Nvidia Potential Roadmap Update for 2017: Volta Architecture Could Be Landing As Early As 2H 2017

[akarypid]

Hopefully AMD can get the power down for Vega or Greenland and give Volta a fair match. It is quite a worry when you see the 480 uses more than the 1070 and performs substantially worse.

This is the main reason I'm really looking forward to seeing Doom/Vulkan optimised for NVidia. That outfit is one of the few I trust to get the most out of a card's capacity (if anyone can manage the best possible boost from Vulkan on NVidia it should be them), so I'd really like to compare performance/watt using that as a benchmark.

I would expect the 1060 to lose, as the 480 has more compute capacity (TFLOPS), but it needs to lose by a factor close to their TFLOP ratio.

Needless to say, if NVidia manages to outperform the 480 on that basis, it'd mean they're still way ahead of AMD, therefore Vega will require significant improvements to compete.

 

[Seanspeed]

Too much horse power from both AMD and Nvidia is awesome ,however, pc will still be suffering from a low quality Console ports.

I hope with Volta at least 4K 60fps on Ultra settings become standard.

Contradictory statements.

If PC were to get ultra PC-specific versions(meaning completely different development branches), you could say goodbye to high resolutions and framerates. If a title were to push the boundaries of graphics that only a high end graphics card could produce, you'd be limited to 1080p and low range framerates like 30fps.

So which do you want?

Not that this would ever happen, because higher end PC gamers are limited as much by midrange PC users as they are console gamers, but still, people seem to want to have their 4k and still complain that graphics aren't being pushed enough on PC titles, which just doesn't make sense.

Also, it's really getting old hearing about how PC gets 'poor ports'. For every bad PC version of a game, there is a console version of a game that is equally terrible compared to its PC counterpart. 19 times out of 20, the PC version of a multiplatform title is the definitive way to play it *purely* comparing graphics and performance and not even getting into all the other benefits of playing on PC.

Anyways, I'm with you in hoping that 4k/60fps at High/Ultra with Volta becomes a reality. Ideally, I'd like to see that with £350-500 cards and not just the flagship class GPU's. I'm kind of counting on it, personally. I'm skipping on 1440p for several reasons and would prefer to make the cleaner jump from 1080p to 2160p, but I'm also not a high end parts buyer, so I've got a lot of hope in Volta(or Navi).

 

[MichaelM]

we were talking about 3D for gaming, not TV, it's not quite the same thing. How many people do you know who have a 3D Kit?

I just remembered that I do, no idea where it is though

 

[Griffildur]

I just remembered that I do, no idea where it is though

awesome, that makes 4 of us thus far!

 

[AllBodies]

Hopefully AMD can get the power down for Vega or Greenland and give Volta a fair match. It is quite a worry when you see the 480 uses more than the 1070 and performs substantially worse.

Yeah, hoping HBM2 helps them a lot with that. The reduction in watts (or increase in perf/w) they managed going from the 290X to the Fury was very impressive.

As long as they can get within ~10% of Pascal's perf/w it should be all good.

 

[Gregster]

Yeah, hoping HBM2 helps them a lot with that. The reduction in watts (or increase in perf/w) they managed going from the 290X to the Fury was very impressive.

As long as they can get within ~10% of Pascal's perf/w it should be all good.

Agreed. I don't think HBM 2 is needed as of yet and we don't run bigger enough resolutions to justify it but that doesn't stop me wanting it

 

[Skribla]

Contradictory statements.

If PC were to get ultra PC-specific versions(meaning completely different development branches), you could say goodbye to high resolutions and framerates. If a title were to push the boundaries of graphics that only a high end graphics card could produce, you'd be limited to 1080p and low range framerates like 30fps.

So which do you want?

Not that this would ever happen, because higher end PC gamers are limited as much by midrange PC users as they are console gamers, but still, people seem to want to have their 4k and still complain that graphics aren't being pushed enough on PC titles, which just doesn't make sense.

Also, it's really getting old hearing about how PC gets 'poor ports'. For every bad PC version of a game, there is a console version of a game that is equally terrible compared to its PC counterpart. 19 times out of 20, the PC version of a multiplatform title is the definitive way to play it *purely* comparing graphics and performance and not even getting into all the other benefits of playing on PC.

You can't truly believe this you think higher res/higher res textures/aa modes and unlocked frame rate is enough to make it the definitive way to play when a high end PC has like 10x the performance? We have been getting a lot of poor console ports for a good while now you only have to look at games like the Witcher 3 and Watchdogs and look at trailers before and after E3 and ask why have these games become so graphically inferior to what was first shown? The reason is consoles, Jeez even devs these days cant be bothered to port games to PC themselves these days as you see a lot of PC ports being outsourced.

It also wouldn't mean having a different development branch to make a Ultra PC version you would simply start with the PC Ultra version then dial down the effects/settings to suit the lower level hardware/consoles, this type of mentality is exactly what is wrong currently. We seem to have console version being the base version which then makes it more costly to add these effects afterwards which is why we don't see more polys/geometry/lighting effects/draw calls etc etc on the PC version due to this reason as Devs simply don't have the time.

Its a shame to see statements like this on a PC hardware enthusiasts forum your logic that a Mid range PC is holding back High end PC when the performance of a Mid range PC to begin with is at minimum over twice the power of current consoles is a bit mystifying. We also now have a new API to exceed that gap even further so realistically we should be seeing drastic differences between a console game and a PC game based on performance visually and not just going from 30fps to 150fps, to me I would rather sacrifice fps for more visual fidelity than have slightly better console graphics at higher than necessary fps.

 

[AllBodies]

Agreed. I don't think HBM 2 is needed as of yet and we don't run bigger enough resolutions to justify it but that doesn't stop me wanting it

Yeah, I agree in terms of the bandwidth being not needed yet, but AMD do certainly need it for the power reduction.

Also it may turn out good for something, like maybe running 2560x1440 at 4K VSR with not much performance hit.