not applicable to actual game play. It's also valid given their goals.

Two different approaches, if [H] provides the information you are looking for, that is great, but the other approach is not invalid because you disagree with it.
 
After reading this I need to grab some bottlenecks. ;) Now Relax, when the makebelieve cards get makebelieve released they'll be makebelieve tested, fair & square.
 
Dantrax said:
After reading this I need to grab some bottlenecks. ;) Now Relax, when the makebelieve cards get makebelieve released they'll be makebelieve tested, fair & square.
Click to expand...

Uh... You do realize Kepler is real..... Right????
 
bexamous said:
Quit bitching, they test all gpus at all resolutions. You are complaining htey test high end gpus at low resolutions? You should also complain they test low end gpus at high resoltuions. But why does it matter? They show all results. Just don't look at the ones you don't care about.
Click to expand...

I'm with you bro, we should do DOOM -timedemo demo3 at VGA 320x240 resolution as a standard benchmark for new GPUs

Thats almost as relevant as testing a 1998 1280x1024 resolution
 
xoleras said:
I'm with you bro, we should do DOOM -timedemo demo3 at VGA 320x240 resolution as a standard benchmark for new GPUs

Thats almost as relevant as testing a 1998 1280x1024 resolution
Click to expand...
again what damn difference does it make? just look at the resolutions you play at and dont worry about the others. and I hate to break it to you but there are a hell of a lot more people at 1280x1024 than at 2560x1600. 1280x1024 was a very common LCD resolution for many many years even up to just a few years ago so stop exaggerating with the 1998 nonsense.
 
cannondale06 said:
again what damn difference does it make? just look at the resolutions you play at and dont worry about the others. and I hate to break it to you but there are a hell of a lot more people at 1280x1024 than at 250x1600. 1280x1024 was a very common LCD resolution for many years even just a few years ago so stop exaggerating with the 1998 nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, people fail to realize this but most of us enthusiasts here at [H] are in the minority hardware-wise when it comes to gamers.
 
MavericK96 said:
Yeah, people fail to realize this but most of us enthusiasts here at [H] are in the minority hardware-wise when it comes to gamers.
Click to expand...
yeah they test a wide range of cards so they use a wide range of resolutions. of course hardly anyone would ever get a high end card to play below 1920 or 1680 but all it takes is common sense just to ignore those low res benchmarks. its no different than ignoring the low end gpus getting tested at 2560x1600.
 
I just hope they offer a card that has the same performance as sli gtx 560 ti 2gb in a single card....
 
xoleras said:
I'm with you bro, we should do DOOM -timedemo demo3 at VGA 320x240 resolution as a standard benchmark for new GPUs

Thats almost as relevant as testing a 1998 1280x1024 resolution
Click to expand...

Yup. Exactly what I was saying. GJ with reading comprehension.
 
poj said:
hmm.. source?

I thought it would be the GK110 and by the end of the year (Q3/Q4)
Click to expand...

Name means little, I care about performance and pricing :p. Or are people going to start complaining the 69xx and 79xx weren't dual-GPU cards while the 59xx was?
 
Next week can't come soon enough. Paper launch is better than what we have now [rumors], but I would still prefer some real hardware. Meanwhile I'm off to read more 7870 reviews...
 
SolidSnakeUS said:
Man, the animosity in here is crazy...
Click to expand...

This is what all Kepler threads mostly turn into. I stopped reading them in general. I only stopped by because Kyle posted in here.


It's not their fault though. NVidia has teased them to hell and back for two months plus now. Like a GF/BF who keeps you on a two month plus dry spell. The slightest sneeze at the wrong time will set them off. I have quite a backlog which includes games the 470 GTX will have no issues running, so I'm good until the next refreshes. (Mass Effect 3 the exception and even that won't need that much GPU power.)


Proceed with caution..
 
xoleras said:
GTX 680 confirmed for the GK104, we should get a paper launch soon.
Click to expand...
if true that means high end prices for what would have been a mid range card. that's what happens when yields are not great and AMD sets the bar so low for next gen cards.
 
cannondale06 said:
if true that means high end prices for what would have been a mid range card. that's what happens when yields are not great and AMD sets the bar so low for next gen cards.
Click to expand...

yeah that's not a crazy prediction. we could see fairly high prices on these cards.
 
cannondale06 said:
if true that means high end prices for what would have been a mid range card. that's what happens when yields are not great and AMD sets the bar so low for next gen cards.
Click to expand...

This -again- lol :p

Lets just pretend that the GTX 480 wasn't 5-10% faster than 5870 while running way hotter and louder, and also costing 120$ more....same for 6970/580. 10% faster, 170$ price premium.

This is where someone jumps on the train to talk about how nvidia deserves 170$ for 10% performance because it..uh..has CUDA and a new node :cool: I don't get how anyone could ignore history and give nvidia
a free pass, but oh god AMD is the bad guy when they have the worlds fastest GPU.
 
xoleras said:
This -again- lol :p

Lets just pretend that the GTX 480 wasn't 5-10% faster than 5870 while running way hotter and louder, and also costing 120$ more....same for 6970/580. 10% faster, 170$ price premium.

