Yea, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 300 TDP.
Things would be a lot different today if that were the case. GK104's for $250 would be real nice. I would have 2 already.
Would you?
They can't keep them in stock at current ~$500. What do you think demand would be like at ~$250. Buying one would require an army of browser tabs at different e-tailers with a macro that cycled through the tabs hitting F5 and looking for stock.
Nvidia basically crippled 680s compute because gamers don't need it and they want to sell Teslas for $1000s. AMD on the other hand used the extra transistors from 28nm to beef up compute; for instance 7770 has 1.5 billion transistors vs 1.04 billion for 5770 yet performs about the same. That's a 50% 'compute tax'. I wonder if that's viable since it means Nvidia can cut compute and still perform the same on maybe 70% of the die. Of course, Fusion needs compute to take off....
7770 is closer to the 6850 than the 5770 in terms of DX 11 gaming.
I was going more by the average scores which various sites do. However 7750 is the same die and it performs below the 5770. Anyway, my point was more along the lines that a 1.5 billion transistor budget is nearly 50% on top of 5770 or looked an other way the same as Barts (6850/70). So if they had shrunk Barts to 28nm and pushed it's clock even if with a 128-bit bus it would probably have been far faster.7770 is closer to the 6850 than the 5770 in terms of DX 11 gaming.
What we are seeing, I think, is that AMD's goal is to bring GPGPU computing to their whole product line (including integrated with CPU) while Nvidia is keeping their solution enterprise priced with a high margin.
I'm thinking they dedicated more of the GPU to GPGPU tasks and lowered the clockspeed, which is why they're saying 25% faster as opposed to 50% based on the specs.these numbers aren't adding up
if true GK110 will be a much larger departure from GF110 than GK104 was from GF114
The real issue for me is the overclocking, the 680 isn't anything I'd care to own for the simple fact that it is so limited in what you can do with it.
still not adding up, GF110 was much faster than 20-25% over GF114 despite specs that were only ~25% better, even if GK104 is more gaming efficient at the cost of compute these numbers suggest GK110 isnt improving at all and thus would have to be an absolute monster compute chip by more than just average generational improvement to make up for it.I'm thinking they dedicated more of the GPU to GPGPU tasks and lowered the clockspeed, which is why they're saying 25% faster as opposed to 50% based on the specs.
25% OC on my 680 is just as good if not better than anything I ever got out of my 4 Fermi cards, including two 580s, granted that's just air coolingI fully expect to lose some performance due to compute eating up perf/watt, how much is unknown because unlike GF104/114 vs GF100/110 GK104 has even less compute than GF104/114.
The real issue for me is the overclocking, the 680 isn't anything I'd care to own for the simple fact that it is so limited in what you can do with it. Hopefully BigK addressed what I feel is a major blunder on an enthusiast priced card.
not too surprising really. I see BK as having to cater for their Tesla range so it will concentrate on compute. While 680 has 1/24 DP performance vs SP, this will have to do a lot better because ATM for some compute stuff, 7750/7770 beats the 680. Wiki says the 680 has 3090 GFLOPS while 580 had 1580. I assume that's SP but for Tesla DP is a must.
So far this generation seems to have gone thus: Nvidia went for SP and gaming performance while AMD went for DP and compute.
Nvidia basically crippled 680s compute because gamers don't need it and they want to sell Teslas for $1000s. AMD on the other hand used the extra transistors from 28nm to beef up compute; for instance 7770 has 1.5 billion transistors vs 1.04 billion for 5770 yet performs about the same. That's a 50% 'compute tax'. I wonder if that's viable since it means Nvidia can cut compute and still perform the same on maybe 70% of the die. Of course, Fusion needs compute to take off....
Everyone... I mean rational people already know the 680 is a mid range card. Dropping it to 399.99 would make it an even better steal and placing the 685 at 499.99 would be incredible. Ofcourse this is all speculation.
I started a thread about this very fact, i couldnt have put my flame suit on fast enough. People berated me for even CONSIDERING the possibility that the 680 was intended for the mid range market.
That's true as far as it goes, but it ignores the main point: NV used what was supposed to be their gtx 560ti replacement and clocked the crap out of it b/c they didn't want another iteration of the fermi I launch. Now, instead of huge criticism for forcing bigK out before it was ready, they instead get huge kudos for bringing out the best/fastest gpu for consumer gaming on a smaller die than AMD is using. Of course, AMD helped by offering up such weak performance.
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/12803/
TBH I'm disappointed if it's true. I was expecting more than 20-25% faster than the GTX 680.
Bigger leap of cores?
384 -> 512
1536 -> 2048
Sure, the number is bigger, but it's still the exact same percentage increase, 33%.
yeah that makes no sense at all. that would have to be the poorest scaling architecture in history if true.Uh.
Is it just me or 50% cores and double the memory bandwidth should bring more than 20-25% increase?
really I do not see the point in going to 512 bit bus with the 384 bit bus would probably get the job done.
7970 has 60% more cores and ~70% more mem bandwidth than 7870, but is only ~30-35% faster on average.yeah that makes no sense at all. that would have to be the poorest scaling architecture in history if true.
really I do not see the point in going to 512 bit bus with the 384 bit bus would probably get the job done.