Are there any rumours as to when the next Nvidia GPUs will be released?

[Boomstick777]

I was talking in the context of "mainstream" CPU market for gaming.

The extra money on the X99 type "enthusiast platform" is diminishing returns for gaming performance (main no difference especially when using one or even two GPUs), and the money would be better spent on gaphic cards(s) instead, especially with the current trend people people starting to move on from 1920 res onto 2560 res 144Hz and 4K etc.

The X99 platform etc is only great for those that need the extra power for other things besides gamings, such as rendering, video encoding etc.

Agreed, Skylake i5 + Cheapish mobo is the sweet spot for just gaming. If your video encoding or workstation type stuff alongside gaming then X99 is awesome. X99 / 5820K or above love encoding.

 

[bfar]

Whatever about last autumn, I think it's very late to pull the trigger on a 28nm GPU at this stage, especially the expensive ones. All signs are pointing to a larger than usual performance delta with next gen. We're going from 28nm to 14\16nm, effectively skipping a die shrink. Think of performance in the range of a 980ti times 2, or a 980ti at half the price. AMD just scored a deal with Samsung to produce chips, so there's a real chance that the production issues that plagued 28nm and previous lithographies won't happen this time, allowing them to push Nvidia hard on prices.

Cpus are a little more complex, but with Zen on the way, even the rumour of half decent performance should encourage Intel to drop prices. Failing that, supplies of Skylake should improve, and Kabylake should arrive in better volumes. That all said, there's still some good options right now in the 6600k, 6700k and 5820k depending on your usage. They should last two or three years

I believe that Amd's product line up is going to be more disruptive than usual this year, hopefully forcing Intel and Nvidia to compete harder.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Allowing for inflation (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ ) from 2011 to 2015 plugging the 2700k value in gives an inflation adjusted price of…………………….

The 6700k is a 14nm CPU so where is the premium Intel charged for the CPU new over the previous gen Broadwell (which they asked more for! - probably due to the iGPU) and over the gen before that, Haswell, where they asked for a whole $11 dollars less.

Inflation is irrelevant here and the price of previous chips directly isn't relevant and this is where your comparison falls down. Chip prices are down to size, production cost then how much profit you slap on top which is what your analysis fails to take into account completely. Sandy 216mm^2, Ivy 160mm^2, Haswell 177mm^2, Broadwell, can't find it. If all the chips on a new process had a massive transistor count increase and had about the same size as their predecessor then you could make the valid comparison on cost alone.

Skylake is back down to 122mm^2. Look back and you have Lynnfield at 296mm^2 at 45nm. They dropped a node and dropped 80mm^2 off it, dropped another node and went down near enough another 80mm^2, another node and another 40mm^2 gone. They are offering MUCH less in transistor/value/production terms and each year the size of the GPU has increased which for the massive majority of users is near enough useless.

People do buy AMD APU's for gaming because even at lower graphics settings AMD has both owned Intel in performance till the last gen or two(only because AMD chose to go a period of 2 years without a real update before the new arch which will almost certainly put them ahead again in GPU performance), but even today an AMD APU offers a massively better gaming experience than an Intel APU. Graphics drivers, graphics quality, IQ is light years ahead for AMD. They have also done almost nothing industry wise to push gpu acceleration while AMD and loads of partners have worked extremely hard to push on die gpu acceleration.


So 5-6 years ago you buy a Lynnfield, it was not an APU, 100% CPU power, the next gen you were getting almost 30% less 'chip' and what 25-30% of what you did get was now GPU. Today you buy a Skylake that costs a bit more and you are getting less than half of the 'chip' you used to and around half of that is GPU which you may or may not use. Some shrinking is expected, this much isn't. You are categorically getting nothing like the value you used to get, not remotely comparable.

This is all so they can push mobile chips which they still aren't a big increase. Every shrink, every power decrease, every tiny transistor improvement and every small performance improvement is because the main and really sole development path is improving mobile. They are offering you less, their margins have increased HUGELY in the past 5 years and they are charging you more for less. They then take these chips they have been developing solely with mobile in mind, charging desktop the same and charging mobile even higher prices for the same chips.

 

[DarrenM343]

Whatever about last autumn, I think it's very late to pull the trigger on a 28nm GPU at this stage, especially the expensive ones. .

Think I agree with you. The top end current cards are however really good, but even though I'd rather enjoy the NOW, I'm inclined to sit it out for a few more months even though there are a couple of current games I'd like to play. The special offer Titan X price is however tempting but fingers crossed it's not as long as we think for the new cards in the New Year.

 

[jasonsony735]

You got to be realistic , The 980 Ti is still in high demand so don't expect the next generation until at least OCT 2016.

 

[Simon Belmont]

You got to be realistic , The 980 Ti is still in high demand so don't expect the next generation until at least OCT 2016.

lol

 

[Panos]

You got to be realistic , The 980 Ti is still in high demand so don't expect the next generation until at least OCT 2016.

I agree, and the prices will go up. Who forgot the 780Ti, Titan Black or even the 780 6GB? Everyone was expecting the price to fall as the 9xx series lunch was coming close, and then they gone from the market completely without any "fire sale"

Same will happen to the 980Ti. You either buy now, or when next gen comes, there going to be none for sale. Only 2nd hand ones.

 

[bfar]

When the next gen arrives, you'll be picking up 980ti's on the members market for less than 300 quid.

 

[ALXAndy]

I agree, and the prices will go up. Who forgot the 780Ti, Titan Black or even the 780 6GB? Everyone was expecting the price to fall as the 9xx series lunch was coming close, and then they gone from the market completely without any "fire sale"

Same will happen to the 980Ti. You either buy now, or when next gen comes, there going to be none for sale. Only 2nd hand ones.

Or OCUK get them in very small numbers and charge a king's ransom for them, knowing some poor sod wants them for Crossfire/SLI.

 

[Panos]

When the next gen arrives, you'll be picking up 980ti's on the members market for less than 300 quid.

True, but at least there is the warranty. I can sell you the 295X2 if you want for 330, and that depreciated faster than anything will ever do.

 

[Orangey]

Advances in inventory/channel management no doubt allow stock to transition much more seamlessly these days.

 

[Caracus2k]

Inflation is irrelevant here and the price of previous chips directly isn't relevant and this is where your comparison falls down. Chip prices are down to size, production cost then how much profit you slap on top which is what your analysis fails to take into account completely. Sandy 216mm^2, Ivy 160mm^2, Haswell 177mm^2, Broadwell, can't find it. If all the chips on a new process had a massive transistor count increase and had about the same size as their predecessor then you could make the valid comparison on cost alone.

Skylake is back down to 122mm^2. Look back and you have Lynnfield at 296mm^2 at 45nm. They dropped a node and dropped 80mm^2 off it, dropped another node and went down near enough another 80mm^2, another node and another 40mm^2 gone. They are offering MUCH less in transistor/value/production terms and each year the size of the GPU has increased which for the massive majority of users is near enough useless.

People do buy AMD APU's for gaming because even at lower graphics settings AMD has both owned Intel in performance till the last gen or two(only because AMD chose to go a period of 2 years without a real update before the new arch which will almost certainly put them ahead again in GPU performance), but even today an AMD APU offers a massively better gaming experience than an Intel APU. Graphics drivers, graphics quality, IQ is light years ahead for AMD. They have also done almost nothing industry wise to push gpu acceleration while AMD and loads of partners have worked extremely hard to push on die gpu acceleration.


So 5-6 years ago you buy a Lynnfield, it was not an APU, 100% CPU power, the next gen you were getting almost 30% less 'chip' and what 25-30% of what you did get was now GPU. Today you buy a Skylake that costs a bit more and you are getting less than half of the 'chip' you used to and around half of that is GPU which you may or may not use. Some shrinking is expected, this much isn't. You are categorically getting nothing like the value you used to get, not remotely comparable.

This is all so they can push mobile chips which they still aren't a big increase. Every shrink, every power decrease, every tiny transistor improvement and every small performance improvement is because the main and really sole development path is improving mobile. They are offering you less, their margins have increased HUGELY in the past 5 years and they are charging you more for less. They then take these chips they have been developing solely with mobile in mind, charging desktop the same and charging mobile even higher prices for the same chips.

Inflation is irrelevant! Over nearly five years!

