NVIDIA Readying GM200-based GeForce GTX 980 Ti

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,785
"NVIDIA is preparing its second GeForce graphics card based on its 28 nm GM200 silicon, which powers the $1,000 GTX TITAN-X. There are several rumors surrounding what NVIDIA could name the card. Some sources suggest NVIDIA could name it the GeForce GTX 980 Ti, while others point at names such as the GTX 990 (to set it sufficiently apart from the smaller GM204-based GTX 980).

The SweClockers report that sides with GTX 980 Ti for the name, mentions that the card could feature the chip's full complement of 3,072 CUDA cores, but feature 6 GB of memory, compared to 12 GB on the GTX TITAN-X. The memory bus width will stay at 384-bit. NVIDIA could allow its add-in card (AIC) partners to come up with custom-design cards, and so we could expect some cards with meaty cooling solutions (that keep the chip away from its 84°C temperature-throttle), and factory-overclocked speeds, to make the GTX 980 Ti even faster than the GTX TITAN-X. NVIDIA could time its launch with AMD's launch of the Radeon R9 390X." [T]ech|PowerUp

Original Source: Sweclockers ( http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/20265-geforce-gtx-980-ti-anlander-efter-sommaren )
 
Interesting, if it's true, there would be alot of angry Titan X owners haha
 
Interesting, if it's true, there would be alot of angry Titan X owners haha

It will be. I've been thorough it once before, and am about to go through it again (Have 2 x Titan X's being delivered Monday...)

I bought the original Titan (EVGA SC Signature model) the day newegg auto notify told me they were in stock, to the tune of about 1300 USD. Fastest single card gaming solution on the block for what turned out to be only a few short months. (4 maybe?)

Then the GTX 780 showed up at less than that half that price and was very close in most games at 1080 and 1440p to the Titan. THEN the GTX 780 Ti shows up and isFASTER than the Titan in all but a select few games (high VRAM games like Shadows of Mordor). For way less money as well. Then the Titan Black came out just to barely squeak past the 780 Ti, but Im not sure who actually bought these...


So I'd be willing to bet a near repeat of this sequence again. Titan X gets beat (in games) by 980Ti because of its faster clock speeds. Maybe Titan X BLACK comes out with the 980 Ti's clock speeds after a while :)
 
I'm hoping the 980TI won't be as power consuming as the Titan X. Anyone know if my Cooler Master V750S Gold will up to the task to SLI these babies? 599w minimum and 649w recommended by eXtreme PSU calculator... that is if the 980TI equals to the 780TI TDP wise.

I hope at least they release a few more variants then just a 980TI, for more consumer flexibility.
 
I'm hoping the 980TI won't be as power consuming as the Titan X. Anyone know if my Cooler Master V750S Gold will up to the task to SLI these babies? 599w minimum and 649w recommended by eXtreme PSU calculator... that is if the 980TI equals to the 780TI TDP wise.

I hope at least they release a few more variants then just a 980TI, for more consumer flexibility.

Stock my Titan X's pulled 250W (275W at 110%). Modded and at 1525 MHz it pulls around 400W each. I imagine a 980ti would be similar.
 
If Nvidia release a 6 GB 980 Ti, I'm going to be most relieved I purchased a Titan X.

But you know what? The Titan X is a solution NOW, not 3 or 6 months hence. And it won't stop being a solution.
 
Maybe this is the cut down GM200 chip that rumours were talking about with 2600 cuda cores enabled. They're bound to have some bad yields from titan x's. And since Maxwell allows vram segmentation I'm not surprised it's 6gb instead of the full 12gb. Let's just hope it's 6gb in its entirety lol.
 
Wish they would hurry up and release the 390x. The faster that comes out the faster we get this card
 
Stock my Titan X's pulled 250W (275W at 110%). Modded and at 1525 MHz it pulls around 400W each. I imagine a 980ti would be similar.
I don't mod, just OC is all, and no watercooling, all on air. But ye not sure if my V750S would cut it. I've totally developed a PSU tinfoil paranoia... guess I should go ahead and order that Corsair HX1000i or EVGA 1000W Supernova G2 in preperation for these new cards to come.
Or... I could skip these bastards, keep my current PSU and wait untill 2016 for Pascal 16nm more efficient chipsets.
 
