** The Official Nvidia GeForce 'Pascal' Thread - for general gossip and discussions **

[Jono8]

Tbh I'm expecting nVidia just to move the performance up one notch give or take (1060=970, 1070=980 etc). I don't think they're gonna get much competition from AMD which will allow them to do this.

Hope I'm wrong!!

I think you will be. Nvidia would miss out on a huge share of the market, which is people with 960's,970's and 980's upgrading. No one would bother.

Who would bother upgrading from a 970 to a 1070 if it only netted them a 15% performance jump? Also, if the 1080 is only 980Ti performance for a similar price (which is what it would be in your prediction), there is no point releasing it as those who were going to buy 980Ti performance for that price will have done so by now.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

I think you will be. Nvidia would miss out on a huge share of the market, which is people with 960's,970's and 980's upgrading. No one would bother.

AMDs going to miss out on that market, as their Polaris is only 390 performance.

 

[Hedge]

Just remember that games dictate the desire to upgrade and there are no games that are gonna be any better looking than Witcher 3 for years.

Developers can't afford to isolate half the market by making super high end games.

Nothing really that exciting about playing 2yr old games again just to get 60fps.

We need games like uncharted to come pc way.

 

[ICDP]

I think you will be. Nvidia would miss out on a huge share of the market, which is people with 960's,970's and 980's upgrading. No one would bother.

Who would bother upgrading from a 970 to a 1070 if it only netted them a 15% performance jump? Also, if the 1080 is only 980Ti performance for a similar price (which is what it would be in your prediction), there is no point releasing it as those who were going to buy 980Ti performance for that price will have done so by now.

I'm expecting 1080 to be around 25% faster than 980Ti at 980Ti price and 1070 to be around 980Ti performance (+5%) for 980 price. This is how it has been since GTX680 on new nodes.

I was wrongly predicting Polaris would have a larger than 232mm die so it could be expected to beat Fury X by ~20%+ but those hopes look like they are dashed against the cliffs of reality . I now expect Polaris to be ~Fiji speeds and below so AMD can retire their entire 28nm range. AMD are going for price performance in the aim of clawing back the OEM and laptop markets. This would also allow them to retire the expensive to make and large die Fiji GPUs. It may seem boring to us as enthusiasts but to AMD it will increase their margins and market share.

With each new rumour I have to adjust these predictions

 

[Jono8]

AMDs going to miss out on that market, as their Polaris is only 390 performance.

Indeed they will if Polaris is indeed only around 390 performance. It is a shame if AMD are doing that though, as it gives Nvidia free reign at the high end until vega/big pascal come out.

 

[Ian Evey]

Nvidia price hikes if all the rumours are true. Pfffft

 

[Tommy_Here]

if the rumored specs are correct 2560 cuda cores 8 billion transistors and even at 10GBPS GDDR5X that will also be able to hit around the 1700mhz core clock with an overclock (tesla gp100 boosts to 1400+ stock and these chips always run slower than geforce cards so a stock 1080 should be hitting 1500+ on the core clock. Now lets compare
780 Ti vs 980 stock (big chip vs small chip)
2880 cuda cores vs 2048 cuda cores 40% favoring the 780 Ti
928mhz boost typically around 1ghz vs 1200mhz on the 980 20% favoring the 980
336gb/s bandwidth vs 224 gb/s on the 980 50% favoring the 780 Ti
3gb Vram vs 4gb Vram 25% favoring the 980
7.1 billion transistors vs 5.2 billion 40% favoring the 780 Ti
As you can see on paper the 780 Ti has a huge advantage over the 980 though is still around 15% slower compared to the 980 with driver improvements.

No if we look at rumored specifications of the 1080 lets do a 980 Ti vs 1080 specs with the current rumors on specs
980 Ti vs 1080 stock (big chip vs small chip)
2816 cuda cores vs 2560 only 10% favoring the 980 Ti vs 40% with the 780 Ti and 980
1202mhz boost clock vs 1500mhz+ favoring the 1080 25% vs 20% with the 980 and 780
336 gb/s vs 320/384gb/s bandwidth (10/12gb/s) so at worst 5% favoring the 980 Ti OR 15% favoring the 1080 vs 50% favoring the 780 Ti against the 980
6gb Vram vs 8gb Vram 2GB difference favoring the 1080 vs 1GB with the 980 and 780 Ti
8 billion transistors vs 8 billion transistors = tie vs the 780 Ti having around 40% more than the 980.
so what can you take away from this? obviously with the 980 Ti vs 1080 this is based on rumors and what it COULD look like, the point is on paper the 980 fairs a lot worse against the 780 Ti than what the 1080 does against the 980 Ti yet the 980 is still around 15% faster, so with that said, if these chips with adequate cooling could clock close to 2ghz then we could definitely be seeing a 30-40% performance increase the the p100 being about 80-90% of an increase which would be 40-50% faster than 1080. watch this space and hopefully come friday we'll be able to hear some good news

 

[chroniclard]

Just remember that games dictate the desire to upgrade and there are no games that are gonna be any better looking than Witcher 3 for years.

Developers can't afford to isolate half the market by making super high end games.

Nothing really that exciting about playing 2yr old games again just to get 60fps.

We need games like uncharted to come pc way.

Worked wonders for Crysis.

 

[Jono8]

if the rumored specs are correct 2560 cuda cores 8 billion transistors and even at 10GBPS GDDR5X that will also be able to hit around the 1700mhz core clock with an overclock (tesla gp100 boosts to 1400+ stock and these chips always run slower than geforce cards so a stock 1080 should be hitting 1500+ on the core clock. Now lets compare
780 Ti vs 980 stock (big chip vs small chip)
2880 cuda cores vs 2048 cuda cores 40% favoring the 780 Ti
928mhz boost typically around 1ghz vs 1200mhz on the 980 20% favoring the 980
336gb/s bandwidth vs 224 gb/s on the 980 50% favoring the 780 Ti
3gb Vram vs 4gb Vram 25% favoring the 980
7.1 billion transistors vs 5.2 billion 40% favoring the 780 Ti
As you can see on paper the 780 Ti has a huge advantage over the 980 though is still around 15% slower compared to the 980 with driver improvements.

No if we look at rumored specifications of the 1080 lets do a 980 Ti vs 1080 specs with the current rumors on specs
980 Ti vs 1080 stock (big chip vs small chip)
2816 cuda cores vs 2560 only 10% favoring the 980 Ti vs 40% with the 780 Ti and 980
1202mhz boost clock vs 1500mhz+ favoring the 1080 25% vs 20% with the 980 and 780
336 gb/s vs 320/384gb/s bandwidth (10/12gb/s) so at worst 5% favoring the 980 Ti OR 15% favoring the 1080 vs 50% favoring the 780 Ti against the 980
6gb Vram vs 8gb Vram 2GB difference favoring the 1080 vs 1GB with the 980 and 780 Ti
8 billion transistors vs 8 billion transistors = tie vs the 780 Ti having around 40% more than the 980.
so what can you take away from this? obviously with the 980 Ti vs 1080 this is based on rumors and what it COULD look like, the point is on paper the 980 fairs a lot worse against the 780 Ti than what the 1080 does against the 980 Ti yet the 980 is still around 15% faster, so with that said, if these chips with adequate cooling could clock close to 2ghz then we could definitely be seeing a 30-40% performance increase the the p100 being about 80-90% of an increase which would be 40-50% faster than 1080. watch this space and hopefully come friday we'll be able to hear some good news

This assuming Nvidia have got similar IPC improvements compared with Kepler to Maxwell (i think they got a 1.3 something improvement on per core performance with maxwell).

I am not saying they wont achieve that, but it might be a big ask after such big gains last generation. Here's hoping though. If they do and the 1080 does have 2560 cores, Gddr5x and is clocked really high it will be a decent bit faster than a 980ti.

 

[drunkenmaster]

if the rumored specs are correct 2560 cuda cores 8 billion transistors and even at 10GBPS GDDR5X that will also be able to hit around the 1700mhz core clock with an overclock (tesla gp100 boosts to 1400+ stock and these chips always run slower than geforce cards so a stock 1080 should be hitting 1500+ on the core clock.

The Titans are 250W with the Tesla being 225W, the P100 Tesla is 300W, assuming lower clocks on the Tesla because of previous cards when previous cards had 10% lower TDP and this gen will likely have 20% higher TDP is just flawed logic.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Going from this new thread,Nvidia has something happening on the 6th:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18729602

 

[NirK]

I am very interested to see the benchmarks for the new 1080, if it is 20% faster than a 980ti then it would make a decent upgrade, plus the benefit of low TDP.

 

[Hedge]

Worked wonders for Crysis.

It sold well but it was also one of most pirated games on release and it took a while to turn profitable. According to wiki the studio said the game would have sold 4 times as many copies if it had been a console game.

Pc gaming is on the up but exclusives like Crysis don't seem to occur very often.

I can't help think that they will gimp their cards to give them some longevity. They will probably get a few product lines from the same tech.

 

[Seanspeed]

Pc gaming is on the up but exclusives like Crysis don't seem to occur very often.

I wouldn't be surprised if we never see its like again.

Crysis was able to do ok in a time when enthusiast PC gaming was still something of a more 'hardcore' market.

If anything, I think PC gaming having become a lot more mainstream is what will stop another Crysis from happening. You ever read performance threads for PC games here and elsewhere? You notice how many people are so quick to trash a developer for a game being 'unoptimized' cuz it doesn't run at 60fps on their upper mid range equipment? Even when it offers a bunch of demanding effects that perfectly explain it? Yea. Developers dont want to deal with that. People are outrage mad nowadays and have this sense of entitlement that the £300 GPU they bought should absolutely play any game at 60fps and if it doesn't, it's the developer's fault.

Honestly, can you imagine the reaction should a dev put out a really forward-thinking game in terms of graphics and max'd out - it only hit 30fps on a 980Ti? People would have fits. Literal temper tantrums.

The market just couldn't handle a game like that nowadays.

And that's before we talk about the obvious notion that a developer doesn't want to limit their market to a minority of higher end users.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Crysis also had the launch of the HD3850 and 8800GT which brought unhead of levels of performance at under £100 and £200.

The rot with both companies milking things started with HD6000/GTX500 series and has gotten worse and worse.

People moaned about spending £200 on a card then - to get the equivalent now it is more like £400+ or thereabouts.

I remember getting both an 8800GTS 512MB and an HD3870 GDDR4 for both my systems at the time. Crysis ran fine for most of the game on both IIRC although the last level was GPU destroying.

But it looked glorious.

As a result,the devs just code for the lowest common denominator - consoles.

 

[Seanspeed]

Crysis also had the launch of the HD3850 and 8800GT which brought unhead of levels of performance at under £100 and £200.

The rot with both companies milking things started with HD6000/GTX500 series and has gotten worse and worse.

People moaned about spending £200 on a card then - to get the equivalent now it is more like £400+ or thereabouts.

I remember getting both an 8800GTS 512MB and an HD3870 GDDR4 for both my systems at the time. Crysis ran fine for most of the game on both IIRC although the last level was GPU destroying.

But it looked glorious.

As a result,the devs just code for the lowest common denominator - consoles.

R&D costs are extraordinary these days. It's become a lot harder to find the gains that people demand. This makes for the bulk of the increased prices. Plus we've got higher TDP cards than ever at the high end, requiring ever more advanced and bulky cooling solutions.

It's not all just greed.

And developing for a lower common denominator has always made a lot more sense, financially. It also does not hurt games as much as people think. The Witcher 3 would never be what it is were it not offered on console and only built for higher end PC's. Game development is also a LOT more expensive nowadays. Devs can actually afford to put more time into graphics and scope when they know more people can buy it.

Star Citizen is probably about as close as we're going to get to another Crysis, but by the time it releases proper, it's probably not even going to be all that crazy in terms of raw graphics, just its ambition and scope.

Also, in terms of an 8800GTS doing 'just fine' at the time, it may have at 1050p and lowered settings and 30fps. But how many people would call that 'just fine' nowadays?

 

[Harlequin]

try playing ashes at 4k with detail turned up.......

 

[muziqaz]

Haven't DICE typically been close with AMD recently?

thus me saying: Money money money
And if BF5 is not DX12 then it will be quite a fail for Dice/AMD

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

R&D costs are extraordinary these days. It's become a lot harder to find the gains that people demand. This makes for the bulk of the increased prices. Plus we've got higher TDP cards than ever at the high end, requiring ever more advanced and bulky cooling solutions.

It's not all just greed.

And developing for a lower common denominator has always made a lot more sense, financially. It also does not hurt games as much as people think. The Witcher 3 would never be what it is were it not offered on console and only built for higher end PC's. Game development is also a LOT more expensive nowadays. Devs can actually afford to put more time into graphics and scope when they know more people can buy it.

Star Citizen is probably about as close as we're going to get to another Crysis, but by the time it releases proper, it's probably not even going to be all that crazy in terms of raw graphics, just its ambition and scope.

Also, in terms of an 8800GTS doing 'just fine' at the time, it may have at 1050p and lowered settings and 30fps. But how many people would call that 'just fine' nowadays?

I got over 30FPS!!

But even then you see,the card levels being pushed up tiers. It means devs in reality don't have as high a level of PC gamer to aim for in some ways. Those £250 cards are more akin to the £150 cards in the past in terms of relative performance.

The issue is that even with great value cards,people moaned at Crysis even though it was one of the biggest jumps in graphics we have seen in the last decade or so,if not the biggest.

Crysis never sold as much as Crytek wanted and they were one of the most PC centric devs out there. Once they did not do well,all the other devs realised there was more money in consoles and games like DOTA 2 and the like.

I think the next game which might push boundaries is Cyberpunk 2077. I am hoping it outdoes W3.

 

[drunkenmaster]

thus me saying: Money money money
And if BF5 is not DX12 then it will be quite a fail for Dice/AMD

If it's not DX12 it would be the second big game that Nvidia threw money at to remove DX12.... so I'd call that an Nvidia fail.