The transistor count has gone up massively since lynfield with 774m to haswell with 1.4bn almost twice (Intel have not officially released the figures for skylake - saying its largely irrelevant to the consumer! But the trend has always been upwards) remove the igpu and haswell (and by implication skylake) has far more transistors then lynfield.



http://www.anandtech.com/show/9582/intel-skylake-mobile-desktop-launch-architecture-analysis

Intel don't provide details for igpu/cpu size but for haswell it has been estimated as being a third of the die size

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/5

So from Lynnfield to haswell nearly the double total amount of transistors with a third now dedicated to the igpu. Plug the figures into a calculator and you get over a 20% increase in transistors count for the CPU part alone before you factor in higher stock and overclocked speeds and improved general architecture
=

Intel's chips have steadily, incremently become more powerfull since Lynfield the size of the die is the largely irrelevant bit to the consumer. Performance has steadily if not dramatically increased and the price from Intel has not increased above inflation. The reduction in die size is fundamental to Intel being able to offer successive generations of more powerful cpu's. When you buy a skylake CPU you may physically be getting a smaller cpu die but you are getting a much much more powerful cpu than lynfield, this is the bit that matters to the consumer -price and performance. The performance is up and the price (from Intel) is roughly the same, inflation adjusted. We can both agree that the igpu on high end 'k' series cpu's is almost entirely pointless but of course these cpu's have to share a common architecture with the more lowly offerings were an igpu may be relevant. Of course Intel could have used that transistor budget to add more cores in lieu of an igpu but that would not have made good commercial sense over the past few years where Intel had no competition at the high end and had an enthusiast line to sell at a higher price to those would wanted more cores.

My initial point was to address the often heard claim that the high retail cost of skylake in the uk is down to Intel ramping the price up above previous Intel 4c/8t top end cpu's. As I have shown this is not true. The retail cpu price has been driven over the years by the exchange rate and especially with skylake a shortage of stock.

 

[Kaapstad]

Inflation is irrelevant! Over nearly five years!

The transistor count has gone up massively since lynfield with 774m to baswell with 1.4bn almost twice (Intel have not officially released the figures for skylake - saying its largely irrelevant to the consumer! But the trend has always been upwards) remove the igpu and haswell (and by implication skylake) has far more transistors then lynfield.



http://www.anandtech.com/show/9582/intel-skylake-mobile-desktop-launch-architecture-analysis

Intel's chips have steadily, incremently become more powerfull since Lynfield the size of the die is the largely irrelevant bit to the consumer. Performance has steadily if not dramatically increased and the price from Intel has not increased above inflation. The reduction in die size is fundamental to Intel being able to offer successive generations of more powerful cpu's. When you buy a skylake CPU you may physically be getting a smaller cpu die but you are getting a much much more powerful cpu than lynfield, this is the bit that matters to the consumer -price and performance. The performance is up and the price (from Intel) is roughly the same, inflation adjusted. We can both agree that the igpu on high end 'k' series cpu's is almost entirely pointless but of course these cpu's have to share a common architecture with the more lowly offerings were an igpu may be relevant. Of course Intel could have used that transistor budget to add more cores in lieu of an igpu but that would not have made good commercial sense over the past few years where Intel had no competition at the high end and had an enthusiast line to sell at a higher price to those would wanted more cores.

My initial was to address the often heard claim that the high retail cost of skylake in the uk is down to Intel ramping the price up above previous Intel 4c/8t top end cpu's. As I have shown this is not true. The retail cpu price has been driven over the years by the exchange rate and especially with skylake a shortage of stock.

The 6700k is overpriced !!!

If this was not true it should be cheaper than the 5820k which is a much more powerful CPU.

As to integrated graphics, this is something that has no place on an i7 with unlocked overclocking.

I would be a lot more happy if intel were to have a separate socket on the motherboard where you could fit a GPU processor (if the user wanted to) instead of having it on the same chip as the CPU.

 

[Gregster]

Getting the thread back on topic and away from CPU prices, I genuinely think we will be hearing about Pascal by March.

 

[Caracus2k]

The 6700k is overpriced !!!

If this was not true it should be cheaper than the 5820k which is a much more powerful CPU.

