NVIDIA Kepler speculation thread

Because... GF104 and onwards did it also single-cycle?

 

<DELETE>

 

First people made fun that testing at 1080p is BS for a card of this caliber. Then they speculated that, for sure, it would trail at 25x16. And now with that out of the way too, they complain that a test was done at 25x16, the resolution of choice remember, when it should have been done at 1080p? Are we in the bargaining phase of the 5 stages of grief?

 

If there is anyone cherry picking here it is you.

 

It should have been tested at 1080p when so much is being made of the 680's 1080p performance - not lauding the performance at 1080p then benching turbo at 1600p.

He should also have ran power draw, heat and noise benchmarks on one of the games Nvidia won at instead of one of the very few than AMD won at (Metro).

 

But that was all just you guys

 

I'm cherry picking pointing out it really seems to have fallen off a cliff in compute? Sorry, the benchmarks dont lie. In that test it gets creamed by a 580 forget 7970.

It seems like when Trinibwoy reveled in AMD taking the compute hit, he was only half right. Nvidia did the reverse, they un-took the compute hit.

Also, overclocking is weird on this thing

Hardcore overclockers are such a huge part of the enthusiast market, hell I've sometimes wondered if it isn't best to artificially limit high end part clocks a little bit so that the OC'ers can feel smug about their great OCing results.

This overclocking weirdness with Kepler, I'm not sure how it's going to play, but I suspect it might be a negative with that crowd. Regardless their love for Nvidia will probably overcome it to some extent. They'll likely grin and bear it for Nvidia's sake, even if they dont like it.

 

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/36509-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-graphics-card/?page=4

Looks like Hexus got lucky with their card! I wonder how many other reviewers did.

Average 1097 - http://translate.googleusercontent....e.html&usg=ALkJrhjWLuwQUkB2NNH7HwOmqGZsAYb_dA

 

My mistake, for some reason my brain had GF with a slower rate.

 

GPU boost obviously leaves open doors to benchmark shenenigans and weird inconsistent results from one review to another. It's basically an out-of-the-box overclocked card only that OC is range based.

And it seems Nvidia gave up compute for gaming performance.

 

So I take it that power consumption/clocks can be controlled via profile/software.

 

It's not necessarily cheating that the 680 fares worse in various compute scenarios, particularly since it still beats AMD in others.
What we do see is a deepmhasis on all areas of compute and less consistency, which can be a valid tradeoff for the target market which is not dominated by compute loads.
One of the few areas of interest for most consumers is now handled by a hardware encoder.

Lesser capability needs to be weighed against the relative significance of the feature where the card is sold.
That's not to say that this couldn't hurt in the future, since some games do make better use of compute shaders.
However, the rest of the architecture on the graphics side is so strong that it can frequently more than compensate.

 

nah
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...616-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-review-29.html

This again ! , any clock increase AMD would be able to raise , NVIDIA could just do the same .

HD 7970 clocks at 5500 MHz , this what I am referring to .

 

1800MHz OC

http://www.inpai.com.cn/doc/hard/169898_3.htm

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review/4

 

Comments under the review.

Edit: Comment from Ryan:

 

HAHAHA, by reasoning thank goodness ATI did all that "cheating" in compute during previous generations or they would have been really screwed.

 

Looks like Kepler is living up to it's reputation, nice job nVidia.

 

Lol I'm glad somebody said it. The coo-coo train is really rolling now. The fact that it doesn't make toast is probably cheating too.

Jawed was right about the greater compiler dependency though. He probably saw the white paper before starting that little diatribe In any case it's obvious nVidia's static scheduling needs some work. It's only dual issue dammit, how hard can that be. AMD had to deal with 2.5x that.

 

The NVIDIA card appears to suck badly in the original Crysis and Crysis Warhead , it is hardly faster than GTX 580 ! I suspect this could improve with future driver updates .

Performance in Crysis 2 DX11 seems superior to competition though , that is mainly because of the tessellation I think , without it we are looking at a tie .