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

I wonder if this is what Nvidia are going to use on the **80 and below cards while saving HBM for the Ti and Titan cards. Or it could all be rubish :)
 
There's nothing surprising there really, It's a smart move, Gddr5 is still okay and like I mentioned a while ago I can't see either brands cards using all hbm2. A mix of hbm1 and hbm2 cards makes sense and if they also have another range of gddr5 with better bandwidth why not.
 
Last edited:
Kaapstad said:
8 Pack blew the low ROPs count theory out of the water when he benched a Fiji card with the memory running over 1000mhz and getting good gains from doing it. This highlights the fact that HBM1 running @500mhz is way too slow.
Click to expand...

What did he get from a 100% memory overclock?

If its more than 40% i could believe its the memory bottlenecking the card but i doubt that.
 
Kaapstad said:
8 Pack blew the low ROPs count theory out of the water when he benched a Fiji card with the memory running over 1000mhz and getting good gains from doing it. This highlights the fact that HBM1 running @500mhz is way too slow.
Click to expand...

Was the Fiji card giving FPS performance in excess of the HBM card? From what I understand clockrate on video memory can't be looked at in isolation as it needs to be measured against the bus which gives you the overall memory bandwidth. Sort of like PSU's were you determine it's wattage by multiplying the volts by the amps.
 
Surely the chips would need to have different memory controllers built in, so they would have been designed like this from the start and yet this is the first rumour we hear about it. I calling billyhooks on the whole thing. HBM across the board from both camps for next gen I reckon.


Disclaimer: I reserve the right to be completely wrong about this..:)
 
Maybe the decision has come about due to availability. If GDDR5X is more plentiful than HBM2 then Nvidia will take the decision to go with whatever will allow them to maximise sales.

Better improvement with HBM2 yet low availability or a smaller improvement with GDDR5x but high availability. Nvidia always want to shift high volume so if GDDR5x allows this then they will go for it. Still will be an improvement over GDDR5.

Dont blame them. AMD should think the same then they may see sales improve in 2016. Know thy enemy and all that.
 
bru said:
Surely the chips would need to have different memory controllers built in, so they would have been designed like this from the start and yet this is the first rumour we hear about it. I calling billyhooks on the whole thing. HBM across the board from both camps for next gen I reckon.


Disclaimer: I reserve the right to be completely wrong about this..:)
Click to expand...

I agree with this and the design would have been done ages ago, they cannot just change the design at this late stage as it would set them back months.
 
Gregster said:
Makes sense for the mid/low cards to come with GDDR5. Why add all that expense onto those range of cards?
Click to expand...

varkanoid said:
Maybe the decision has come about due to availability. If GDDR5X is more plentiful than HBM2 then Nvidia will take the decision to go with whatever will allow them to maximise sales.

Better improvement with HBM2 yet low availability or a smaller improvement with GDDR5x but high availability. Nvidia always want to shift high volume so if GDDR5x allows this then they will go for it. Still will be an improvement over GDDR5.

Dont blame them. AMD should think the same then they may see sales improve in 2016. Know thy enemy and all that.
Click to expand...

Yeah if the availability and expense of adding HBM 2.0 to non top end cards is going to slow things down, then GDRR5X would absolutely makes sense, and leave HBM 2.0 for the higher end cards. That would mean more availability across the whole range until HBM matures and becomes readily available and less expensive. Either way, not really bothered if Nvidia or AMD do something like this. Anything to speed up progress and as long as solid availability of the higher end stuff it's all good.
 
Boomstick777 said:
Yeah if the availability and expense of adding HBM 2.0 to non top end cards is going to slow things down, then GDRR5X would absolutely makes sense, and leave HBM 2.0 for the higher end cards. That would mean more availability across the whole range until HBM matures and becomes readily available and less expensive. Either way, not really bothered if Nvidia or AMD do something like this. Anything to speed up progress and as long as solid availability of the higher end stuff it's all good.
Click to expand...
Can't wait for the high end to have low availability which leads to scorching levels of price gouging and more experiments on new pricing levels. Just hope HBM isn't the ideal excuse some companies would like to put prices ever higher.

We can always wait and see but I just hope they iron out the kinks and that availability isn't quite the same issue it's been with the fury cards. Don't fancy paying an extra 100 or so just for the sake of it being hard to keep in stock and retailers taking advantage.
 
Do any of you remember before the gtx 900s where released? I'm sure they where suppose to be on a die shrink but pretty close to their release they decided against it.

This all sounds familiar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom