• 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?

Rroff said:
Current cards use pagefile.sys when they run out of VRAM? don't think you'll find thats true unless your physical RAM is also all used up (atleast on none of my nVidia cards thats true I know for a fact).
Click to expand...

I did some reading on it recently and apparently games can only use so much physical memory.

Let's say you are running a 32 bit game, as most are.

There is a total of 3.5gb or so allocated in total for everything. A game knows this, so will leave a portion of that memory for Windows to use. Thus, most games only use around 2gb of memory as that is all they can get away with. Making 8gb of ram for gaming a bit of a waste of time.

Due to that when the game needs to load in textures if they exceed the size of the ram that it is coded to see and use it will then move onto your paging file which is stored on the hard drive.

Well, it will actually do what the graphics driver tells it to, which I am pretty certain on the 400 and 500 series Nvidias is to use the paging file.

I know that when I had my 470 in my PC it did not eat into my physical ram. I *think* my 280 did but I am absolutely certain that my 9800GT did. A lump of ram was missing in device manager.
 
Borsch said:
But surely we have the same kind of competition here- Intel vs AMD = Nvidia vs AMD, so why are we seeing prices go up? Did it only occur to competitors recently that they can collude and price fix?
Click to expand...

To be fair we are not seeing the prices go up ! That's another part people seem to be ignoring. This

ultra.jpg


Pretty much says it all. Here we are eight years later and a high end GPU costs around the same. That's not bad going seeing as both companies have managed to grow substantially since then !
 
Ahhh okay that's what you mean! Thanks for clarifying :) But this is what my GTX 480 already does and I think it causes my little stuttering in BF3 @ 2560x1440 when I use certain high settings. So ehm... I'd still rather get a 4GB version over a 2GB version :)
 
I will repeat my last two posts to keep the thread on track then.

Anyone know Japanese:

http://www.4gamer.net/games/120/G012093/20120306077/

I wonder if Nvidia is using something similar to HT with Kepler??

It might explain why driver optimisations are supposed to be important.

Here is the relevant part translated(badly) by Google Translate:

"Our users, from conventional products by improving performance "only" 1.5 times as much would not be satisfied. Details of Kepler is not clear, and performance per unit of power consumption is up significantly, it should also significantly improve the absolute performance compared with conventional products of the same price range. "

NVIDIA has been seen, from the end of 2011, has begun the publication of element technology adopted by the GPU in the future, some of which are to be adopted and in fact even Kepler.
When you place an example one, NVIDIA will have to introduce the approach in the technical conference of semiconductor-related was held at the end of 2011, in order to improve the efficiency of use of CUDA Core, to be able to handle more threads on each core was. It was spoken there, increase the number of threads (batch = a bundle of thread) "Warp" which is controlled by 32 thread in the current generation of products, by raising the utilization efficiency of the GPU combined with improvements in scheduling, such is the content, trying to balance the optimization and higher performance with low power consumption.

I think the details are want to tell once again the opportunity, as can be seen if Moraere Think of a Hyper-Threading "" of Intel "approach is NVIDIA, to be able to use threading to other free resources CUDA Core It is, and shall raise the processing performance per CUDA Core, be reduced so that the power consumption per performance "that (official NVIDIA).
In addition, officials close to NVIDIA, "in Kepler, and to improve the processing performance of the DirectCompute PhysX" but also said, If we take the approach NVIDIA officials say certainly, than the arithmetic processing graphics processing "light" is not assigned to the free resources of CUDA Core, a, would not be surprised as to improve the performance be measured.

In any case, future-based products than actually running at the venue of CeBIT 2012 thus, not so far, including the model for the desktop PC, details of Kepler is supposed to be clear. I would not have it be nice to see and finally went into the position for takeoff Kepler."
 
good idea, lets not get caught up in about how much stuff used to cost and worry about the currant cost of things.

as for the Japanese translation, nope it still doesn't make much sense even second time around :), you will have to be careful cat-the-fifth else people might think you actually talk like that :p (this is a joke and supposed to be funny so hopefully no one will take offense).

anyway hopefully on the 12th we will find out a bit more.
 
