NVIDIA Kepler speculation thread

[Mize]

By your logic...

No logic. I'm no expert. Industrial controls - call me. GPUs, after a 512k 8800GTS I will always go for more RAM. As noted, my multi-monitor is 3GB nvidia gear, not AMD. if NV 680 can do 3880x1200 with all maxed I'm impressed, make it 5x 19x12 in portrait and i'm sold - regardless of RAM, but I just can't help thinking more is better in this battle.

 

[AnarchX]

GK107 GT 640M 3DMark11 - P1898

Doubled performance over GT 540M.
GT 540M was 1 GPC, 0.5 triangles/clock, 675MHz.

 

[Man from Atlantis]

GK107 GT 640M 3DMark11 - P1898

Doubled performance over GT 540M.
GT 540M was 1 GPC, 0.5 triangles/clock, 675MHz.

According to 3DMark11 white paper Graphics Score should be 1719..

 

[UniversalTruth]

There's probably multiple factors at work?
- The cards are already in the channel. Lowering the prices would hurt the vendors?

???
What about the chips which are at some particular moment still in the production facility? I mean new bunch of cards, what do they have in common with those cards already in the channel?

- You don't want to lower the price of particular product segment? Somewhat similar to real estate agents throwing in a ton of freebies during the waning days of the housing bubble: free washers/dryers/fridge etc. Instead of lowering the price outright (which hurts the comps in the whole neighborhood), they keep the price officially high but reduce it by other means. From this point of view, Nvidia's product renaming is smart: you're less likely to piss off a GTX9800 buyer if you keep its price and introduce a differently named product that plays in a lower price segment than if you reduce the original price a lot.

It is natural in products' life cycles to see loss of their value. We don't see that anymore for some given market segments. AMD has abondened the 300-400$ market segmet because the last 410$ 6970 was sold out... And now what?
But you are more likely to piss off all the rest potential buyers with this.
And then... It's like people can't accept that when they buy something, at the next moments their purchase will begin losing value. That's ridiculous.

- Other reasons?

Like what?

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

Since he is running Nvidia multi-monitors, I do not understand why you bought AMD into this?

The posts I responded to did not specify Nvidia or 3GB. The post from Mize following your reply post did reference to Nvidia or 3GB. Other posts to Mize referenced the 6900 so I wrongly got the impression he was running on AMD GPUs.

Anyway Nvidia's partners will be releasing 4GB versions so that should hopefully satisfy his desire for more VRAM with multi-monitors.

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

No logic. I'm no expert. Industrial controls - call me. GPUs, after a 512k 8800GTS I will always go for more RAM. As noted, my multi-monitor is 3GB nvidia gear, not AMD. if NV 680 can do 3880x1200 with all maxed I'm impressed, make it 5x 19x12 in portrait and i'm sold - regardless of RAM, but I just can't help thinking more is better in this battle.

Sorry I didn't see that you were on Nvidia 3GB gear.

Anyway if rumors are true Nvidia's partners should make 4GB versions of the GTX680.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-...r-dynamic-clocking-2-and-4gb-gddr5/15148.html

 

[Mize]

No apologies needed. I was on 6970s as recently as December 2011.

 

[silent_guy]

And then... It's like people can't accept that when they buy something, at the next moments their purchase will begin losing value. That's ridiculous.

I've written this before, and I'm speaking purely for myself, one appealing factor of buying Apple is the fact that you know that you won't have buyers remorse 2 months down the road because your product will suddenly be cheaper. They set a price and stick to it for a long time. I know that this really means that you're giving more money than needed to Apple, but I'm convinced others must feel the same, conscious or not.

Like what?

I'm not a marketing droid. This was only an invitation to your own suggestions.

 

[iMacmatician]

The plot thickens?

From MyDrivers.com, translated: "GTX, the 670Ti smoke bomb: to refresh the BIOS turned 680 performance surge."

… in fact, GTX, 670Ti and GTX 680 NVIDIA has named yet fully established GK104 two names, graphics core and only one.

This new broke the news and other channels is similar to the GTX, 670Ti just a smoke bomb. The previous test results show that lagged behind the GTX, 670Ti HD 7970 5%, while flashing the BIOS, performance jumped 40% after the replacement of the new driver version. I guess perhaps the 670Ti core frequency only 7xxMHz 680 of the core frequency of more than 1GHz.
…

 

[Sxotty]

I've written this before, and I'm speaking purely for myself, one appealing factor of buying Apple is the fact that you know that you won't have buyers remorse 2 months down the road because your product will suddenly be cheaper. They set a price and stick to it for a long time. I know that this really means that you're giving more money than needed to Apple, but I'm convinced others must feel the same, conscious or not.

What?

Apple keeps giving people free crap or coupons when they lower the price and all their rabid fans that lined up to buy the new gizmo cry that it is now cheaper.

 

[tviceman]

The plot thickens?

From MyDrivers.com, translated: "GTX, the 670Ti smoke bomb: to refresh the BIOS turned 680 performance surge."

That could be saying anything, some of which may or may not be true. But my own personal translation says that Nvidia is binning GK104 to have at least two different products that are fully enabled, differentiated only by core frequency.

If this is true, AMD will without a doubt follow suit with Tahiti, creating a third part of higher clock speeds than the hd7970.

 

[trinibwoy]

Is the press briefing on the 8th or 12th? Can somebody leak something concrete pretty please with sugar on top? I'm exhausted from all these bullshit rumors especially for something I'm not gonna buy

 

[sethk]

The reason companies (or, in this case, a division) don't make a profit is because the huge NRE involved in bringing a chip into existence. But once it's there, it's pretty cheap to produce and you basically hope that you sell enough of them of recoup the NRE.

