Keplar real specs...maybe?

Paddy McGinty · 2 Feb 2012 at 21:58

Im no expert what do you people think?It does come at the time ov Ivy Bridge.
http://lenzfire.com/2012/02/entire-nvidia-kepler-series-specifications-price-release-date-43823/

Rroff · 2 Feb 2012 at 22:09

Possibly - I've had it on good authority for awhile that the upper mid-range part would have 60% more shaders and 20% higher clock speed than the GTX480 which would be:

"GTX660Ti GK110 550mm2 TBD~850MHz TBD~1.7GHZ 768 24 48 5 GHz GDDR5 384bit 240GB/s"

What I'd heard tho was that that card would come out first before the flagship parts but that site seems to indicate that the high end parts would come out earlier or at the same time depending.

Troezar · 2 Feb 2012 at 22:20

One request it's Kepler not Keplar. I keep seeing it and it bugs me

kitch9 · 2 Feb 2012 at 22:23

Rroff said:
Possibly - I've had it on good authority for awhile that the upper mid-range part would have 60% more shaders and 20% higher clock speed than the GTX480 which would be:

"GTX660Ti GK110 550mm2 TBD~850MHz TBD~1.7GHZ 768 24 48 5 GHz GDDR5 384bit 240GB/s"

What I'd heard tho was that that card would come out first before the flagship parts but that site seems to indicate that the high end parts would come out earlier or at the same time depending.

Dream on.

Deehjay · 2 Feb 2012 at 22:25

If the rumours are true that's sweeet.. 2GB memory on the 660!

Rroff · 2 Feb 2012 at 22:36

kitch9 said:
Dream on.

Only sayings what I've heard - that information if correct would appear to back it up - tho I've also heard that the 6xx cards won't be kepler based cores which will be another model number - assumably 7xx tho not confirmed.

xsistor · 2 Feb 2012 at 22:50

$999 for a GTX 690? And 649 for a GTX 680?!?!

That's ridiculous. If everything in that slide is true then I blame AMD. They are probably pricing it $100 more than the 7970. If it is indeed 45% faster that may appear to make sense.

But prices like that for GPUs is just mad hattery all-round

ALXAndy · 2 Feb 2012 at 22:53

Troezar said:
One request it's Kepler not Keplar. I keep seeing it and it bugs me

It's better than kelper.

xsistor said:
$999 for a GTX 690? And 649 for a GTX 680?!?!

That's ridiculous. If everything in that slide is true then I blame AMD. They are probably pricing it $100 more than the 7970. If it is indeed 45% faster that may appear to make sense.

But prices like that for GPUs is just mad hattery all-round

They're not out yet. Going by what they were charging for the 500 series it doesn't surprise me at all. And you can't blame AMD for price matching Nvidia's 580.

Paddy McGinty · 2 Feb 2012 at 22:56

xsistor said:
$999 for a GTX 690? And 649 for a GTX 680?!?!

That's ridiculous. If everything in that slide is true then I blame AMD. They are probably pricing it $100 more than the 7970. If it is indeed 45% faster that may appear to make sense.

But prices like that for GPUs is just mad hattery all-round

Remember the 690 is a dual gpu maybe 2x680's or 2x670's that will be downclocked,what a monster!

drunkenmaster · 2 Feb 2012 at 23:09

Rroff said:
Only sayings what I've heard - that information if correct would appear to back it up - tho I've also heard that the 6xx cards won't be kepler based cores which will be another model number - assumably 7xx tho not confirmed.

550mm2 on a 768 shader card? no, just, very very very no.

As for the list of specs in the op.

Potentially some of them are close but, somehow they've listed a 768shader card with a 384bit bus....... as 10% faster than a 7950, which is 10% faster than a 580gtx, which is how fast they claim a 512shader 256bit version will be?

So 50% more shaders, 50% more bandwidth, and barely 20% more performance, makes zero sense, as indeed does a 560ti having 768 shaders and a 560non ti having 512. Nvidia will not make a 1024shader likely 530mm2+ core, and be selling 768shader versions of it cut down. So a 768shader card will be its own core(likely the GK104) likewise there isn't a chance cut down versions of that will be 512shaders, you're looking at 768 660ti, and maybe at worst 640shader 660 non ti, but more than likely much closer to 700shaders for the non ti.

Seeing as the 660ti will be their volume/performance part, there isn't a sweet chance in hell there wouldn't be a cutdown/salvaged part from it.

Basically there is enough holes in it that its not the full list of specs.

But if the 680gtx is only 45% faster than a 7970, they've got big problems. AMD can EASILY release a new bin with 30% higher clocks today on parts that have been in production for 2 months, a slightly more mature process, a respin potentially and they could push that beyond 30% higher clocks which would give them exactly the same gap as AMD/Nvidia have had for 3 years...... which is exactly what everyone should have expected.

