NVIDIA Volta with GDDR6 in early 2018?

AthlonXP1800 · 13 Sep 2017 at 06:39

I noticed Techpowerup added Volta Titan Xv to GPU database.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/3008/titan-xv

Volta Titan Xv GV102 will have 80 SMs with 5120 CUDA cores, 320 TMUs and 128 ROPs but has 12GB GDDR5X? Probably typo or data not full accurate so GV102 could use 12GB GDDR6.

It possible Nvidia could launch Volta Titan Xv by end of 2017.

TNA · 13 Sep 2017 at 06:43

AthlonXP1800 said:
It possible Nvidia could launch Volta Titan Xv by end of 2017.

Possible, yes. Probable, no.

Also there is a relative performance chart there, if that turns out to be true that would be more disappointing to me then Vega was.

KNiVES · 13 Sep 2017 at 08:14

Rroff said:
Vomit nonsense LOL... what is it with people. Maybe spend awhile reading the monitor forum or something - 4K isn't for everyone.

You are literally arguing that some people find 4k worse than 1440p

Might as well say that 1080p is worse than 720p while you're at it mate

Perfect_Chaos · 13 Sep 2017 at 08:15

If that's even close to true then i will be keeping my 1080Ti for a long time.

TNA · 13 Sep 2017 at 08:21

Perfect_Chaos said:
If that's even close to true then i will be keeping my 1080Ti for a long time.

It is likely completely wrong. If true then Nvidia would be taking the biscuit imo. At least with Vega it is the best AMD could do with little money they had, but Nvidia brining such small increase to the table would mean they are truly taking the **** and taking milking to the next level with the absence of competition.

opethdisciple · 13 Sep 2017 at 11:27

If there was something approaching in the pipeline, we would have heard about it.

TNA · 13 Sep 2017 at 13:56

opethdisciple said:
If there was something approaching in the pipeline, we would have heard about it.

You mean like the way we heard about the Titan Xp?

Kaapstad · 13 Sep 2017 at 14:22

TNA said:
You mean like the way we heard about the Titan Xp?

I was very impressed by the way the Titan Xp managed to get past all the clickbait and rumour mill sites.

How could they miss the fastest gaming GPU product launch lol.

silversurfer · 13 Sep 2017 at 14:31

JediFragger said:
mGPU is pretty much dead in the water atm imo. Shame, had a good run.

The opposite should be true if parallel processing is driving their industrial applications. Its more the fault of software, still bound to orbit round 1 or 2 threads makes many ideas less effective

Addicted · 13 Sep 2017 at 14:35

Just seen this after ordering a 1080 Ti, should I cancel and wait?

Damnit lol.

andybird123 · 13 Sep 2017 at 14:54

KNiVES said:
You are literally arguing that some people find 4k worse than 1440p

Might as well say that 1080p is worse than 720p while you're at it mate

No, he's arguing that because of features other than purely resolution people are buying 1440p over 4k (and at least partly because GPU's cant drive 4k at the same refresh rates and in game settings)

A good 1440p panel may well be better than a poor 4k panel, it depends what you are using it for and what type of panel it is

What you're doing is called a strawman argument.

Rroff · 13 Sep 2017 at 15:18

KNiVES said:
You are literally arguing that some people find 4k worse than 1440p

Might as well say that 1080p is worse than 720p while you're at it mate

This isn't like going from 720p video to 1080p video - when people went from resolutions like 1280x1024, 1680x1050, etc. to 1920x resolutions it was almost entirely used on the desktop to increase available screen estate so you could see more of the content of a web page, etc. or run more applications side by side at 4K that is a less straight forward story.

Most people would prefer 4K in a video context i.e. on a TV and probably console gaming but on a Windows desktop its another matter.

benjii · 13 Sep 2017 at 15:30

andybird123 said:
No, he's arguing that because of features other than purely resolution people are buying 1440p over 4k (and at least partly because GPU's cant drive 4k at the same refresh rates and in game settings)

A good 1440p panel may well be better than a poor 4k panel, it depends what you are using it for and what type of panel it is

What you're doing is called a strawman argument.

Exactly this. I picked 1440p over 4k because my PC is a gaming rig and I don't feel 4k is yet ready for gaming on a single GPU.

Gregster · 13 Sep 2017 at 16:08

andybird123 said:
No, he's arguing that because of features other than purely resolution people are buying 1440p over 4k (and at least partly because GPU's cant drive 4k at the same refresh rates and in game settings)

A good 1440p panel may well be better than a poor 4k panel, it depends what you are using it for and what type of panel it is

What you're doing is called a strawman argument.

This.

I had a 4K monitor and it looked lush but swapped it out for 144Hz 1440P. 60Hz is painful to me now.

D.P. · 13 Sep 2017 at 16:43

silversurfer said:
The opposite should be true if parallel processing is driving their industrial applications. Its more the fault of software, still bound to orbit round 1 or 2 threads makes many ideas less effective

Within the HPC market, there are no such limitations through CUDA.

