NVIDIA Kepler speculation thread

A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y said:
There is the problem. You are basing your point around Tahiti. Nvidia will also be releasing a single massive sized GPU for the Tesla/HPC Market. That GPU will also be Nvidia's high-end and will crush Tahiti in performance. So GK104 is not Nvidia's high-end whereas AMD's Tahiti is.


To quote a famous US President, "There you go again". Nvidia will not price the GK104 at Tahiti's high price even if the performance is nearly the same. The high-end price for Nvidia will be for the GK110/112.
Click to expand...

I'll go out on a limb here and assume you don't know anything about GK110 or its release schedule. There's currently no reason to believe TSMC can supply enough 28nm volumes for a cheap 680.

Also, there's a single market and a single definition of "high-end". It might change in a couple weeks but right now that's Tahiti, end of story.
 
Regardless of what the BIOS does, it's simply impossible that mere BIOS update could push it 40% from "5% slower than 7950". Maybe 40% from some earlier BIOS when it lagged more behind.
 
AnarchX said:
redquasar updated GTX 670 Ti info:
http://www.redquasar.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=7234

Something about 5% behind 7950, same SP number as 680 and a 40% bios update.
Click to expand...
Interesting… SemiAccurate claimed "8 group" vs. "7 group" GK104s and now here's a claim of 670 Ti CCs = 680 CCs.

Besides the possibility that one source or the other is incorrect, maybe that gives the possibility of 3 models: a 670 with fewer CCs and a lower clock, a 670 Ti with all the CCs and a lower clock, and a 680 with all the CCs (I'm assuming it's all the CCs…) and a higher clock? Two variants of an NVIDIA chip of ~300 mm^2 or larger with full CC counts are rare, the 8800 GTX/Ultra and the GTX 275/285 are the only ones I can find since the 8000 series and in either case, one chip launched some time before the other. If the link in the info is true, then I'm guessing that the 670 Ti is more of a "standard" clocked GK104 and the 680 is to try to beat Tahiti at least until GK110 comes along.

If the discrepancies in supposed clock speeds (705/950) weren't explained by the dynamic clocking, the above could explain that too (although the difference is quite large…).
 
Ailuros said:
It's GK110 and it's not going to appear all that soon it seems, at least not for the desktop.
Click to expand...
And it's not needed at this time as the GK104 will hold the high-end for now.

Nvidia will stockpile the GK110 for HPC/Tesla and when/if AMD releases a Dual-GPU card the GTX690 Single GPU GK110 will be there to regain the high-end.
 
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y said:
And it's not needed at this time as the GK104 will hold the high-end for now.
Click to expand...

Hold my fair warning in the back of your mind just in case. Unless of course you like rendering in absolutes for things you don't know first hand. Frankly I don't either, but then again I prefer to leave a window of doubt open just in case.

Nvidia will stockpile the GK110 for HPC/Tesla and when/if AMD releases a Dual-GPU card the GTX690 Single GPU GK110 will be there to regain the high-end.
Click to expand...
Another world exclusive at B3D: the GK110 top dog is going to be named GTX690, it's first salvage part GTX689, the second GTX688, because GK110 is just a larger GK104 with HPC capabilities? Right? :rolleyes:
 
trinibwoy said:
Ok, fair enough. Let's say Tahiti is overpriced so GK104 has to earn its stripes against GF114. Current rumors put it at 70-90% faster than the 560 Ti in BF3 with a smaller die size....would that be impressive enough? :)
Click to expand...

Jawed said:
Yes that's definitely more impressive than the 45-50% gain we see with Pitcairn over Barts. I'll wait until the numbers arrive, to be sure.
Click to expand...

Absolutely amazing it would be.
The jump from Cayman to Tahiti is the same (or slightly worse) as the one from Barts to Pitcairn - around 40%..
My question is- if GK104 is 70-90% faster than GF114 in BF3, why wouldn't it be on average around those numbers, I mean why the performance improvement in BF3 would be higher than the average one?
And the second question- what kind of CPU do you think won't be a bottleneck for a potential 7990 or corresponding dual GPU card from nvidia 2 X GK110? I mean TPU (just as an example) tests with i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz but... :???:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ that's what SGSSAA is for ;)
If we're talking newer DX11 games that make good use of computing power I guess you could see thoes 70+% on average no problem.
 
UniversalTruth said:
My question is- if GK104 is 70-90% faster than GF114 in BF3, why wouldn't it be on average around those numbers, I mean why the performance improvement in BF3 would be higher than the average one?
Click to expand...

looking to 7870 reviews comparing to 7950, 7870 is too close to 7950 in BF3 .. probably it is shader heavy, not like other console ports..
 
AlexV - are you allowed to say anything about when people that actually know something will be allowed to say anything? Hitting refresh on this thread is tiring out my index finger.
 
Do you think this has anything about Kepler? :p i see 4 MCs and PCI3 I/O and other stuff

gtc-background-rev.jpg

http://www.gputechconf.com/page/sessions.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
RDNA3 Efficiency [Spinoff from RDNA4]
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
10K
Bondrewd
Bondrewd
iroboto
CES 2025 Thread (AMD, Intel, Nvidia, and others!)
9 10 11
Replies
209
Views
11K
DavidGraham
D
D
The Silent Hand of Driver "Optimization" (spinoff)
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
DavidGraham
D
F
AMD RDNA5 Architecture Speculation
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
LordEC911
L
Shortbread
Nvidia is Now The Second-Largest Company in The US Market
Replies
4
Views
3K
MfA
M
Back
Top