If those figures are correct, then I'm almost shocked over the amount of contempt nVidia is showing their early adopters/fanbois. Truely amazing.
 
If those figures are correct, then I'm almost shocked over the amount of contempt nVidia is showing their early adopters/fanbois. Truely amazing.

You've acting like this hasn't happened before.
 
You've acting like this hasn't happened before.

+1

Titans are an unabashed money grab by nvidia. People buying Titans do so knowing they will lose a disproportional amount of money.

..

Or at least they should know.
 
Interesting, if it's true, there would be alot of angry Titan X owners haha

I would hope not... I mean...history repeats itself. If they are angry, it should be at their own stupidity. We knew there would a group of GPU's would come following the Titan X release. One big clue was the 12GB they gave rather than the 6GB the Original Titan gave. Offering that 12GB for the Titan X was the reason the increased price over the rumored 980ti.

Anyway, good find on the article. Hope this is true!
 
You have to think of those with multiple 4K screens. ;)

While most people on here scoff at Vram amounts there are a few people that run crazy setups. I can tell you that a single 4k monitor uses more (or close to it) than 4GB of Vram on just about every AAA game made in the last 2 years. While they don't have the HP to run full max now any card that is significantly faster (or if you plan on running SLI) 4 GB is NOT going to cut in anymore. 6 GB should be the new bare minimum on any cards faster than 980's. Just my .02 cents
 
While most people on here scoff at Vram amounts there are a few people that run crazy setups. I can tell you that a single 4k monitor uses more (or close to it) than 4GB of Vram on just about every AAA game made in the last 2 years. While they don't have the HP to run full max now any card that is significantly faster (or if you plan on running SLI) 4 GB is NOT going to cut in anymore. 6 GB should be the new bare minimum on any cards faster than 980's. Just my .02 cents

I find the Vram amounts will be useful in Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve, and possibly Autodesk products like Maya using RenderMan and NVIDIA Iray
 
While most people on here scoff at Vram amounts there are a few people that run crazy setups. I can tell you that a single 4k monitor uses more (or close to it) than 4GB of Vram on just about every AAA game made in the last 2 years. While they don't have the HP to run full max now any card that is significantly faster (or if you plan on running SLI) 4 GB is NOT going to cut in anymore. 6 GB should be the new bare minimum on any cards faster than 980's. Just my .02 cents

Most people scoff because they dont have 4k's and dont see/require the need for more than 3GB @ 1080p. But you are correct, 6GB for top tier cards should be the norm while 3-4GB for lower tier cards should be the norm.
 
I have a Titan black (got it in a trade) and the 6gb is a godsend. Lots of headroom now, which means it will performs well in a year or two.

6gb should be standard now, 12 is a bit of future proofing.
 
Most people scoff because they dont have 4k's and dont see/require the need for more than 3GB @ 1080p. But you are correct, 6GB for top tier cards should be the norm while 3-4GB for lower tier cards should be the norm.

Before I made the jump to 4k I had a 680 2 GB and back them it was the same discussion. Everyone and their mother would tell you that the 4GB 680 was a total waste and their was no performance increase. They are 100 percent correct there is not a performance increase there was even bench marks to prove it. The problem was the 680 was (and still is a) relevant card when I sold it two months ago but it hits 2 GB Vram all day long at 1080p (or 1920X1200 which is what I was playing at). Everyone sings like a choir about how you can't future proof you computer it's total BS. For everyone that runs "crazy setups" there are plenty of us that keep video cards for more than 3 months. 4GB, even for 1080, is going to be a wall in 12 months or so.
 
Without a "when" in the translation, this isn't all that compelling. If it's six months from now, I don't see any reason for a Titan X user to complain. They paid more, but that difference in price spread over six months to have that level of performance today isn't too terrible.
 
Without a "when" in the translation, this isn't all that compelling. If it's six months from now, I don't see any reason for a Titan X user to complain. They paid more, but that difference in price spread over six months to have that level of performance today isn't too terrible.
Pascal comes 6 months after that, I guess 980 Ti owners will be pissed when that happens.
So on, and so forth.

Anybody buying a $1,000 GPU today knows it's going to be obsolete in 6 months.
 
Anyone buying any top-end GPU knows it's going to be surpassed in 6 months.

Trampled on vs. passed up by a few benchmark points is more like it. They get passed in top performance brackets, but they don't get run roughshod over.
 
Say what you will about VRAM but watch the videos in the euro gamer Titan X review. 980/970 and especially the 290x had stutter in games. Titan X didn't stutter at all. The only thing that makes sense to me is VRAM. Just reminds me of the shitty computer at work with 4GB of ram. Even if you're still supposively 1GB away from maxing it slows way down.

I also DSR from 5k+ in a lot of games... I'll have to get some usages at some point.

I fully expect there to be a 980ti with 2500-2600 cuda cores and 6GB for ~$750 in a few months. This isn't new or unexpected. Won't bother me a bit. Now if they truely repeat history and the Titan X was 2500 Cuda cores and the 980Ti 3,000 for cheaper then I might be a bit pissed! Haha. But we all know the Titan X is the full chip. Apparently nVidia learns.
 
Last edited:
Say what you will about VRAM but watch the videos in the euro gamer Titan X review. 980/970 and especially the 290x had stutter in games. Titan X didn't stutter at all. The only thing that makes sense to me is VRAM. Just reminds me of the shitty computer at work with 4GB of ram. Even if you're still supposively 1GB away from maxing it slows way down.

I also DSR from 5k+ in a lot of games... I'll have to get some usages at some point.

I fully expect there to be a 980ti with 2500-2600 cuda cores and 6GB for ~$750 in a few months. This isn't new or unexpected. Won't bother me a bit. Now if they truely repeat history and the Titan X was 2500 Cuda cores and the 980Ti 3,000 for cheaper then I might be a bit pissed! Haha. But we all know the Titan X is the full chip. Apparently nVidia learns.

You're right about the stutter... and potential for DSR from 5K benefits... The Titan X was incredibly stable in terms of FPS stutter
 
Ummmm... Well you're not getting the "stutter" on the Titan X because you're running out of vram, it's because your minimal frame rates are higher due to the GM200 architecture and you're running 3000+ cuda cores. LOL. It's not due to vram sorry to say.
 
Ummmm... Well you're not getting the "stutter" on the Titan X because you're running out of vram, it's because your minimal frame rates are higher due to the GM200 architecture and you're running 3000+ cuda cores. LOL. It's not due to vram sorry to say.

Did you actually watch the video? It's not that the minimum frame rates are higher it's that the Titan X is a flat line and the other cards dip to half the average. Generally shader limited events will follow eachother between cards. This was something else.
 
Pascal comes 6 months after that, I guess 980 Ti owners will be pissed when that happens.
So on, and so forth.

That's a lot of assumptions

- 16nm process needs to be ready by then and considering we are talking about TSMC here it's not exactly certain.
- since 16nm will be new it makes sense to start from smaller stuff.
- 16nm is more of 20nm with some parts in 16nm so jump won't be as huge as a lot of people expect.

Imho it won't be until Pascal Titan before gm200 gpu are outperformed by significant amount.
 
6gb will be nice but 8gb will be the sweet spot for 2015

Sweep spot? Really?
Should not the sweet spot be a function of the resolution and the number of cards being used??
For example, 6GB appears plenty enough for a 30" 2560*1600 even using SLI.
 
Did you actually watch the video? It's not that the minimum frame rates are higher it's that the Titan X is a flat line and the other cards dip to half the average. Generally shader limited events will follow eachother between cards. This was something else.

You gotta also remember the GM200 is a Massive chip and newer technology. Same thing happened when last titan came out as well. I'm not saying vram doesn't have anything to do with that but I still believe that the whole vram debacle is overhyped. Games needing 3+gigs of vram and still looking like games from 2010 is just not making any sense. If it's because of crappy console ports then I'm not amused in this new age of pc gaming.
 
GTX 980 will be, at most, $400 by Q4.
$699 for the Ti is a safe bet, all things considered.

You might be right. They've been quietly dropping the price of the 970 down as low as 310 after rebate, leaving plenty of room for new products at the top if the 980 drops to 400-450!

And then there's the gtx 960 ti, which should be 250-260

The GTX 960 2GB, which started at 210-220 is now 190-200 after rebate, probably dropping to about 180. The 4GB cards start at $240, headed for $210. Enough room to differentiate them from the 960 Ti.

Amazing the slow price moves made by Nvidia, and they cleverly keep it under wraps by using rebates/price only visible in cart before the official price change is announced. Probably will become official whenever 390X is announced.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top