There is far more evidence affirming it's existence than not, and continually treating everyone whom you disagree with as if you were Al Gore just makes this that much more enjoyable.
First off, it is a fact that the GTX 680 was renamed just prior to launch. It's intended launch name was the GTX 670ti, and
card photographs released a few weeks prior to launch clearly show this. Please take note that the card itself is the same length as the cooler. All reference GTX 670's are much shorter than the cards cooler, thus that card could never be anything but the 680. There is also additional
proof HERE that nVidia did indeed pull their true flagship card shortly after AMD released the HD7970, then re-labeled the GTX 670ti to be the GTX 680.
At the time there were many theories as to why nVidia would do this, but most rational thinkers (ie: not AMD Fanboys) figured that since the full-blown Kepler GK100 chip with its massive complexity, size, and production cost... didn't seem to be required to beat out AMD's flagship card, nVidia made a smart decision and pulled the card. The FACT that TSMC had all sorts of yield issues with 28mn as well as them making the mistake of signing too many production contracts... everyone knew high yield wafers were not coming anytime soon and more importantly... the price per wafer was extremely expensive when yields are low, making a massive GK100 far too costly.
Now... I'm sure some fanboys just read that and are trying to keep their heads from exploding, all while typing a reply that will no doubt say something to the extent of "TSMC didn't have yield problems, the only problem was with nVidia's faulty designs, blah blah...." while claiming that if 7970 cards were available, it must be nvidia's screw up.... blah...
The only problem with that line of irrational thinking is 6 months has now passed and every single official report from TSMC and nVidia, including all those very important legally binding reports to share holders and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) showed that while there were yield issues at first, they were eventually sorted out and the subsequent product delays that followed were actually caused by overwhelming demand for GTX 680 combined with AMD, Qualcomm, nVidia, and another company ALL waiting in the same line at TSMC for 28nm wafers. The Steam Hardware Survey clearly proved that nVidia sales of Kepler were strong while AMD's fell completely flat once kepler hit the street.
What was the point of all that since it clearly was not about GK100 you might ask? So what if they renamed it "GTX 680" instead of "GTX 670 Ti"... that doesn't prove anything!
Well, clearly it releases pressure off NVIDIA to introduce a part based on its "
big chip" based on the GeForce Kepler architecture (GK1x0). It could also save NVIDIA tons of R&D costs for its GTX 700 series, because it can brand GK1x0 in the GTX 700 series, and invest relatively less, on a dual-GK104 graphics card to ward off the threat of Radeon HD 7990, which it clearly has done since the 7990 is missing in action, and save (read: sandbag) GK1x0 for AMD's next-generation Sea Islands, slated for later this year, if all goes well for them.
There was also
THIS link in which nVidia themselves confirmed the 680 was intended to be the 670ti.
As for more proof, I think the GPU's design speaks volumes. The
FP64 performance of the GTX680 is 1/24th of its FP32 performance, compared to the GTX having FP64 performance at 1/8th of its FP32 performance. The GTX 560 Ti has a 1/12 FP64 rate -- it's common practice for both AMD and Nvidia to drastically cut FP64 performance on their more inexpensive offerings.
Third, GF100 and GF110 were ~525mm² parts that made up the GTX480/470 and GTX580/570 respectively. GF104 and GF114 were ~323mm² parts that made up the GTX460 and GTX560 Ti/560 respectively. GK104 is a 294mm² part that makes up the GTX680. The difference there is pretty damn obvious -- suddenly a modest die is being labeled as the top part, instead of being labeled as an upper mid-range part.
It's also pretty clear that with GK110 (the existence of which is official and undeniable) coming around later this year or early next year that Nvidia didn't simply abandon their gigantic dies. The mountain of evidence is undeniable -- GK100 existed at some point. There are FAR too many coincidences going on as well as clear patterns. It also makes absolutely zero sense that nVidia would at the very last moment change a product's name AND it's packaging. (that makes me wonder if my GTX 680 has a sticker over the place where early cards said GTX 780ti. I doubt nV would be so dumb to not just replace the whole cover)
Lastly, if nVidia had released the GK100, what would have they gained by completely annihilating anything and everything made by AMD?
Extra bragging rights? (they got this anyway)
Amd Fanboys crying themselves to sleep? (680 did that)
Fanboys suddenly claiming Perf/Watt was never important and the only thing that matters is GPGPU.
(heh... they did that too)
Truth be told, if nVidia had released GK100... it would have been corporate suicide. With a report out just today stating that
AMD's Q2 profits are down 40% along with more delays for some Trinity desktop APUs as well as HD6990 (if that even happens)... oh yea, and you can't forget that massive failure called "bulldozer". I'm personally worried about AMD's future. Not only because it's good to have choices in which products I buy, but the fact if AMD's graphics division or AMD itself were to cease to exist or even stay remotely competitive.... I'm quite sure the U.S. Justice Department and SEC (along with our Business hating President) will immediately file anti-trust suits against both Intel and nVidia.
Anyways... time to get to sleep.
Edit: just wanted to add my own personal feelings about those of you who are in complete denial regarding GK100 ever exisiting. While it is indeed true that none of us have actually seen with our own eyes a GK100, the circumstantial evidence that I have listed is undeniable. And if you actually took a few minutes to search around, far more information is out there.
For someone to claim there is no proof of GK100's existence anywhere out there yet in just a few minutes I gathered a ton of evidence... the only possible excuse for such behavior can be one of two things. Either the person is blinded by fanboyism or just your typical self-entitled kid whose parents bought him a GTX 680 only to find out nVidia didn't "GIVE" him the GK100 of which he is deserving.
/logout