Multi-GPU for gaming is not limited by CPU threads, it is limited by the complexities of game engines, rendering design choices, data referencing etc.

AthlonXP1800 · 13 Sep 2017 at 20:45

TNA said:
Possible, yes. Probable, no.

Also there is a relative performance chart there, if that turns out to be true that would be more disappointing to me then Vega was.

Well Techpowerup edited page now showed Titan Xv 24% faster than 1080 Ti in relative performance chart, I think when it get closer to launch date and Techpowerup will edit again to show Volta Titan Xv probably around 27-30% faster than Pascal 1080 Ti with similar performance jump from Maxwell to Pascal saw Titan X Pascal 26% faster than GTX 980 Ti Maxwell. Also Techpowerup updated Volta Titan Xv base clock 1000MHz and 1300MHz boost last time to 1367MHz base clock and 1466MHz boost clock.

So look good. Poor Vega.

TNA · 13 Sep 2017 at 20:52

AthlonXP1800 said:
Well Techpowerup edited page now showed Titan Xv 24% faster than 1080 Ti in relative performance chart, I think when it get closer to launch date and Techpowerup will edit again to show Volta Titan Xv probably around 27-30% faster than Pascal 1080 Ti with similar performance jump from Maxwell to Pascal saw Titan X Pascal 26% faster than GTX 980 Ti Maxwell. Also Techpowerup updated Volta Titan Xv base clock 1000MHz and 1300MHz boost last time to 1367MHz base clock and 1466MHz boost clock.

So look good. Poor Vega.

Nice.

Thinking of buying one also?

Rroff · 13 Sep 2017 at 20:55

Gregster said:
This.

I had a 4K monitor and it looked lush but swapped it out for 144Hz 1440P. 60Hz is painful to me now.

There are two different aspects to it - whether people would choose one resolution over the other all other factors equal and whether some would choose one resolution over the other due to things like refresh rate and the performance requirements. Both of what tend to be a mixed story right now.

One thing people seem to be missing time and time again with 4K type resolutions though. On something like a TV especially if you have high resolution media to go with it there is very little reason to hold yourself back and stick with say 1080p its a straight up resolution increase with little other complexities. On a desktop PC though there are more complexities. Traditionally increases in resolution as well as making games look nicer also gave you more useful real estate to play with - you could have more UI elements on screen in games, run applications side by side on the desktop, see more on a web page, etc. at 4K that is often less of a benefit and people generally start using the extra pixels to increase the density of rendered elements while still proportionally take up the same amount of space on screen - which will split its appeal depending on what people use an OS for.

TNA · 13 Sep 2017 at 21:14

Rroff said:
There are two different aspects to it - whether people would choose one resolution over the other all other factors equal and whether some would choose one resolution over the other due to things like refresh rate and the performance requirements. Both of what tend to be a mixed story right now.

One thing people seem to be missing time and time again with 4K type resolutions though. On something like a TV especially if you have high resolution media to go with it there is very little reason to hold yourself back and stick with say 1080p its a straight up resolution increase with little other complexities. On a desktop PC though there are more complexities. Traditionally increases in resolution as well as making games look nicer also gave you more useful real estate to play with - you could have more UI elements on screen in games, run applications side by side on the desktop, see more on a web page, etc. at 4K that is often less of a benefit and people generally start using the extra pixels to increase the density of rendered elements while still proportionally take up the same amount of space on screen - which will split its appeal depending on what people use an OS for.

I choose it as I like to game and like better graphics. 4K gives me this. Even with games that do not have the 4K textures things still look much sharper and nicer. When I had my Dell P2715Q and compared it to a Asus MG279Q I had just purchased side by side, the difference was clear as day and night to me. All that extra PPI just made everything so much sharper and more crisp. Could not go back to 1440p after seeing that, even for 144hz or whatever.

Granted there are UI issues, but with the last major windows 10 update things improved quite a bit in regards to scaling. Still not perfect, but most things I use work perfectly so I am happy

Rroff · 13 Sep 2017 at 21:57

TNA said:
I choose it as I like to game and like better graphics. 4K gives me this. Even with games that do not have the 4K textures things still look much sharper and nicer. When I had my Dell P2715Q and compared it to a Asus MG279Q I had just purchased side by side, the difference was clear as day and night to me. All that extra PPI just made everything so much sharper and more crisp. Could not go back to 1440p after seeing that, even for 144hz or whatever.

Granted there are UI issues, but with the last major windows 10 update things improved quite a bit in regards to scaling. Still not perfect, but most things I use work perfectly so I am happy

End of the day everyone has different uses and requirements - I've a 4K monitor but rarely use it outside of watching high res video, some racing games and stuff like that were I'm using a controller and alongside one of my other screens if I'm working from say a big library or album for something where its useful to have that much screen estate so you can see a lot of stuff at a glance to drag it to the other screen you are working on.

A lot of stuff I do I'm working at a per pixel level and 4K actually ain't that great - 2560x1440 is perfect for that kind of productivity work - partly but not entirely because a lot of (especially legacy) applications were designed before the days of these kind of resolutions.