Thing is by the time the 680gtx is out(or whatever they actually call the big kepler) AMD may have had a chance to further improve the architecture by then, really depends how long it takes for Nvidia to get the 680gtx out.

Yamahahahahaha · 2 Feb 2012 at 23:18

drunkenmaster said:
Thing is by the time the 680gtx is out(or whatever they actually call the big kepler) AMD may have had a chance to further improve the architecture by then, really depends how long it takes for Nvidia to get the 680gtx out.

AMD might do a small refinement to these cards, but typically they don't. 30% on the clocks is possible, but maybe not realistic.
Why not realistic? Take a look at the figures for power consumption on the significantly overclocked 7970s.

http://hardocp.com/article/2012/01/25/asus_radeon_hd_7970_video_card_review/8

Then think about the kind of cooler a card like that will need.
Cards sold at retail will be put into all sorts of awful systems, and they need to be quite robust as a result.

I don't see why Nvidia won't bring the CUDA Core count up to 768, then use the spare ASIC to either shrink the die, increasing profit, or enhance the acceleration features mentioned on other websites.

Martini1991 · 2 Feb 2012 at 23:28

Guess we've only gone AMD to thank for what's turning into a truly horrendously priced generation.
Hip hip!

ToxicTBag · 2 Feb 2012 at 23:34

Martini1991 said:
Guess we've only gone AMD to thank for what's turning into a truly horrendously priced generation.
Hip hip!

Spot on there Martini1991

If they would just got the basics right 'cuda cores' and not 'stream processors' it might afford them a bit more credability, mind you the nvidia knack for seemingly inadequate amounts of memory is entirely possible.

I for one welcome the arrival of our new lean green overlords :rolleyes:

TheMorningStar · 3 Feb 2012 at 00:04

How does a market, any market just shift its prices like this? Its like the damn oil crisis all over again.

I can only hope that the consumer backlash kills this before it gets a foothold and becomes the norm.

I'm actually wondering if they looked at the HDD market, saw that people were still buying them at x3 the cost and thought they may as well give it a go.

Martini1991 · 3 Feb 2012 at 00:11

What's more amazing, is people seem to think the price is justifiable.
If there's an outcry at the GTX680, 1.) It's just, as it really is over the top, but 2.) it'll offer a better performance increase over the 7970 at the 100 dollars they're asking, than the 7970 offers over the GTX580 at the price they're over.

slade · 3 Feb 2012 at 00:20

^^ so you bought a 7950 then?

Duff-Man · 3 Feb 2012 at 00:21

Well, they are certainly plausible...

They're quite similar to my guess-values from a while ago actually (see here):

Of course there's no way to know if they're actually real at this stage.

One thing to note though: In order for the performance to be consistent with those estimates, each CUDA core must be performing four floating point operations per clock. This can be achieved either by:

a) 'hot clocked' shaders, running at twice the core clock, and performing two FP ops per clock (like Fermi)

b) 'base clocked' shaders, running at the core clock, and performing four FP ops per clock.

Most of the rumours seem to be suggesting that the hot clocks have gone, and if this is indeed the case, it would suggest that Kepler's shader cores have undergone quite a significant redesign.

Bear in mind that it's likely the GK104 is the card that will be released first (probably March-April time), and that should be (at most) the GTX660 part. Most places are suggesting that the full Kepler (presumably the GTX680) will be a few months behind.

Martini1991 · 3 Feb 2012 at 00:26

slade said:
^^ so you bought a 7950 then?

Yes.
I sold one of my 6870's to my GF's dad for 80 quid, then sold one here.
I wanted to go single GPU, and I like my silence so would have WC'ed.
Read a few reviews, the PCS+ cooler is both quiet and decent, so opted for a 7950 PCS+ for 370 quid delivered
It bests my 6870 crossfire when it's clocked and is quiet and silent, in that regard it's perfect, but it's a 200-250 quid card, not a 370 quid card.

slade · 3 Feb 2012 at 00:39

But it does show people are willing to pay the hefty prices tho aye?

Id love 2 in CF but they're $600+ over here..... :eek:

.7970 are $700+ some online shops 800+. Even tho i have the $$$ there's no way im bowing down to those prices....

Martini1991 · 3 Feb 2012 at 00:40

slade said:
But it does show people are willing to pay the hefty prices tho aye?

Id love 2 in CF but they're $600+ over here..... .7970 are $700+ some online shops 800+. Even tho i have the $$$ there's no way im bowing down to those prices....

I had no choice, I wanted a decent single GPU, and the GTX580 is priced around the 7950, and the 7950.

While the 7950 isn't a good price, it's still the better card around that price.