680 was supposed to be the 660Ti?

[weehamish]

I know your pro AMD spoffle but no im not confused, im pro nothing i own a 7970 and picked it because of the better spec and vram lol i do indeed think Nvidia prices are silly but this is about if Nvidia make better cards when everything is boiled down.

Im not on about compute performance either, since that doesnt effect games much.

So if the 680 had 3GB Vram and bigger bus it would cost the same as a 7970 to produce?

 

[spoffle]

That tells nothing, the 670 and 680 would have always used the same GPU, so the fact that there's info floating about that's showing a "680" as a 670Ti doesn't mean much, as historically both X70 and X80 have been nearly the same card.

 

[spoffle]

I know you're pro AMD spoffle but no im not confused, im pro nothing i own a 7970 and picked it because of the better spec and vram lol i do indeed think Nvidia prices are silly but this is about if Nvidia make better cards when everything is boiled down.

I'm not pro-AMD, I dislike nVidia because of the things nVidia does, there's a huge difference.

You are confused though because you don't seem to know where you're coming from.

Cheaper to produce means nothing if you don't give it context, and you're not really giving it an awful lot of context.[/QUOTE]

Im not on about compute performance either, since that doesnt effect games much.

You are, just indirectly. Compute performance requires GPU space, plus when it comes to compute performance in games, Kepler struggles.

So if the 680 had 3GB Vram and bigger bus it would cost the same as a 7970 to produce?

Yes, not identical, but within the same region. GPU production costs are as simple as die size, RAM quantity, PCB, power regulation and the other bits that work on the PCB which will be the same on the AMD and nVidia cards.

 

[weehamish]

I thought i explained my point? If the 680 can be made at a cheaper price and perform the same as the 7970 then it makes it a better card does it not?

Compute is used rarely in games.

If the 680 and 7970 with the same vram and bus cost the same even though the 680 is lower spec then AMD makes better cards.

 

[Rroff]

It's based on a complete lack of understanding of how a GPU is made up.

Think about the point in the development of GK104 where the decision to start working with a 256bit bus would have been in time - planning in a 256bit bus as a cost cutting measure in your high end process at that point in time would have been taking a huge huge gamble and exposing themselves massively to getting completely slaughtered by AMD's 7000 series or having to go to huge expense reworking their architecture or using very expensive high frequency memory modules to make up performance. This isn't something they could change last minute reactively to AMD's then next generation of GPUs.

 

[spoffle]

I thought i explained my point? If the 680 can be made at a cheaper price and perform the same as the 7970 then it makes it a better card does it not?

Compute is used rarely in games.

If the 680 and 7970 with the same vram and bus cost the same even though the 680 is lower spec then AMD makes better cards.

Because it really really doesn't work like this.

You are looking at solely games performance, you are also completely disregarding everything other than the GPU.

This is where your analysis is flawed.

 

[spoffle]

Think about the point in the development of GK104 where the decision to start working with a 256bit bus would have been in time - planning in a 256bit bus as a cost cutting measure in your high end process at that point in time would have been taking a huge huge gamble and exposing themselves massively to getting completely slaughtered by AMD's 7000 series or having to go to huge expense reworking their architecture or using very expensive high frequency memory modules to make up performance. This isn't something they could change last minute reactively to AMD's then next generation of GPUs.

In which case, how was AMD able to drop Tahiti on to a 256bit bus with 2GB of RAM in the form of a 7870XT?

 

[Doomedspeed]

I thought i explained my point? If the 680 can be made at a cheaper price and perform the same as the 7970 then it makes it a better card does it not?

Compute is used rarely in games.

If the 680 and 7970 with the same vram and bus cost the same even though the 680 is lower spec then AMD makes better cards.

VRAM is not a major factor, only in extreme circumstances does a card use more than 2GB VRAM..

Such as Triple Screen 1200/1440...

As said above, the only thing NVIDIA could have changed to react to the Poor 79**'s is the price..

You can't begin to imagine how much work goes into to designing and producing a Graphics card, if you think they can redesign it in a matter of months..

 

[Jay85]

Nothing? Really? Everything about what nVidia have done with Kepler points to cost cutting.

Had they not rinsed the crap out of GK104 killing off the FP64 performance, it would have been a bigger chip.

256bit bus, cost cutting, 2GB, cost cutting, voltage lock, cost cutting, 300mm² GPU, cost cutting.

500mm² GPUs have been unsustainable, nVidia needed to reduce production costs, with Kepler, they reduced production costs and raised price points, which has meant big profit at the expense of the customer.

Well said, it all points to this. Just cos a cost cutting gpu beats a 7970 it doesn't mean the company is better at making cards lol.

 

[weehamish]

Think about the point in the development of GK104 where the decision to start working with a 256bit bus would have been in time - planning in a 256bit bus as a cost cutting measure in your high end process at that point in time would have been taking a huge huge gamble and exposing themselves massively to getting completely slaughtered by AMD's 7000 series or having to go to huge expense reworking their architecture or using very expensive high frequency memory modules to make up performance. This isn't something they could change last minute reactively to AMD's then next generation of GPUs.

