• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

** The Official Nvidia GeForce 'Pascal' Thread - for general gossip and discussions **

Boomstick777 said:
Hope this isn't legit, if it is we are seeing mid range part (Not full core count) now being used for the 'Ti' brand as well. The milking is going to be extreme this gen :eek:

Hopefully this is just fud.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's fud sadly, I read something about this elsewhere recently, but wish I could find the link as it was a respectable site that was saying this.

This round of Pascal is all going to be based of a mid-range silicon.


It's just the same thing they did with Kepler for the 680.

Just now it looks like the 1080 is really going to be the 1080Ti and the 1070 is now going to be the 1080 and so on down the chain.

Sounds like a bad batch of chips to me and they are binning them in this way. :( Who knows really... but all thinking they are getting a Ti model this year on a GP100 are dreaming sadly. Nvidia is not going to shift GP100's to the mainstream consumer market even the bad chips to be binned for Ti's when clearly the GP100 is already being binned at a lower level than the chip is capable of cuda core wise.


Expect to see a 1080 at about 980Ti speeds or 5% less and the 1080Ti to be 15% better at best than a 980Ti. The 1070 is going to take over the 980 by a small percentage boos to fill that gap.

Real Pascal next year... like they did with the 780's and Ti versions.
 
Last edited:
Boomstick777 said:
Ti on the high end has been used for a variant of the full chip, you should know this.

Also why is anyone deluded, what an odd thing to write. Nobody knows what is coming when, people just speculate and guess, an educated guess or otherwise.

This forum is toxic lol.
Click to expand...

In October 2001, the GeForce 2 Ti was positioned as a cheaper and less advanced alternative to the GeForce 3. Faster than the GTS and Pro but slower than the Ultra, the GeForce 2 Ti performed competitively against the Radeon 7500, although the 7500 had the advantage of dual-display support. This mid-range GeForce 2 release was replaced by the GeForce 4 MX series as the budget/performance choice in January 2002.
Click to expand...


and

NVIDIA refreshed the lineup in October 2001 with the release of the GeForce 3 Ti200 and Ti500. This coincided with ATI's releases of the Radeon 8500 and Radeon 7500. The Ti500 has higher core and memory clocks (240 MHz core/250 MHz RAM) than the original GeForce 3 (200 MHz/230 MHz), and generally matches the Radeon 8500. The Ti200 was the slowest, and lowest-priced GeForce3 release. It is clocked lower (175 MHz/200 MHz) yet it surpasses the Radeon 7500 in speed and feature set besides dual-monitor implementation.

The original GeForce3 and the Ti500 derivative were only released in 64 MiB configurations throughout their lifetimes. Some third parties sold 128 MiB versions of the Ti200.
Click to expand...


The Ti wasn't always the high end - and didn't always use different silicon , just different clocks.
 
Gregster said:
The 680 was never a great card but did perform very well and allowed NVidia a bit of a mark up on 28nm and 256bit memory but at the time I felt it was their "top end GPU" but looking back now, it was purely a mid range card.
Click to expand...

It was a great card, I pretty much had 480sli performace in a single card with a fraction of the heat and power. Not bad for a "mid range" card that was faster and cheaper than the top end AMD card at the time the 7970, they priced it fine as far as I'm concerned.
 
KillBoY_UK said:
It was a great card, I pretty much had 480sli performace in a single card with a fraction of the heat and power. Not bad for a "mid range" card that was faster and cheaper than the top end AMD card at the time the 7970, they priced it fine as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Absolutely and they actually priced it cheaper than the 7970 even though it was faster for the first 10 months or so.
 
KillBoY_UK said:
It was a great card, I pretty much had 480sli performace in a single card with a fraction of the heat and power. Not bad for a "mid range" card that was faster and cheaper than the top end AMD card at the time the 7970, they priced it fine as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

mid range?

I quote Nvidia on the GTX 680 launch:

GeForce GTX 680



The GeForce GTX 680 is the fastest and most power efficient GPU we've ever built. But we didn't stop there. GPU Boost dynamically boosts clock speed for extra performance. New FXAA and TXAA modes eliminate jaggies. And NVIDIA Surround lets you game on three monitors from a single GPU. Now available on both PC and Mac.
Click to expand...

they viewed it as the highest end - so not `mid range` at all - that's from the people who MADE IT
 
Well, it was just MY THOUGHTS and I could well be wrong and wouldn't be the first TIME I was wrong. I DON'T care either way really, as the 3 680s I had were fantastic cards.
 
It was mid range, but when your fastest card is mid range it's high end.

680 was a tenner cheaper than the 7970 at launch and boosted out the box v a stock 7970, course it was faster.

Oc the 7970 and they were equal, after the beta drivers in the summer then the officials in October an oc'ed 7970 smashed an oc'ed 680's back doors in...
 
Last edited:
tommybhoy said:
It was mid range, but when your fastest card is mid range it's high end.

680 was a tenner cheaper than the 7970 at launch and boosted out the box v a stock 7970, course it was faster.

Oc the 7970 and they were equal, after the beta drivers in the summer then the officials in October an oc'ed 7970 smashed an oc'ed 680's back doors in...
Click to expand...

again you need to read and accept what the maker of the card has said. if your OPINION is its mid range and the company which made it said its the fastest and high end - you are wrong.
 
I agreed with you:p, when your mid range part is your fastest product at the time it's labelled the high end part-much like the mid range 980 repeat label of high end.
 
tommybhoy said:
I agreed with you:p, when your mid range part is your fastest product at the time it's labelled the high end part-much like the mid range 980 repeat label of high end.
Click to expand...

its NOT a `mid range` card. GTX 6xx topped out at the highest end with the GTX 680.

it was only with the rebranding of the GTX 770/760 (and 740/730/720) we had a `new` high end with Titan (a commercial product in retail form) and Kepler 2 in the form of GTX 780/780Ti

but again , for that generation the GTX 680 was the highest of the high end, doesn't matter what users on a forum think - the maker of the card said it was the highest end part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom