• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

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

They were on Tom's site so almost certainly genuine

This leak has made a total farce of the launch date :D

All we need to know to complete the picture is how likely they are to overclock, then the real calls of kepler fail can begin when it becomes clear it has almost no headroom due to it's factory overclock to match the 7970.
 
It doesn't matter if it's a rebranded mid range part. On release it will be their most expensive, most advanced GPU, priced accordingly to compete with the 7970.

Thus it's their high end part regardless of whether it's been rebranded or whatever. By the time the full Kepler comes out AMD will also have a faster part out.

My point was, Nvidia were openly saying they were disappointed by the 7970, but it's not that much if at all faster at higher resolution.
 
I am still rathered surprised compute performance seems to be worse than a GTX580 overall!! I wonder how well the GTX680 will do in Civilization V against the GTX580??

I can see this card being rebranded as a GTX760 or GTX770 when the GK110 is launched. Kepler seems to have started on solid ground.
 
rare said:
It doesn't matter if it's a rebranded mid range part. On release it will be their most expensive, most advanced GPU, priced accordingly to compete with the 7970.

Thus it's their high end part regardless of whether it's been rebranded or whatever. By the time the full Kepler comes out AMD will also have a faster part out.

My point was, Nvidia were openly saying they were disappointed by the 7970, but it's not that much if at all faster at higher resolution.
Click to expand...

Except it does.
That disappointment of the 7970 is what led to the 680 as we see it, so yes, while it's not much better at 2560x whatever, it's disappointing as hell given its priced like it was the full fat part.
You're right in that we judge it as is, which is the high end part, the fact it's a rebrand obviously matters.
 
Duff-Man said:
Agreed...

The underwhelming performance of the 7970 has allowed Nvidia to market their mid-range card as high-end, with a pricetag to match.

If the 7970 had performed 20-25% faster than it does (as most expected it to given the dramatic process shrink from 40nm to 28nm), Nvidia would have found themselves in a very difficult position - they would have been in the uncomfortable position (again!) of having no high-end competitor to the 7970 for at least six months. The relatively disappointing performance of Tahiti has let them off the hook somewhat...

In this instance, I feel that Nvidia's gain is our (the consumer) loss.
Click to expand...

I thought the 7970 had allot of OC headroom?
 
ALXAndy said:
ThisThreadIsWorthlessWithoutPics.gif
Click to expand...

This thread has pics.
 
Duff-Man said:
Agreed...

The underwhelming performance of the 7970 has allowed Nvidia to market their mid-range card as high-end, with a pricetag to match.

If the 7970 had performed 20-25% faster than it does (as most expected it to given the dramatic process shrink from 40nm to 28nm), Nvidia would have found themselves in a very difficult position - they would have been in the uncomfortable position (again!) of having no high-end competitor to the 7970 for at least six months. The relatively disappointing performance of Tahiti has let them off the hook somewhat...

In this instance, I feel that Nvidia's gain is our (the consumer) loss.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think also we may now find both manufacturers building double chip cards before we see the best possible 28nm single chip cards released....I was sure when I saw Nvidia's stacked power connectors they are making space for something ;)
 
straxusii said:
Totally different situation, this is a die shrink where historically performance gains on previous gen have always been 50-70% with very few excetpions.
Click to expand...

That's my point. Essentially I was using the two 40nm generations as an example to illustrate how **** poor this generation is because despite a die shrink the performance increase from the last generation is smaller than the one from the 5000/400 to the 6000/500 and that was on the same process.

In other words: this is ridiculous.
 
gregster said:
I don't suppose any AMD fans want to shake hands and say we both have good cards?
Click to expand...

I will. I'm happy.

I needed a card for 1080p that could do 3D. At the time there was really no option to do it with Nvidia so I went with AMD and a LG monitor. Job done, very happy, games are amazing.

I would say 3D performance (not that it will ever be compared) will once again be very similar between the two cards. What I mean is that the technologies are similar with no clear winner, so using a 680 with 3dvision compared to a 7970 with cheaper passive 3d ($149 for the monitor glasses and software all ready to go).

So to me? the Nvidia option, even if the card costs less than the 7970 would have been horribly more expensive :)

I just guess it depends on personality. I think Nvidia could have done this differently, but the end product is what counts and I doff my cap to them as it's clearly a very impressive card :)
 
This is not good...so what we are going to have to pay GTX680 money for a rebadged GTX660 (which could have been priced at £200~£250), just because it is faster than 7970 by a bit? This sucks big time.

While Nvidia is a jerk for doing this...AMD's high price average performance for new gen cards and picking fight with last gen cards is also to blame for this to happen. If AMD had ANY sense and pricde 7950 at £250 and 7970 at £350, this would not have happened.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom