NVIDIA ‘Ampere’ 8nm Graphics Cards

[Core09]

Seems like most things i buy are not worth it...I just like spending money

You should see people faces when i tell them i paid almost £1000 for my dish washer and another £1000 for the washing machine

Haha I spent £7000 on a TV. I do regret it though. :d

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

So i had an idea that we can crowd fund an asteroid mining operation to get some gold, platinum etc.. make those who fund it rich, anyone in? We gonna need it for these GPU prices

 

[Doobedoo]

So i had an idea that we can crowd fund an asteroid mining operation to get some gold, platinum etc.. make those who fund it rich, anyone in? We gonna need it for these GPU prices

I’m in but still won’t pay over the odds for any gpu .

 

[FloatingPoint]

If the hype about a new nVidia GPU 21 years later, is at the same price + inflation for one with a 256bit bus, then that would be a statement. Would that be progress and nostalgic?

 

[chaparral]

Haha I spent £7000 on a TV. I do regret it though. :d

I been there with TV's as well spent £3000 on pioneer 436xde and £3500 on pioneer LX508D in a space of around 12 to 18months
My TV i have now was £3600 if i remember correctly

 

[CuriousTomCat]

I don't understand why people are obsessed with GPUs they can't afford and get so upset about it. I'm more interested in the new entry level cards. Will they have RTX? Or will they be called GTX 2650 and GTX 2660? Will 1440p finally be the new budget resolution this gen?

 

[chaparral]

I don't understand why people are obsessed with GPUs they can't afford and get so upset about it.

The problem is a lot people can afford to buy these high priced GPU's but that doesn't mean they want to spend £1400 on one

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

I’m in but still won’t pay over the odds for any gpu .

I wonder how much it would actually cost though to do it, hundreds of millions, or more?

 

[Doobedoo]

I wonder how much it would actually cost though to do it, hundreds of millions, or more?

Yeah I think if it was worth doing it would be done by those who have far more money than we have or could attain.

It’s reserved for the Bezos and Musks of the world not plebs like us .

 

[FoxEye]

I don't understand why people are obsessed with GPUs they can't afford and get so upset about it. I'm more interested in the new entry level cards. Will they have RTX? Or will they be called GTX 2650 and GTX 2660? Will 1440p finally be the new budget resolution this gen?

If your budget is £150-£250 you can't afford anything this gen

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Really? FS2020 has already been tested as using 12.5GB+ VRAM at 4k Ultra settings...

But anyway, great to know that you can predict the future with 0% accuracy.

A few things. The flight sim games (arguably not really even games) have a long established history of titles launching with extremely high graphics settings relative to peers at the time, essentially for future proofing. So this is very much something that stands out of the pack, it's an exception and not the norm. Businesses generally speaking do not make products lines that conform to extremely rare exceptions that stand out of the pack, they make them for what the average consumer (at that price point) will need.

It's also worth noting that you can't endlessly throw assets into vRAM that are used by the GPU without some performance impact, if you're adding more assets in vRAM is generally speaking means more work for the GPU processing those assets and that means lower frame rates. And so generally speaking there's a ceiling on useful amounts of vRAM at the point where the GPU is not producing playable frame rates. And FS2020@4k Ultra has completely unplayable frame rates even on the absolute best possible cards today, Titan RTX has a 99th min of about 28fps

So 3GB cards are all we need, basically

You mentioned consoles. We've had 8 GB PC GPUs since before 2015, during the last console gen, and we've seen PC games knocking on the door of even the 11GB cards. Esp with mods.

Now, as you mention the console VRAM (and horsepower in general) is about to take a *massive* leap.

But you can see no reason why PC GPUs with 8 GB VRAM shouldn't be fine for the next 12-18 months.. despite all the new games being targeted at a much higher console spec (PS5/XSX will be the lead platforms, the PS4/XBone versions will be super gimped).

Anyway Jensen, us consumers will make up our own minds, thanks. For me and others here, <12 GB VRAM = no sale.

