Associate
-
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?
- Thread starter dave_beast
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It looks like mostly bad news if you really think about it.
Shader count on its own means not a huge amount(if the info is correct, its VR zone, which is mostly news by Theo the dope, who posts almost entirely useless info, same Nvidiot who posts on, I forget if its BSNews or Fud, thinkt he former), 768 "fat" shaders or 1536 "thin" shaders. People are confusing double shaders for hotclocks being the trade off, it isn't. It will be more instructions per clock essentially or less and hotclocks, these are two seperate things.
So this card is just 1536 shaders instead of 768, that isn't a huge deal, the only issue being more shaders, more difficult scheduling and almost always a drop in efficiency(not necessarily huge). 768 or 1536, different designs, would end up not far off each other either way, you're talking about a card with 50% more shaders(effectively either way) than a 580gtx, that isn't bad at all its where you would expect, as the 560ti had roughly 50% more shaders than the 285gtx.
However, if it still has hot clocks, and stock clocks have gone down dramatically.... despite a much better process that IS bad news, really bad news. But there would be two possibilities, Nvidia screwed up Kepler completely and yields/power are horrible and that is all they could release at. The other option is simply, stupid high memory speeds at stock because they have woefully inadequate bandwidth. If they are doing 6Ghz stock, it probably means Nvidia is using a lot of power getting every last mb of bandwidth out of the controller.... because its desperately bandwidth limited.
So either Kepler's clocks suck, or they've simply dropped them to where they save power but don't lose performance because of bandwidth limits. IE with 6Ghz memory, 800Mhz core clock would be pointless as due to lack of bandwidth you're getting effectively no more performance over 700Mhz, but voltage/power wise their only choice is to get the card as low power as possible.
That could mean way more performance is there, but with memory unlikely to go much further it might be pointless. Maybe they can hit 900-1000Mhz overclocked, but no bandwidth means ridiculously awful scaling.
Or again, the news is just wrong, but ridiculously low clocks looks like bad news just about which ever way you cut it.
Shader count on its own means not a huge amount(if the info is correct, its VR zone, which is mostly news by Theo the dope, who posts almost entirely useless info, same Nvidiot who posts on, I forget if its BSNews or Fud, thinkt he former), 768 "fat" shaders or 1536 "thin" shaders. People are confusing double shaders for hotclocks being the trade off, it isn't. It will be more instructions per clock essentially or less and hotclocks, these are two seperate things.
So this card is just 1536 shaders instead of 768, that isn't a huge deal, the only issue being more shaders, more difficult scheduling and almost always a drop in efficiency(not necessarily huge). 768 or 1536, different designs, would end up not far off each other either way, you're talking about a card with 50% more shaders(effectively either way) than a 580gtx, that isn't bad at all its where you would expect, as the 560ti had roughly 50% more shaders than the 285gtx.
However, if it still has hot clocks, and stock clocks have gone down dramatically.... despite a much better process that IS bad news, really bad news. But there would be two possibilities, Nvidia screwed up Kepler completely and yields/power are horrible and that is all they could release at. The other option is simply, stupid high memory speeds at stock because they have woefully inadequate bandwidth. If they are doing 6Ghz stock, it probably means Nvidia is using a lot of power getting every last mb of bandwidth out of the controller.... because its desperately bandwidth limited.
So either Kepler's clocks suck, or they've simply dropped them to where they save power but don't lose performance because of bandwidth limits. IE with 6Ghz memory, 800Mhz core clock would be pointless as due to lack of bandwidth you're getting effectively no more performance over 700Mhz, but voltage/power wise their only choice is to get the card as low power as possible.
That could mean way more performance is there, but with memory unlikely to go much further it might be pointless. Maybe they can hit 900-1000Mhz overclocked, but no bandwidth means ridiculously awful scaling.
Or again, the news is just wrong, but ridiculously low clocks looks like bad news just about which ever way you cut it.
Would it?
If that happens then Nvidia are just as bad as AMD with all these paper launches.
I expect confirmation of the product and specs on the 12th but with benchmarks and availability on the 23rd
Soldato
Lol yeah cos a paper launch that adds an extra week onto the months we've been waiting for Kepler would be terrible..
AMD have actually got cards out
Soldato
Surely the real issue is that Kepler is months behind, can't you see a weeks paper launch makes no difference? Bizarre logic to critise AMD for a paper launch even though they have had cards out since January.
They released reviews etc a bit early becausce all the info was getting leaked. Im confused as to how you think that somehow it's a bad thing...
I hope Nividia lift the NDA early, so I can see benchies, we've been waiting AGES for Kepler.. an extra week with paper launch makes no difference, you just get the info early..
Caporegime
All of them??
Is it months behind?, Do you have a link to the release schedule for Kepler?
Caporegime
Really
7970 launch date 22nd December availability January 9th
7770 launch date 15th February availability February 22nd
7870 launch date 5th March availability 19th March
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,381
they are obviously talking manufacturing of chips dates - Fermi is on there as being 2009, but actual fermi cards weren't release till April 2010
they started making kepler chips late last year and that is on par with Fermi to have actual cards released early in 2012
Caporegime
??
So basically all the HD7000 series cards have been launched before even the first Kepler card has been launched.
All three cards will be available in retail before Kepler is also available(it does seem that way ATM but I could be wrong). All news indicates Kepler may enter retail availability late this month.It could be a paper launch,hard launch or a hard launch with extremely limited availability. None of us know for sure and I have been posting whatever info I can find for yonks now,as I also want to know how well Kepler performs. So until Nvidia has released Kepler cards to retail I see no reason to comment on what AMD has done either.