I think this hits the nail on the head, and is the most overlooked factor when people are obsessing about yields and die sizes and number of viable chips per wafer / wafer cost (i.e. chip manufacturing costs). With every generation you see doom and gloom threads / posts about how this next die is going to bankrupt a company, and then yet, magically, quarter after quarter they post profits (or conversely, post losses on what appears to be a very efficient chip). There is more to making profits on a chip (over it's marketed lifetime) than the theoretical cost to manufacture a chip at launch time - that much should be clear by now.

 

[Kaotik]

Is the press briefing on the 8th or 12th? Can somebody leak something concrete pretty please with sugar on top? I'm exhausted from all these bullshit rumors especially for something I'm not gonna buy

AFAIK it was already, so 8th I suppose?
Also heard that there was so many "certain people" in there, that leaks are simply bound to happen sooner rather than later

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think this hits the nail on the head, and is the most overlooked factor when people are obsessing about yields and die sizes and number of viable chips per wafer / wafer cost (i.e. chip manufacturing costs). With every generation you see doom and gloom threads / posts about how this next die is going to bankrupt a company, and then yet, magically, quarter after quarter they post profits (or conversely, post losses on what appears to be a very efficient chip). There is more to making profits on a chip (over it's marketed lifetime) than the theoretical cost to manufacture a chip at launch time - that much should be clear by now.

There is some validity to the doom and gloom calls, especially those that were most pronounced during the GTX 28x/Radeon 48xx timeframe and shortly thereafter. The price war had driven Nvidia to post its first loss in about forever (slightly exaggeration) while AMD gained some marketshare at the loss of potential profits.

Had both companies continued that trend, Nvidia would have been hurt far more than AMD due to the relatively large size of their dies. But that's only a small victory as both companies would have been signficantly impacted in a negative way.

Since then, however, Nvidia has refused to instigate a price war and AMD has avoided it as well. While AMD has been more cautious with going back to the pre-HD 2900 XT pricing days, Nvidia jumped right back into those price brackets starting with the GTX 480. It's now taken AMD 2 generations to follow suit and go back to the pre-HD 2900 XT price structure.

It's the fact that neither company wishes to start another price war that has rendered most of the large die rhetoric moot. But it certainly was quite valid when the two companies were driving each other's prices into the ground.

And if we were to follow the desires of some here on the forums to see a heavily discounted GTX 680, then it's entirely possible it could trigger another price war and die size would suddenly become a lot more relevant again.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It is natural in products' life cycles to see loss of their value. We don't see that anymore for some given market segments. AMD has abondened the 300-400$ market segmet because the last 410$ 6970 was sold out... And now what?
But you are more likely to piss off all the rest potential buyers with this.
And then... It's like people can't accept that when they buy something, at the next moments their purchase will begin losing value. That's ridiculous.

This generally only happens if there is significant remaining stock at a product's EOL. This typically occurs slightly before or simultaneously with the introduction of the replacement product line.

Generally the only reasons you see a prolonged sale of EOL goods is when supply is far greater than demand for the product at the end of it's life cycle. Hence, you see discounted TVs, receivers, etc. All of which are no longer being produced, but due to high levels of stock combined with relatively low levels of demand, they start going on sale at discounted prices. Same goes for any video card that lasts for a long time after EOL.

69xx is a perfect example of supply being fairly close to demand. Hence, the supply channel has been mostly bled dry within a couple months of the launch of its successor. In business terms that's a huge success.

Most companies tend to err on the side of over supply as delays in the introduction of a new product can suddenly see you with insufficient product (GTX 285 being EOL'd a bit too soon, for example).

No company wants to have a prolonged EOL for any product as that can reduce operating profits due to those products (which have generally already been sold into the channel) potentially reducing sales of their current products.

There are, of course, rare exceptions. The Sony PS2 for example, which continued production even after the successor was released. And it arguably hurt the sales of the PS3 in the first year. But that's an extremely rare exception. Especially in the electronics world.

Regards,
SB

 

[silent_guy]

What?

Apple keeps giving people free crap or coupons when they lower the price and all their rabid fans that lined up to buy the new gizmo cry that it is now cheaper.

AFAIK an iPhone or iPad on launch day price stays the same until the day a new model is introduced, give or take a few rare promotional actions (Black Friday.) MacBooks are not much different.

 

[Sxotty]

AFAIK an iPhone or iPad on launch day price stays the same until the day a new model is introduced, give or take a few rare promotional actions (Black Friday.) MacBooks are not much different.

Umm

I have received hundreds of emails from iPhone customers who are upset about Apple dropping the price of iPhone by $200 two months after it went on sale. After reading every one of these emails, I have some observations and conclusions...Therefore, we have decided to offer every iPhone customer who purchased an iPhone from either Apple or AT&T, and who is not receiving a rebate or any other consideration, a $100 store credit towards the purchase of any product at an Apple Retail Store or the Apple Online Store. Details are still being worked out and will be posted on Apple's website next week. Stay tuned.

Yeah it seems that some people were upset about stuff like that. And this isn't the only time, just the first one that popped up in search.

 

[mavere]

Umm



Yeah it seems that some people were upset about stuff like that. And this isn't the only time, just the first one that popped up in search.

It's actually the only time, or at least one of the few times.

In the fast-paced world of consumer electronics, once or twice a decade might as well be never ever.

 

[silent_guy]

Umm

Yeah it seems that some people were upset about stuff like that. And this isn't the only time, just the first one that popped up in search.

Frankly, it's the only case that I can think of. And not so coincidentally also the only case where Apple corrected things half-way with a $100 purchase certificate. I like to think that it kinda proves my whole point, but I'm not fanatic about it.