Well obviously no, see my response above. Typically you pick an amount of vRAM on your product which is sufficient to service the GPU. There's a relationship between vRAM size and GPU performance, if you're putting assets into vRAM you're doing it so the GPU can do work on it. The bigger the vRAM the higher quality and the more assets, the more work the GPU has to do and so the lower the frame rate, until eventually the frame rate bottoms out at unplayable and vRAM above that amount is basically pointless.

We know the specs of the next gen consoles the PS5 has 16Gb of shared RAM, which we can reasonably expect most games will use about 6-8Gb between the engine and the OS, on non-visual assets. Leaving less than 8-10Gb of RAM for the GPU to use. Not only that the GPUs in the next gen consoles are kinda meh, middle of the road by PC standards so again whether they can actually make use of 10Gb of assets with a usable frame rate, almost certainly not.

In the real world, we've seen what happens when you hit the VRAM limit. Engine design theorycraft or not.

Having 8 GB VRAM (in 2020 still, like back in 2015) when the consoles are about to make one of the biggest generational leaps every, is really asking for trouble.

Additionally there's no reason to settle for less. nVidia is just being super cheap. Expecting people to pay through the *** and giving the bare minimum VRAM in return.

Not going to fly. £600 with 8GB is not going to fly. £800+ with 10 GB is not going to fly.

It's not theorycraft, if you know anything about how modern engines work there's a lot of tools and optimization that goes into managing assets in the pipeline from disk to GPU. Streaming assets from disk is extremely common. The vRAM only really matters for what you immediately need right next to you that you're rendering at high resolution, that's where the limits matter most.

There is a reason to settle for less, because vRAM is expensive and drives up the costs of cards, which are already very expensive given the level of complaining about leaked prices we've already seen. They're not going to drive up the cost of cards if there's next to no benefit from doing so. It might not "fly" for you but it's fine for most other people and they're making a bet that the loss in sales to people who want more vRAM would be dwarfed by a more general loss in sales if the cards were too expensive. This is why, as I said above, they're a business they're after profit, you can't make everyone happy you just go with whatever averages out best for you.

Bare minimum RAM is the best amount of RAM. RAM is only useful if it's being used, having unused RAM is a waste of money and does nothing for performance.

 

[FoxEye]

Yeah I think if it was worth doing it would be done by those who have far more money than we have or could attain.

It’s reserved for the Bezos and Musks of the world not plebs like us .

Or that chap who tried to fire himself into orbit in a home-made rocket.

 

[TNA]

In the real world, we've seen what happens when you hit the VRAM limit. Engine design theorycraft or not.

Having 8 GB VRAM (in 2020 still, like back in 2015) when the consoles are about to make one of the biggest generational leaps every, is really asking for trouble.

Additionally there's no reason to settle for less. nVidia is just being super cheap. Expecting people to pay through the *** and giving the bare minimum VRAM in return.

Not going to fly. £600 with 8GB is not going to fly. £800+ with 10 GB is not going to fly.

Kazuya recons it will. They should release 3090 with 6GB and see if it still flies. They can always say their magic software means you don’t need anymore, the green boys will obviously believe the leather wearing overlord and buy anyways

You should see people faces when i tell them i paid almost £1000 for my dish washer and another £1000 for the washing machine

I actually don’t see an issue with that at all and would not be surprised. Those will last you 4-5 times longer than a 3090 will

 

[five8five]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1300066906557222912

500W
Wonder what the clockspeed is? Diminishing returns I presume.

 

[FoxEye]

We know the specs of the next gen consoles the PS5 has 16Gb of shared RAM, which we can reasonably expect most games will use about 6-8Gb between the engine and the OS, on non-visual assets. Leaving less than 8-10Gb of RAM for the GPU to use. Not only that the GPUs in the next gen consoles are kinda meh, middle of the road by PC standards so again whether they can actually make use of 10Gb of assets with a usable frame rate, almost certainly not.

Whether or not you think the new consoles are crap or not, it is indesputable that they are a massive jump from PS4/XSX. Or do you want to dispute that?

PC GPUs have been using 8- 11GB to play last gen's "console ports" and we've been maxing them out in a several titles, it would seem. Esp with mods.