ALXAndy said:
The pound was stronger against the dollar then. Much stronger.
Click to expand...

it was about 1.8 vs the 1.6 it is now, so 525 / 1.8 = 291 plus VAT at 17.5% would have been 342, so the 525 dollars is still an inflated price

the 245 from OCUK would translate in to the equivalent of a US price of 441 dollars

if you allow 5% inflation which is way over what it actually has been in the UK in the last 10 years, you end up at 413 pounds, so 500 quid for the latest GPU is over over inflated
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
it was about 1.8 vs the 1.6 it is now, so 525 / 1.8 = 291 plus VAT at 17.5% would have been 342, so the 525 dollars is still an inflated price

the 245 from OCUK would translate in to the equivalent of a US price of 374 dollars
Click to expand...

What 245 price? Look a little closer. Then add the shipping.

You're looking at closer to £300.
 
He was taking the pre VAT price

but anyway are we not supposed to be moving on from that side of things. :)
 
ALXAndy said:
I did some reading on it recently and apparently games can only use so much physical memory.

Let's say you are running a 32 bit game, as most are.

There is a total of 3.5gb or so allocated in total for everything. A game knows this, so will leave a portion of that memory for Windows to use. Thus, most games only use around 2gb of memory as that is all they can get away with. Making 8gb of ram for gaming a bit of a waste of time.

Due to that when the game needs to load in textures if they exceed the size of the ram that it is coded to see and use it will then move onto your paging file which is stored on the hard drive.

Well, it will actually do what the graphics driver tells it to, which I am pretty certain on the 400 and 500 series Nvidias is to use the paging file.

I know that when I had my 470 in my PC it did not eat into my physical ram. I *think* my 280 did but I am absolutely certain that my 9800GT did. A lump of ram was missing in device manager.
Click to expand...

not forgetting that 32-bit games can use up to 4GB of RAM on a 64-bit OS if they use the large_array_aware tag or whatever it is
 
ALXAndy said:
What 245 price? Look a little closer. Then add the shipping.

You're looking at closer to £300.
Click to expand...

i realised that as soon as I posted and edited with the correct plus VAT prices, why would you take the delivered UK price and then use that to calculate the dollar price, when dollar pricing now is roughly equivalent to exvat and delivery UK prices?
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
i realised that as soon as I posted and edited with the correct plus VAT prices, why would you take the delivered UK price and then use that to calculate the dollar price, when dollar pricing now is roughly equivalent to exvat and delivery UK prices?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use it to calculate the dollar price. Card prices were being posted in dollars, so I posted a dollar price.

I paid £350 for a 32mb 3Dlabs Oxygen in 1998/9. Then I paid £150 each for two Voodoo 2 cards. At that time you could spend £1500 easy on a 3Dlabs wildcat.

My point is that people are crying about computer part prices when IMO they're the cheapest they have ever been. An equivalent GPU would have cost you what the 7970 does now ten years ago.

As has been mentioned monitors now cost peanuts. I paid $499 for a 19" Philips Lightframe CRT in 2003. It was huge then when most were still on 15".
 
That doesn't make much sense, the GK104 architecture should show very strong tessellation performance - even better than Fermi.
 
GPU prices are not any higher than they have been since the very first ones were released.

Stop being noobs.
 
ALXAndy said:
An equivalent GPU would have cost you what the 7970 does now ten years ago.
Click to expand...

Nope, see the 9700 PRO, 10 years ago.


gurusan said:
GPU prices are not any higher than they have been since the very first ones were released.
Click to expand...

GPU prices are higher today in real terms.

The 7 series is the highest at every price point compared to many previous ATI launches

5870 - £300
5850 - £200
9700 PRO - £275 (£357 adjusting for inflation in today's money, extra 5% VAT and weaker USD exchange rate in 2002 roughly cancel out)
4870 - £220
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom