Nvidia BigK GK110 Kepler Speculation Thread

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

I think the problem is the assumption that price for performance is the same for everyone.
...
I recognize that I am an edge case. However, this card seems aimed at edge cases like me. Possibly it would be better to ignore the argument surrounding value. In this case, the market will decide if there are enough people like me to support this card. If there aren't, then I'm sure a price drop will happen in the near future.

Very well stated.

 

[ams]

I found a review with many of those games comparing the 7970 GHz and 680

If you look at the actual fps achieved for each game on the GTX 680 performance data from Geforce.com (referenced here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34645525&postcount=2055), and you compare it to the actual fps achieved for each game on the GTX 680 at Legionhardware, you will realize that the Legionhardware review has only four remotely comparable data points to the Geforce.com slide, which includes the following four games: Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Dirt 3.

The approximate performance increase for 7970 GHz. Ed vs. GTX 680 based on the Legionhardware review (at 25x16 resolution) is as follows:

Battlefield 3: +13%
Crysis 2: +10%
Deus Ex: Human Revolution: +11%
Dirt 3: +15%

Average performance increase: +12%

Now, based on the Geforce.com slide, and using the four data points above, the approximate performance increase for GTX Titan vs. 7970 GHz Ed. (at 25x16 resolution) is as follows:

Battlefield 3: +29%
Crysis 2: +38%
Deus Ex: Human Revolution: +36%
Dirt 3: +23%

Average performance increase: +32%

So at least for now, I stand by the assertion that GTX Titan has performance that is closer to GTX 690 than to GTX 680 or 7970 GHz Ed.

 

[Ryan Smith]

I have a request in to NVIDIA for clarification on that. 1.3 TFLOPS shows up multiple times, but so far I'm always hitting 837MHz when in full speed DP mode.

I got a reply. If you're in FP64 mode then in worst-case TDP constrained scenarios the clockspeed of Titan can drop to 725MHz. I haven't seen it in person (it would help if OpenCL was currently working...), but that's the basis of 1.3TFLOPs. They technically can't guarantee 1.5 TFLOPS because of the potential for clockspeed to drop under load.

 

[ams]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Titan should be priced lower.

How about just to stop a few select people who have no interest in the card from endlessly whining about the price? On second thought, I'm sure these same people would find something to whine and complain about one way or another, even if the price was 10-15% lower.

 

[Grall]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Titan should be priced lower.

...Because the card is priced like a Bugatti Veyron, but drives like a BMW.

BMWs are nice, no argument there, but they're not THAT nice if you know what I mean.

 

[techuse]

Since quantities are not super limited, I would have preferred to see NVIDIA launch Geforce Titan with an MSRP of ~ $849 USD. NVIDIA would have avoided much of the negative press and ridicule from people who point out that 7970 GHz Ed. Crossfire and GTX 680 SLI are both cheaper and faster in comparison (albeit at significantly higher power consumption and higher noise), and they would have avoided pricing Geforce Titan at the same price point as the faster GTX 690. In my opinion, adding an extra $150 USD to the MSRP is not worth all the negativity associated with a $999 USD MSRP for a single GPU product. I realize that NVIDIA is trying to offer much more double precision performance per dollar vs. the Tesla K20 variants, but the feature set/reliability/support is not the same as Tesla either, and I feel it would have been better to position Geforce Titan as a very high end gaming card at $849 USD, with full double precision performance de-emphasized and reserved for higher margin Tesla variants.

By the way, here is the approximate performance increase for Geforce Titan vs. GTX 680 based on a chart that was briefly shown (but now taken down) at Geforce.com (2560x1600, 4xMSAA, 16xAF, Maximum Game Settings):

Metro 2033: +65%
Crysis 3: +44%
The Witcher 2: +33%
Max Payne 3: +44%
Crysis 2: +52%
Shogun 2: +46%
Assassin's Creed III: +38%
Borderlands 2: +33%
Lost Planet 2: +31%
Sleeping Dogs: +49%
Battlefield 3: +46%
Deus Ex: Human Revolution: +52%
Dirt 3: +42%
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: +44%
Call of Duty: Blacks Ops II: +41%
Batman: Arkham City: +36%
StarCraft II: +58%

Average performance increase: +44%

would this give us a reliable indicator of what part of the chip was the bottleneck in 680? using the theoretical increases the specs of titan provide?

 

[fbomber]

Where have I said that? Just because I'm not buying into this nonsense does not make me a raving ATI fan. In fact you will find many posts by myself stating flatly that they make far too many mistakes and they only had themselves to blame over losing to the 680 etc etc.

The problem is there are a bunch of people who flatly refuse to accept that this is stupidly overpriced for the performance. Can you imagine what the consensus of opinion would be if AMD were about to release this? Do you actually believe I'd be defending them?

Not overpriced for me. I´m buying two of these. You are free not to buy the card.

 

[gkar1]

How about just to stop a few select people who have no interest in the card from endlessly whining about the price? On second thought, I'm sure these same people would find something to whine and complain about one way or another, even if the price was 10-15% lower.

Reminds me about another group of people around here who endlessly whined about AMD's initial pricing of the 7970.

 

[ninelven]

...Because the card is priced like a Bugatti Veyron, but drives like a BMW.

A Veyron is an order of magnitude more expensive than most BMWs. If the Titan was priced similarly it would retail for $5,500+.

 

[shiznit]

I might consider a 3GB version for about $700ish.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

For a single GPU card that has no performance equal pricing like a Bugatti Veyron should not be an issue. If you can't afford it then look at the BMW's or Lexus. It's economics 101!

 

[Alexko]

I got a reply. If you're in FP64 mode then in worst-case TDP constrained scenarios the clockspeed of Titan can drop to 725MHz. I haven't seen it in person (it would help if OpenCL was currently working...), but that's the basis of 1.3TFLOPs. They technically can't guarantee 1.5 TFLOPS because of the potential for clockspeed to drop under load.

So they're basically applying the same kind of rigor to Titan that they apply to Tesla regarding what they promise. That's good news for people looking to get one for GPGPU.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Titan should be priced lower. It'll probably sell out at $1000. Pricing it any lower wont magically increase the supply of cards.

If NVIDIA's selling it for $1000, that's probably the best decision for them, I'm sure they've run the numbers. For us, it's a bit disappointing, because it's essentially a pointless product for the vast majority of gamers: we can't afford it, and it's so expensive that it's not going to push down the prices of other products either (GTX 680, HD 7970 GE, etc.). Effectively, Titan makes no difference.

That's not what usually happens when a GPU vendor comes up with a newer, faster GPU. At worst, it costs about $600 and doesn't push down the rest of the stack very much. Sometimes, it's actually affordable and triggers price cuts for just about everything else. NVIDIA's no charity, I don't blame them, I'm just disappointed.

 

[ams]

Reminds me about another group of people around here who endlessly whined about AMD's initial pricing of the 7970.

Which is equally silly to complain about too (although I must admit that I don't recall seeing people whine endlessly about the 7970 intro price, but maybe I wasn't looking hard enough).

 

[ams]

A Veyron is an order of magnitude more expensive than most BMWs. If the Titan was priced similarly it would retail for $5,500+.

True, but on the flip side, Bugatti also doesn't have a full lineup of cars that are priced between 1/10 to 1/2 the price of the Veyron, and Bugatti also doesn't have any other car in it's lineup that has higher performance at the same price as the Veyron, so the comparison is a bit imperfect

 

[trinibwoy]

If NVIDIA's selling it for $1000, that's probably the best decision for them, I'm sure they've run the numbers. For us, it's a bit disappointing, because it's essentially a pointless product for the vast majority of gamers: we can't afford it, and it's so expensive that it's not going to push down the prices of other products either (GTX 680, HD 7970 GE, etc.). Effectively, Titan makes no difference.

That's not what usually happens when a GPU vendor comes up with a newer, faster GPU. At worst, it costs about $600 and doesn't push down the rest of the stack very much. Sometimes, it's actually affordable and triggers price cuts for just about everything else. NVIDIA's no charity, I don't blame them, I'm just disappointed.

Yeah I completely agree. I think people just need to understand when a product is not targeted at them. You don't see most folks complaining about the price of private jets or Justin Beiber concert tickets

As far as I'm concerned luxury or niche products can never be overpriced. The mere act of purchasing one validates the pricing.

