The first "proper" Kepler news Fri 17th Feb?

Flashheart · 17 Mar 2012 at 17:36

That graph just made me giggle and more importantly spill my beer. please dont do that again.

zpaf · 17 Mar 2012 at 17:41

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Some noise about the performance of the GTX680:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...orce-GTX-780&p=5070158&viewfull=1#post5070158

"GTX 680 29fps in Heaven Benchmark in Surround.
HD 7970 22fps in Eyefinity.
GTX 590 27fps in Surround."

Possible hint about overclocking performance:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...orce-GTX-780&p=5070172&viewfull=1#post5070172

There has been a previous rumour about the GTX680 hitting 1.4GHZ IIRC.

Having said that I had another thought. Why didn't AMD have a Turbo Boost like function for the HD7900 series?? In fact they already do this for one of their CPUs,ie, the E450 which has a similar function for the IGP.

Edit!!

The GTX680 is now the surround MASTER.

29fps but only on one monitor.

The new 3D Vision Surround is said to work in conjunction with Adaptive V-Sync to ensure the center display has higher frame-rate (since it's at the focus of your central vision), at the expense of the frame-rates of the two side displays (since they're mostly at your peripheral vision).
http://www.techpowerup.com/162504/N...-Sync-and-New-3DVision-Surround-Detailed.html

ALXAndy · 17 Mar 2012 at 17:45

Oh goody more skewing lmao.

I'll behave this time

[WU-TANG]GZA · 17 Mar 2012 at 17:45

Sin_Chase said:
Same/little better/little worse performance from the 680 and a similar price? Yeah, I'll take the green offering personally - it does not have to out and out beat a 7970 for me to buy it.

Can I ask why you would buy an inferior card (if it turns out to be inferior ofc) for the same price? Seems a bit dumb to me

flopper · 17 Mar 2012 at 17:50

Dr Who is needed...

RanxZy · 17 Mar 2012 at 17:53

[WU-TANG]GZA;21494294 said:
Can I ask why you would buy an inferior card (if it turns out to be inferior ofc) for the same price? Seems a bit dumb to me

Some people might want to stick with the brand they prefer for various reasons. I would probaby never go red again as I had many driver problems when I tried them.

[WU-TANG]GZA · 17 Mar 2012 at 17:54

RanxZy said:
Some people might want to stick with the brand they prefer for various reasons. I would probaby never go red again as I had many driver problems when I tried them.

Drivers....standard. We'll leave it there.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 17 Mar 2012 at 17:55

zpaf said:
29fps but only on one monitor.

The new 3D Vision Surround is said to work in conjunction with Adaptive V-Sync to ensure the center display has higher frame-rate (since it's at the focus of your central vision), at the expense of the frame-rates of the two side displays (since they're mostly at your peripheral vision).
http://www.techpowerup.com/162504/N...-Sync-and-New-3DVision-Surround-Detailed.html

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It seems Nvidia surround boosts the framerates for the central monitor,and reduces the framerates to the periphery monitors. Supposedly the explanation is because peripheral vision is worse and it won't be noticed.

Duff-Man · 17 Mar 2012 at 17:55

zpaf said:
The new 3D Vision Surround is said to work in conjunction with Adaptive V-Sync to ensure the center display has higher frame-rate (since it's at the focus of your central vision), at the expense of the frame-rates of the two side displays (since they're mostly at your peripheral vision).
http://www.techpowerup.com/162504/N...-Sync-and-New-3DVision-Surround-Detailed.html

Now that would be interesting...

I'd like to see more of this kind of focus on multi-screen gaming. Personally I'd love to see adaptive resolution options; running 2560*1600 on my central screen, and 1280*800 on the side panels would be perfect. Would probably be very difficult to implement in practice though, certainly at driver-level.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 17 Mar 2012 at 17:59

Page 69.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It seems Nvidia surround boosts the framerates for the central monitor,and reduces the framerates to the periphery monitors. Supposedly the explanation is because peripheral vision is worse and it won't be noticed.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
TPU has details:

http://www.techpowerup.com/162504/N...-Sync-and-New-3DVision-Surround-Detailed.html

As xsistor mentioned hopefully it can be switched off,as I think it might not be OK for all games. Certainly for driving games it does seem quite useful.

It will be interesting how websites like HardOCP will test this, as the latter do tend to also test games with multi-monitor setups frequently.

This thread is starting to go in circles with even the rumours now!!

spankingtexan · 17 Mar 2012 at 18:07

More on 4gb version.

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=191021&st=1200

spankingtexan · 17 Mar 2012 at 18:17

Really does look like there will be a 4gb version.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-...r-dynamic-clocking-2-and-4gb-gddr5/15148.html

Gregster · 17 Mar 2012 at 19:16

I wonder if it would work with 3 3D monitors?

Gregster · 17 Mar 2012 at 19:29

[WU-TANG]GZA;21494294 said:
Can I ask why you would buy an inferior card (if it turns out to be inferior ofc) for the same price? Seems a bit dumb to me

What if it isn't inferior and is better, even when both are overclocked? Still dumb?

southpark · 17 Mar 2012 at 19:30

I was hoping that gk110 would be 40-20% faster then 7970. That would allow a smooth framerate throughout heavy games such as metro 2033 and crisis. Unfortunately, what we have got is gk 104-mid range cards for a very high price. I want to play bf3, metro maxed out at 1200p. My 570 does handle games very well but i feel like i need more horsepower. I was planning to sell my 570 and buy 670 but is it worth doing?

Thanks,

555BUK · 17 Mar 2012 at 19:48

It seems that clock for clock GK104 and the 7970 are pretty much equal becasue the extra 8% default clock speed gives it about an 8% advantage. That's pretty amazing considering GK104 has half of the memory bandwidth and 10-15% less transistors. According to most leaks it also runs cooler and consumes less power. I think AMD must be pretty worried right now, and they must be praying that GK104 doesn't come in at a bargain price or overclock very well. NVidia's production cost for this card must be significantly lower than AMD's. 256bit vs 384bit memory bus, 2GB vs 3GB GDDR5 and smaller die vs bigger die are all lower costs wins for the green team.

Martini1991 · 17 Mar 2012 at 19:50

Only way Nvidia would have worried AMD with this launch if they'd launched it as their 660 and released their 680 properly. Not this "Lets rebrand our mid range"

[WU-TANG]GZA · 17 Mar 2012 at 19:51

gregster said:
What if it isn't inferior and is better, even when both are overclocked? Still dumb?

That wasn't what I asked though, was it?

555BUK · 17 Mar 2012 at 19:59

Martini1991 said:
Only way Nvidia would have worried AMD with this launch if they'd launched it as their 660 and released their 680 properly. Not this "Lets rebrand our mid range"

Alternatively. if the 7970 performed as well as it should have, NVidia would not have been able to give it's mainstream part a top end name. This card should be fighting the 7870, but instead it matches AMD's current top part. NVidia can call it whatever they want, but we all know it is the new GTX560.

Gregster · 17 Mar 2012 at 20:04

[WU-TANG]GZA;21495071 said:
That wasn't what I asked though, was it?

Sorry, I was just asking if it isn't inferior, would it still be dumb?

My point being, the benches I have seen (maybe untrue) put the 680 in the lead. This is why I asked you that.