As to integrated graphics, this is something that has no place on an i7 with unlocked overclocking.

I would be a lot more happy if intel were to have a separate socket on the motherboard where you could fit a GPU processor (if the user wanted to) instead of having it on the same chip as the CPU.

But not by Intel! They list the 5820k as being at least $39 more expensive than the 6700k

http://ark.intel.com/m/products/829...-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz#@product/specifications

which I would agree probably makes the 5820k underpriced but the 6700k is not overpriced (by Intel) compared to other top end consumer line Intel cpu's. Intel sell the 6700k , inflation adjusted, for about the same as a 2700k!

 

[Kaapstad]

But not by Intel! They list the 5820k as being at least $39 more expensive than the 6700k which I would agree probably makes the 5820k underpriced but the 6700k is not overpriced (by Intel) who sell it, inflation adjusted, for about the same as a 2700k!

Moore's Law says the 6700k is overpriced.

Until the 6700k can match a 2700k for CPU grunt taking into account Moore's Law. I would say on that scale the 6700k should be selling for £100 as the 2700k is still a beast.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Getting the thread back on topic and away from CPU prices, I genuinely think we will be hearing about Pascal by March.

This^ 1050 first then a 1070 and 1080 a month or 2 later. Pascal Ti and Titan will be late summer

 

[Tropicocity]

The only reason I'm thinking of upgrading my system is because it feels like it is on its last legs.

One hard drive has failed. The system randomly locks up at times and it is really noisy. I'm sure I could fix the problems with the system with a bit of work and some cash but if I upgraded to a whole new system I could use my current system as a spare for running Linux virtual machines or something.

I'm definitely looking to upgrade my graphics cards though although I doubt I'll go Crossfire or SLI this time around. It is just more things that could possibly go wrong.

For the record here are my current system specs:

Intel i7 3930k running at 4.4Ghz
2x AMD 7950 in Crossfire
1x 256GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD
1x 2TB Seagate HDD
16GB DDR3 1666Mhz RAM
Asus Sabertooth X79 Motherboard
Blu-ray reader / DVD writer

I honestly cannot see anywhere in that setup where one would think they were on their "last legs" o_O Okay, you GPUs are pretty old, replacing them with dual 970s/a 980ti/ dual 390s or something would work well.. but the rest of your system would likely see little benefit with an upgrade, depending on what it is you use it for

 

[Tommy_Here]

I'd put money on an April release date for pascal with GTC also in April so yea, definitely an April/May release for pascal which isn't that long away heck I got my 980 Ti on launch day (1st june)and that was 7 months ago I hold out for another 4 ish. we should start to hear more news/rumours in the coming few months Don't forget Nvidia has the CES conference on January the 4th though it's unlikely they will go in depth as it'll all be about mobile stuff and their new technologies we may get a little news on it which is better than nothing (y)
if I had to take a guess of the performance I'd say it SHOULD technically be more than twice as fast as current Titan X or 980 Ti gpus think about it.....
over 1TB/s bandwidth will help the performance straight away, more than double the transistors, as well as the architectural improvements pascal will have clock for clock and the fact they'll more than likely have a higher clock speed add the fact we'll be seeing around the 5000 cuda cores ( I've read a few rumours quoting this) still we should have a good chunk more cores than current gpus... add all this together and you get a very beefy graphics card that I can't wait for to replace my 980 Ti for my 4k gaming needs ^_^

 

[Caracus2k]

Moore's Law says the 6700k is overpriced.

Until the 6700k can match a 2700k for CPU grunt taking into account Moore's Law. I would say on that scale the 6700k should be selling for £100 as the 2700k is still a beast.

Moore's laws bust now, this is increasingly becoming apparent

This is applicable to both cpu's and back on topic increasingly gpu's. This is not Intel, nvidia or amd's fault it just physics

Nvidia will.most likely launch 'small' Pascal (think circa 980ti performance ish) in March to April 2016.

assume retail pricing starting at least around £400 in the UK before any launch premium is applied and more likely around £450.

If they follow a similar pattern to before expect the 'big' premium Pascal (titan?) sometime later in the year with a £800-£1,000 ish price tag if not more followed 3-5 months later by the more mainstream high end part. (ti?) for circa £600-750