I agree why would they go down hill from the 580 with the 680? I know it has faster memory but really? I think there must be something behind it tbh, like Rroff said, just think if the 7970 was MUCH better then the 680 it would have ruined Nvidia for this gen.

I still think the 680 even with 3GB Vram and bigger bus would cost nowhere near the 7970 to produce, and therefore shows its a better card.

 

[spoffle]

VRAM is not a major factor, only in extreme circumstances does a card use more than 2GB VRAM..

Such as Triple Screen 1200/1440...

As said above, the only thing NVIDIA could have changed to react to the Poor 79**'s is the price..

You can't begin to imagine how much work goes into to designing and producing a Graphics card, if you think they can redesign it in a matter of months..

It's not as much as you're implying, it's not impossible to put a chip on a different PCB as AMD did, they put cut down 7970 chips onto a 7870 PCB to make the 7870XT.

The vast majority of work goes in to the graphics chip, the PCB aspect is very straight forward.

I agree why would they go down hill from the 580 with the 680? I know it has faster memory but really? I think there must be something behind it tbh, like Rroff said, just think if the 7970 was MUCH better then the 680 it would HAVE ruined Nvidia for this gen.

I still think the 680 even with 3GB Vram and bigger bus would cost nowhere near the 7970 to produce, and therefore shows its a better card.

Based on what? If this is what you think then you don't understand how graphics cards are manufactured.

 

[weehamish]

Btw im not saying they redesigned anything im saying they "could" of dropped the "real" 680 or had the 780 in the pan all along ready but didnt need to release it yet.

If your saying cost cutting beats it ofc it means its a better card, its cheaper to make therefore should have cost £200+ and would have been an amazing buy! Due to AMD failing it never got released at them prices and cost more because it beat the 7970.

Im not saying the 7970 is bad btw i like it and like how AMD are going on atm but doesnt change the fact a cheaper card beat their top card and still does in some titles.

 

[spoffle]

Well said, it all points to this. Just cos a cost cutting gpu beats a 7970 it doesn't mean the company is better at making cards lol.

Well realistically, it doesn't anyway. The 7970 is faster than the 680.

The cost cutting aspect is only relative to their previous GPUs as well though, rather than compared to AMD GPUs.

The 680's GPU is very close to the size of AMD's Tahiti GPU (7970/7950).

 

[Doomedspeed]

I agree why would they go down hill from the 580 with the 680?

They didn't, you're talking total Balls.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/03/22/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-review/11

I still think the 680 even with 3GB Vram and bigger bus would cost nowhere near the 7970 to produce, and therefore shows its a better card.

You have proof?

It's different architecture. It works in different ways and produces different results.

What if most the money you're paying is to cover the research? Did you ever think of that?

 

[spoffle]

Btw im not saying they redesigned anything im saying they "could" HAVE dropped the "real" 680 or had the 780 in the pan all along ready but didnt need to release it yet.

Where are you getting this info from? It's as if you're making things up.

If you're saying cost cutting beats it ofc it means its a better card, its cheaper to make therefore should HAVE cost £200+ and would HAVE been an amazing buy! Due to AMD failing it never got released at them prices and cost more because it beat the 7970.

Cost cutting relative to their own cards, not AMD's. Surely you know this?

Im not saying the 7970 is bad btw i like it and like how AMD are going on atm but doesnt change the fact a cheaper card beat their top card and still does in some titles.

What? The GPU production costs are very similar, as in, the graphics chip. Are you just making rubbish up now?

 

[spoffle]

They didn't, you're talking total Balls.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/03/22/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-review/11

The GTX680 did go down hill from the 580 in a few aspects.

The GTX680 has worse compute performance than the lower end 5 series cards, the difference is just ridiculous.

They went downhill on the memory bus width, as well as the power circuitry.

To put it in to perspective, the GTX580 costs a similar amount to manufacture as the Titan despite the massive differences in official pricing.

 

[5960xNvidiaGamer]

Lol what a stupid thread.

 

[weehamish]

Based on what? If this is what you think then you don't understand how graphics cards are manufactured.[/QUOTE]

Based on spec differences, PCB size is also smaller then the 7970 is it not?

Uses less power too?

Smaller Die, less shaders ect.

The only thing that could make it more expensive is CUDA and PHYSX?

Ofc i dont understand i have no idea, i bet you dont either, really, unless you work in manufacturing? I take a look at the cards and whats on them and then say what has more of that and this so that cost more it works 9/10 doing it this way.

 

[Rroff]

In which case, how was AMD able to drop Tahiti on to a 256bit bus with 2GB of RAM in the form of a 7870XT?

Its one thing to work downwards from a design that already had a faster memory bus* and a whole different story reworking your core to utilise a faster memory bus than it was designed around.


* Pretty routine compared to the other way around i.e. the G92 cores literally just software strapped it and removed one of the VRAM chips from the PCB leaving the traces in place - in some cases they didn't even bother removing the chip and you could remove the software strap with a custom firmware to get the extra VRAM.

 

[Doomedspeed]

The GTX680 did go down hill from the 580 in a few aspects.

Fair enough but to say they went backward like the OP implied is rubbish..

They merely threw a few people overboard to make the boat go faster (in terms of analogy).

As a Gaming GPU (which the 580 and 680 are) the 680 is better.. Right?