This is where someone jumps on the train to talk about how nvidia deserves 170$ for 10% performance because it..uh..has CUDA and a new node :cool: I don't get how anyone could ignore history and give nvidia
a free pass, but oh god AMD is the bad guy when they have the worlds fastest GPU.
Click to expand...
who is giving an Nvidia a free pass? their top cards are hardly ever worth the price and we know that. even at Nvidia's crazy prices they still gave you more performance per dollar then the cards they replaced launched at though. with the 7000 series AMD is giving you the same performance or less than they did with the 6000 series.

so lets stay on topic and talk about gk104. the fact is this was to be a gtx560 ti replacement. with AMD's current lineup though it can now be released as a higher end card with a higher end price tag.
 
cannondale06 said:
with the 7000 series AMD is giving you the same performance or less than they did with the 6000 series.

so lets stay on topic and talk about gk104. the fact is this was to be a gtx560 ti replacement. with AMD's current lineup though it can now be released as a higher end card with a higher end price tag.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is, people are comparing AMD cards price wise (saying the 7870 is really on par price wise with the 6970, so they should be compared) whereas people are comparing the Nvidia cards name wise.

I personally think comparing price wise is irrelevant, as price changes over time. If the card is enough of a boost in performance, wait until price meets your budget, and have at 'er.
 
cannondale06 said:
who is giving an Nvidia a free pass? their top cards are hardly ever worth the price and we know that. even at Nvidia's crazy prices they still gave you more performance per dollar then the cards they replaced launched at though. with the 7000 series AMD is giving you the same performance or less than they did with the 6000 series.

so lets stay on topic and talk about gk104. the fact is this was to be a gtx560 ti replacement. with AMD's current lineup though it can now be released as a higher end card with a higher end price tag.
Click to expand...

Compare AMD to Nvidia with current price/performance of the 7xxx series and the 5xx series. AMD takes that clearly right now with the 7970, 7950, 7870 and 7850. The first 3 are all similar to or faster than the 580. 580 still costs ~$450... 7970 is about equal in terms of price/performance now ~ 20-25% faster for 22% more money. 7970 is the same price and a few percent faster, so improved price/performance. 7870 is just a couple percent slower, but $100 less, so significantly better price/perf. I agree that they are all over-priced right now, but thats mostly, IMO, because Nvidia hasn't dropped price on the 580/570 enough yet, and they have nothing else to compete with AMDs top end yet.
 
Flyinfinni said:
Compare AMD to Nvidia with current price/performance of the 7xxx series and the 5xx series. AMD takes that clearly right now with the 7970, 7950, 7870 and 7850. The first 3 are all similar to or faster than the 580.
Click to expand...

Wat? The 7970 is really the only stock card that is faster than the 580. The 7950 is about dead even and the 7870 is behind.

Plus, consider that the 580 and the 7950 cost about the same price. If you consider the 580 overpriced you have to consider the 7950 overpriced, possibly even moreso because you are getting the same performance/price ratio as a 1.5 year old previous-gen card.
 
xoleras said:
This -again- lol :p
Click to expand...

Funny, that's what I think every time this person posts speculation with the word "confirmed" tacked onto it, spams every Kepler thread with his latest juicy tidbit AND starts a new thread that repeats the same information, goes to great lengths about what an agnostic nVidia-lover he is and how excited he is about Kepler while he posts and pumps up every piece of FUD about it he can dig up, jumps on every criticism of Tahiti, etc. etc.

If windows were sentient, would they be aware that we can see right though them?
 
MavericK96 said:
Wat? The 7970 is really the only stock card that is faster than the 580. The 7950 is about dead even and the 7870 is behind.

Plus, consider that the 580 and the 7950 cost about the same price. If you consider the 580 overpriced you have to consider the 7950 overpriced, possibly even moreso because you are getting the same performance/price ratio as a 1.5 year old previous-gen card.
Click to expand...

You didn't read my whole post. I said if you compare current market AMD to Nvidia, AMD wins the price/perf. battle- 7950 IS FASTER than 580, even if only by a couple percent at the same price (not to mention the perf/watt which in the long run will IMPROVE your price/perf and as more DX11 games arrive which show additional gains on the new GCN arch). I ALSO said that I thought the whole MARKET (being AMD AND NVIDIA) were currently overpriced mostly due to Nvidia's current pricing on the 580/570.
 
its funny that we all know how the gtx580 was a poor value even for a last gen card yet are supposed to be enamored with a next gen 28nm 7970 that can beat it by 20-25% all while costing more? you guys cant have it both ways. facts are facts and the 7970 costs 50% more than the 6970 launched at while only providing 40-45% performance over it. you are getting less card for the money than the 6970. like I always say, if it was not for the decent overclocking then the 7900 series would be a joke for a next gen card IMO. and as you can see with the 7800 series, those high prices have trickled down as 7870 costs 45% more than the 6870 while being 45% faster. that is not progress at all and it is really the price sensitive mid range buyer that is getting screwed at the moment.
 
Flyinfinni said:
You didn't read my whole post. I said if you compare current market AMD to Nvidia, AMD wins the price/perf. battle- 7950 IS FASTER than 580, even if only by a couple percent at the same price (not to mention the perf/watt which in the long run will IMPROVE your price/perf and as more DX11 games arrive which show additional gains on the new GCN arch). I ALSO said that I thought the whole MARKET (being AMD AND NVIDIA) were currently overpriced mostly due to Nvidia's current pricing on the 580/570.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Although I would not bet on any major DX11 gains due to GCN arch. I always hear people saying stuff like "DirectX ## will bring so much better performance!" and it's almost always negligible.

Not that it's outside the realm of possibility, but nowadays I wouldn't bet on driver or DirectX upgrades giving any sort of major performance increase (unless it was completely broken in the first place).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top