However,that is wholly dependent if next week is actually a launch event,or just a pre-launch event for the press.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Yep I wont argue with that at all, but if anybody is like me they read and see what they want to read and see....Hence my first sight see's Kepler firmly planted above 2011, so no need to read anything. My research here is done because I am lazy and CBA to read it lol.
If that makes sense?
In a nutshell picures are better for me and crayons also
Soldato
I'm in agreement DM. That clock speed does look disappointing, especially as Nvidia's stock clocks are usually higher relative to what their cores are capable of. They usually scale well though but I guess wouldn't if the memory is at it's limit already.
Also, as Boomstick says, it's irrelevant what it's called as they'll just price to where it sits relative to the performance of the AMD cards anyway. You lot need to get it in your heads that neither of these companies are charities, and they're competing quite aggressively against each other.
Also, as Boomstick says, it's irrelevant what it's called as they'll just price to where it sits relative to the performance of the AMD cards anyway. You lot need to get it in your heads that neither of these companies are charities, and they're competing quite aggressively against each other.
The problem is that in a departure from previous practices this generation of cards seems to have been priced directly relative to the performance of the last.
What matters is not when Kepler is released, but rather how well it performs and a what price once it arrives.
7x00's are not selling well becase of AMD's fantasy pricing, so NVidia have probably not lost too many sales so far. What is most likely is that people are sitting on the fence, waiting for the 7900's to drop, or for whatever Kepler brings. The 7900's are good cards but cost 50% above last gen's launch prices. The 7700's are too expensive and frankly offer disappointing performance when compared to previous gen equivelents. The 7800's offer very decent performance versus the 6800's, but they are also overpriced. The best value 7x00 card so far is the 7850 which is not even on the shelves yet.
If the launch of Kepler GF104 provides GTX580 to 7970 performace at a much lower pricepoint, NVidia will be on to a winner. The rumoured price of $299 (~£250) will be much more tempting to most people than a 7900 @ £350 to £450 or old GTX580's @ £340.
If however NVidia do an AMD and release GTX580/7900 performance at 580/7900 prices then it will be another own goal. Most people will not spend >£350 on a graphics card that will not even be the top Kepler part. My guess is that the launch price will be pretty close to rumours @ £250-£275 for better than GTX580 performance. Maybe it will even put up a fight against the 7970 for significantly less money.
The only high-end cards I would consider buying before Kepler arrives are 6950's or the GTX480 specials for £185. I cannot see these dropping much in value, but the 7900's and GTX500's will almost surely plummit.
7x00's are not selling well becase of AMD's fantasy pricing, so NVidia have probably not lost too many sales so far. What is most likely is that people are sitting on the fence, waiting for the 7900's to drop, or for whatever Kepler brings. The 7900's are good cards but cost 50% above last gen's launch prices. The 7700's are too expensive and frankly offer disappointing performance when compared to previous gen equivelents. The 7800's offer very decent performance versus the 6800's, but they are also overpriced. The best value 7x00 card so far is the 7850 which is not even on the shelves yet.
If the launch of Kepler GF104 provides GTX580 to 7970 performace at a much lower pricepoint, NVidia will be on to a winner. The rumoured price of $299 (~£250) will be much more tempting to most people than a 7900 @ £350 to £450 or old GTX580's @ £340.
If however NVidia do an AMD and release GTX580/7900 performance at 580/7900 prices then it will be another own goal. Most people will not spend >£350 on a graphics card that will not even be the top Kepler part. My guess is that the launch price will be pretty close to rumours @ £250-£275 for better than GTX580 performance. Maybe it will even put up a fight against the 7970 for significantly less money.
The only high-end cards I would consider buying before Kepler arrives are 6950's or the GTX480 specials for £185. I cannot see these dropping much in value, but the 7900's and GTX500's will almost surely plummit.
Last edited:
Soldato
One minute we're getting a 680, then we're not. One minute one card is coming, then it's two. Now it seems to be one again 
It seems they're definitely in two minds about what exactly they are going to be marketing. One minute it beats a 7950 and not a 7970 and is going to be called a 670ti, next minute it's a 680 again with no info whatsoever.
I can only imagine that last minute tweaks and adjustments have landed it at what they consider to be 680 levels.
Also, we need to take into account that 680 pretty much means replacement part for the 580. So it should therefore be somewhat assumed that it should offer the performance jump over the 580 that the 7970 offered over the 6970?
In which case it should just about be in front of the 7970 by about 15%.
It seems they're definitely in two minds about what exactly they are going to be marketing. One minute it beats a 7950 and not a 7970 and is going to be called a 670ti, next minute it's a 680 again with no info whatsoever.
I can only imagine that last minute tweaks and adjustments have landed it at what they consider to be 680 levels.
Also, we need to take into account that 680 pretty much means replacement part for the 580. So it should therefore be somewhat assumed that it should offer the performance jump over the 580 that the 7970 offered over the 6970?
In which case it should just about be in front of the 7970 by about 15%.
And this has got what to do with my point exactly?
the original point made was that if on the 12th Nvidia launch the card with full benchmarks reviews etc but it’s not available to buy until the 23rd then they are just as bad as AMD as I personally hate paper launches.
I asked
To which you answered
Which is untrue as all of the 7 series cards have been announced with availability coming latter, IE a paper launch.
Ahh that one, I thought he had seen something recently
Soldato
me, myself and ireane after he has his nose fixed and wakes up in the car with whitey and ireane..
Well done that man.