You think the new gen of games targeting the new consoles will be less demanding?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It looks like the 7NM process used might be a tweaked 8NM:

https://mobile.twitter.com/moe_v_moe/status/1300081164305260545

https://twitter.com/x/status/1300081164305260545

 

[CuriousTomCat]

If your budget is £150-£250 you can't afford anything this gen

That is the most popular price bracket for a GPU. Hence game developers aim to ensure their games run smooth on GPUs for that cost.

 

[LeMson]

A few things. The flight sim games (arguably not really even games) have a long established history of titles launching with extremely high graphics settings relative to peers at the time, essentially for future proofing. So this is very much something that stands out of the pack, it's an exception and not the norm. Businesses generally speaking do not make products lines that conform to extremely rare exceptions that stand out of the pack, they make them for what the average consumer (at that price point) will need.

It's also worth noting that you can't endlessly throw assets into vRAM that are used by the GPU without some performance impact, if you're adding more assets in vRAM is generally speaking means more work for the GPU processing those assets and that means lower frame rates. And so generally speaking there's a ceiling on useful amounts of vRAM at the point where the GPU is not producing playable frame rates. And FS2020@4k Ultra has completely unplayable frame rates even on the absolute best possible cards today, Titan RTX has a 99th min of about 28fps



Well obviously no, see my response above. Typically you pick an amount of vRAM on your product which is sufficient to service the GPU. There's a relationship between vRAM size and GPU performance, if you're putting assets into vRAM you're doing it so the GPU can do work on it. The bigger the vRAM the higher quality and the more assets, the more work the GPU has to do and so the lower the frame rate, until eventually the frame rate bottoms out at unplayable and vRAM above that amount is basically pointless.

We know the specs of the next gen consoles the PS5 has 16Gb of shared RAM, which we can reasonably expect most games will use about 6-8Gb between the engine and the OS, on non-visual assets. Leaving less than 8-10Gb of RAM for the GPU to use. Not only that the GPUs in the next gen consoles are kinda meh, middle of the road by PC standards so again whether they can actually make use of 10Gb of assets with a usable frame rate, almost certainly not.



It's not theorycraft, if you know anything about how modern engines work there's a lot of tools and optimization that goes into managing assets in the pipeline from disk to GPU. Streaming assets from disk is extremely common. The vRAM only really matters for what you immediately need right next to you that you're rendering at high resolution, that's where the limits matter most.

There is a reason to settle for less, because vRAM is expensive and drives up the costs of cards, which are already very expensive given the level of complaining about leaked prices we've already seen. They're not going to drive up the cost of cards if there's next to no benefit from doing so. It might not "fly" for you but it's fine for most other people and they're making a bet that the loss in sales to people who want more vRAM would be dwarfed by a more general loss in sales if the cards were too expensive. This is why, as I said above, they're a business they're after profit, you can't make everyone happy you just go with whatever averages out best for you.

Bare minimum RAM is the best amount of RAM. RAM is only useful if it's being used, having unused RAM is a waste of money and does nothing for performance.

Don't undervalue the epeen, I loved my 64gb of ram

 

[FoxEye]

We know the specs of the next gen consoles the PS5 has 16Gb of shared RAM, which we can reasonably expect most games will use about 6-8Gb between the engine and the OS, on non-visual assets. Leaving less than 8-10Gb of RAM for the GPU to use. Not only that the GPUs in the next gen consoles are kinda meh, middle of the road by PC standards so again whether they can actually make use of 10Gb of assets with a usable frame rate, almost certainly not.

You'd better let Mark Cerny know pronto they've ballsed up the design. They only went and put too much shared memory in it, should have stuck with 8 GB!

This reads an awful lot like nV shilling btw. Esp the bit where you say more memory is bad because it will reduce frame-rates

I'll bet if AMD has more VRAM people will not only benefit from it, they'll probably be irritated by Jensen's cheapness.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I still remember the 8800GT 256MB,abnd how it was eventually beaten by slower GPUs such as the 9600GT which had more VRAM.