 

[silent_guy]

I recognize that I am an edge case. However, this card seems aimed at edge cases like me. .

I believe edge cases like you are going to make this card unavailable for many.

The 6GB alone is going to enable CUDA applications for 'cheap' that weren't possible before. Add in the DP and the other new CUDA goodies and it's an irresistible value for many.

 

[sheepdogexpress]

Where have I said that? Just because I'm not buying into this nonsense does not make me a raving ATI fan. In fact you will find many posts by myself stating flatly that they make far too many mistakes and they only had themselves to blame over losing to the 680 etc etc.

The problem is there are a bunch of people who flatly refuse to accept that this is stupidly overpriced for the performance. Can you imagine what the consensus of opinion would be if AMD were about to release this? Do you actually believe I'd be defending them?

Come on, your already making conclusions based on reviews that haven't been published yet and ignoring what has been said of people on forums. Nvidia is getting tonnes of Flak for pricing titans as it is from people everywhere. From people who like Nvidia hardware too.

People were criticizing AMD for there pricing move for good reason and most of them were looking at it from a marketing perspective and the effect it would have on the sales of the cards in the future(which were right). AMD for the last 6 years or so has been the weaker of the two brands. In addition most reviews were showing about a 20 percent performance improvement over the gtx 580. When you combine these two things, it simply didn't make sense for AMD to price their cards so high. Especially with a looming gtx 680 on the horizon and AMD should have been aiming to gain marketshare.

As a results of the 7xxx series initial pricing, alot of people who had nvidia cards and preferred them had zero incentive to switch camps and take the Gamble with AMD. This was a huge mistake on AMDs part as potental 79xx sales were lost to gtx 6x0 sales.

The move really had no long term benefit as even the early adopters were heavily punished with street pricing falling 150 dollars just a month later and games being bundled in as well and likely hurt alot of AMD's goodwill with these buyers(Nvidia did the same thing with initial gtx 280 pricing and gave alot of people refunds based on the price drops which followed shortly after the 4870 launch).

Titan is a completely Cocky move from Nvidia, however its a much safer gamble for them. The card is overpriced for sure, but its 30-55 percent faster than cards this generation and I think as far as single GPU go(and not including gk110 ultras), its might have the performance crown for the next year or so and will likely be competitive with next gens 20nm if Nvidia plans to stick with the gm104 as gtx x80 strategy and AMD doesn't increase their die size.

But remove pricing out of the equation and it makes the 7970 ghz edition look unimpressive on many levels. Sure it might be only 30 percent faster but it does this with the same amount of power usage(which is particularly impressive), while having significantly higher compute if it is any sort of improvement over the gf100.

If Titan was fully enabled(one more smx) and given a larger power budget to deal with than the 250 watt tdp, it could be 50% faster than a ghz edition. Titan likely still has lots of room to grow with more mature drivers too.

Long term Jimbo, you should be thanking Nvidia, that they are pricing Titan as high as it is.

Its obvious you would never buy an Nvidia card and Titan at 500 dollars would really sink AMD graphic division(and cannibalize Nvidia's gtx 680 sales which is much of the reason for the pricing).

 

[jimbo75]

Nobody realised that it wouldn't have castrated DP before today, yet it was still fine as a $900 pure gamer card. The inconsistency in argument is what grinds my gears the most.

Are there certain corner cases where this is very good value? I'm sure there are. It's not as a gaming card however and never will be.

 

[jimbo75]

Its obvious you would never buy an Nvidia card and Titan at 500 dollars would really sink AMD graphic division(and cannibalize Nvidia's gtx 680 sales which is much of the reason for the pricing).

I have owned many Nvidia cards actually and if Nvidia thought Titan at $500 would sink AMD they'd be releasing it at $400 to make extra sure.

 

[ninelven]

True, but on the flip side, Bugatti also doesn't have a full lineup of cars that are priced between 1/10 to 1/2 the price of the Veyron, and Bugatti also doesn't have any other car in it's lineup that has higher performance at the same price as the Veyron, so the comparison is a bit imperfect

Well, I didn't make it...