• 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?

straxusii said:
+1, the only thing I felt when I saw the 680 was 195W was disappointment
Click to expand...

Nvidia's power ratings change card to card, it means nothing. 480gtx 250W tdp, 250W+ in games, 300W in occt. 580gtx 244W, around 200W in games, over 300W in occt/furmark. 7950 250W max board power WITH powertune at +20%, can use that in furmark, average gaming power 160-170W, peak gaming, 190W-ish. 7950 200W max board power, circa 125W average gaming power.

560ti, 170W tdp, circa 150W average gaming power.

195W for the 680gtx could be anything from at a guess, 180W average gaming power MINIMUM to.... 225W, Nvidia lie a lot when they want to on these things.
 
GTX680 is about 50% quicker in games than the HD 7970 and will come in at £300 Inc VAT. Barman from my local told me, so the speculation can end here folks :D
 
Hyperthetically, if GK104 is slighly faster than Tahati (quite likely because NV will tailor the clocks to be so), and if GK104 is slightly chesper (probable), AMD will counter with a faster clocked Tahiti (probably named 7980) which will replace the 7970. 7970 prices will then fall and may actually become the price they should have been at launch ~£350. This could cause NV to cut GK104, and the price war begins:).

I am stil hopeful that GK104 will be launched at £300 (let's face it, it was designed to be a sub £300 part), but my hopes are becoming smaller and smaller.

Either way, competition will see prices fall.
 
Just came across this chart, look genuine to me.

Zy3Cm.jpg
 
I think people have become bored from lack of true kepler performance info, hence they have started creating 'imaginable performance charts' from the back of their banana asses :D
 
drunkenmaster said:
Nvidia's power ratings change card to card, it means nothing.
Click to expand...

I don't agree it means nothing DM, what it felt like to me was at the very least Nvidia had a lot more headroom for the 680 that they have ended up not using. Now of course there could be other limits they have hit that means they can't add more die size but I doubt it.
 
straxusii said:
I don't agree it means nothing DM, what it felt like to me was at the very least Nvidia had a lot more headroom for the 680 that they have ended up not using. Now of course there could be other limits they have hit that means they can't add more die size but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

UNlikely to be a lot of headroom, if it is 300mm2 +/- 10mm2, there is really only so much power it can use. The 580gtx/480gtx used a lot more than that because it was a 530mm2 core. With GK110 coming... eventually... the architecture/design will have that in mind. If gk110 is designed for circa 300W running, then a core that is 40% smaller really should use roughly 40% less power.

But either way it only means nothing in as much as.... 195W could be absolute max power under any circumstances, it might be a lie and average gaming power could be 30W higher than that... it could be anything, hence it means nothing.

If Nvidia rated every card in the same way then you could predict what a 195W rating meant.


PS the chart has me beating JHH, therefore I declare it completely accurate ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom