NVIDIA Kepler speculation thread

[UniversalTruth]

A 1080p screen would be less ergonomic

Yeah, I know. It's better to stare and torture your eyes with a 2-3 inch smartphone, or stupid 7-10 inch tablet, instead of sitting like a boss in front of 22-24 inch high resolution panel.
The size defines everything.
And that 19 inch 4:3 display is very annoying. A simple almost square.
Come on, give your mom a present, she will be even more happy with it.

The beast is such an a**hole.

 

[Kaotik]

Actually that doesn't bode well for AMD , Charlie always downplays any advantage NVIDIA has .

Yes, but he also posts any possible rumor he can regardless of if they have any credibility behind them or not.

 

[Alexko]

If I look at my family (parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, cousins etc.) almost nobody has a 1080p class monitor. (It's the opposite, of course, for my friends, pretty much all of them in the tech field.) Maybe they're not for sale anymore, but that's irrelevant, because they don't upgrade the monitor when they upgrade their PC. Why replace if it still works?

That's my experience as well.

 

[jimbo75]

Yup me too. It's pretty amazing how people will put up with some ancient desktop PC because it's good enough for them.

It's not uncommon now to see a Pentium I desktop nearby an iPad, Kindle Fire and expensive laptop however.

 

[tviceman]

From SemiAccurate: "What is going on with Nvidia’s GK114?"

Two possible names: GK114 and GK114-GX.
Performance projections similar to those for Sea Islands, a 15% increase.
March 2013 release "best case," but April/May is more likely.
NVIDIA most likely still hasn't solved their process issues.

I don't see how Nvidia can squeeze 15% more performance out of GK104 leaving it as is. They *could* go with 7ghz vram, but yielding enough parts with memory controllers that can operate at 7ghz is probably extremely optimistic at best.

If GK114 doesn't have at least 1 more memory controller (giving it a 320 bit bus), then it's going to be a very disappointing refresh.

 

[mczak]

My mom is totally happy with her 19" 1280x1024. Email, browser and Word work fine. She doesn't do a lot of 3D modeling and Visual Studio

But would she have any reason to upgrade the graphic card then?

 

[Pete]

Yeah, I know. It's better to stare and torture your eyes with a 2-3 inch smartphone, or stupid 7-10 inch tablet, instead of sitting like a boss in front of 22-24 inch high resolution panel.
The size defines everything.
And that 19 inch 4:3 display is very annoying. A simple almost square.
Come on, give your mom a present, she will be even more happy with it.

The beast is such an a**hole.

What ... are you talking about? Anyway, his mom is probably working with one app at a time, full-screened, in which case 12x10 probably isn't limiting her.

 

[UniversalTruth]

What ... are you talking about?

I am thinking about that dark thing which forces people to read emails on their smartphones, or watch movies on their smartphones/ tablets. Because he said that "full HD would be less ergonomic".
Which is, of course, not possible since 16:9 (or 16:10) not 12:10 matches (or fits best to) natural human vision.

Anyway, his mom is probably working with one app at a time, full-screened, in which case 12x10 probably isn't limiting her.

 

[Blazkowicz]

With mom's monitor there's less pixels to keep track of, a 1280 width is about perfect to read full screen web pages, and you may get less light emitted at you. So it can be actually more comfortable.

With a 1920 pixel wide full screen browser you can end up with kilometer long lines of small text. This is the biggest issue with 1080p monitors.
Hey, if vendors would make 1400x1050 monitors again, at a comfortable 20" size, it could be about perfect . I have a huge high end CRT monitor, because I had the opportunity and it's nice to have for a while the single best CRT I ever used. I would use this resolution if my graphics driver wasn't stuck at 85Hz, making that res unbearable, so I'm using 1280x960 instead.

 

[LittleJ]

I don't see how Nvidia can squeeze 15% more performance out of GK104 leaving it as is. They *could* go with 7ghz vram, but yielding enough parts with memory controllers that can operate at 7ghz is probably extremely optimistic at best.

If GK114 doesn't have at least 1 more memory controller (giving it a 320 bit bus), then it's going to be a very disappointing refresh.

I was thinking along them lines as well. I was thinking a GK114 die with something like 10GPC(1920 shaders), 40ROPS on 320bit bus, 2.5GB 6.0Gbps mem all at a GF114ish die size of 350-360mm2. Those specs with similar GK104 clock speeds should yield 20-25% improvement.

What that would mean for GK110, who knows......

 

[UniversalTruth]

With a 1920 pixel wide full screen browser you can end up with kilometer long lines of small text

It's very sad that you don't know how to control the size of the text, with mouse wheel up and down+ CTRL.

 

[silent_guy]

It's very sad that you don't know how to control the size of the text, with mouse wheel up and down+ CTRL.

You really don't have a clue, do you, how hard it is for elderly to remember the not-so-basics of computer stuff. (Because ctrl-scroll is NOT basic.)

And, yes, it is less ergonomic. A large screen has more area to scan, which is harder to do when you sit very close to the screen, like she does. She also think a big screen is an eye-sore in her tidy house. And, again, being a WW2 frugal child, why replace it when the old just works? Oh, and where she lives, it's not $200. Quite a bit more, actually. Which is a very wasteful, no matter who pays it.

Please go back discussing how HQV is a proxy of 3D image quality. It's way more entertaining, in a Sandra Palin kind of way.

 

[silent_guy]

But would she have any reason to upgrade the graphic card then?

Fair point.

But I spec'ed a new computer with new monitor for my sister last year, with some fairly forgettable low end discrete GPU for some light gaming and my suggestion to replace their CRT (gasp) with a 24" we're not followed. Too big to fit on their desk etc.

You really don't need a 24" for email, word, browser and an occasional game.

 

[UniversalTruth]

Sorry, I didn't know your case is so hard. If scroll + CTRL is so difficult, why using computer, why at all?

And no, 22-24 is not large, just sit in front of it for a while, get used to it and after some time it would look even small to you.

 

[Blazkowicz]

it's a bad shortcut anyway, you can use zooming buttons in firefox, go to view, toolbars, customize.

Interestingly 1280x1024 displays are still sold, the caveat is there are 21.5" 1920x1080 displays at the same prices.
for now my 20" viewable area 4:3 doesn't seem small, even watching 16:9 video is fine to me. lol, in good old times 21" 4:3 was the standard TV size, at least in my country. I guess I could still use a sony FW900 lol even though I will never stumble upon it by chance.

 

[UniversalTruth]

in good old times 21" 4:3 was the standard TV size, at least in my country

That's right.
Interestingly, it is alright even now if you spend your lifetime in front of the TV, don't see the really large plasmas, and don't travel a lot. When you travel a lot, and don't watch TV for months, when you enter a room with 21 inch TV and everything looks so tiny. I guess it has something to do with how our brain interacts with and get used to different types of environment.
However, televisions have recently changed a lot and now the texts appear quite small, thus not readable from few meters, on that size TV.

A large screen has more area to scan, which is harder to do when you sit very close to the screen

The optimal distance is at least one full arm length.

 

[Ailuros]

The optimal distance is at least one full arm length.

Depends on way too many factors. For small children watching TV any sane ophalmologist will quote 6x times the diagonal length of the TV screen.

On a PC monitor obviously the user isn't going to sit as far away, but the distance is still relative to the screen size itself and the used resolution (unless you meant an arms length for a 21" monitor which is about correct).

 

[UniversalTruth]

Depends on way too many factors

If image quality is perfect, then it would be almost like looking through a window, or watching an event as you were there. No problem at all, me thinks.

For small children watching TV any sane ophalmologist will quote 6x times the diagonal length of the TV screen

However, I have observations that with small chldren it is exactly the opposite. They tend to sit as close as possible to the source.

On a PC monitor obviously the user isn't going to sit as far away, but the distance is still relative to the screen size itself and the used resolution (unless you meant an arms length for a 21" monitor which is about correct).

Does it mean that you should look at your 3.5 inch smartphone display from 30 cm, let's say?

 

[Ailuros]

However, I have observations that with small chldren it is exactly the opposite. They tend to sit as close as possible to the source.

Just because they have the tendency to almost glue their nose to a screen, it shouldn't mean that it's good for their eyes. Again the typical recommended distance by ophalmologists for small children is 6x times the diagonal of a TV screen. If measured that's not even a lot, unless the space the TV is in is limited to 4 square meters f.e.

Does it mean that you should look at your 3.5 inch smartphone display from 30 cm, let's say?

If someone needs say 10 cm and values his eyesight it might be a good idea to visit an ophalmologist. I can't imagine what's so awkward about a 30cm holding distance for a smart-phone, since the majority of users are actually holding it in that range. Neither all that much closer or all that much further away is a good sign for the users eyesight.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Depends on way too many factors. For small children watching TV any sane ophalmologist will quote 6x times the diagonal length of the TV screen.

I think that's myth/BS to be honest. Perhaps that made some sense in the old days with 21" TVs with low resolution. You think watching 60" TV from over 9 meters away makes sense?

http://www.eyecareamerica.org/eyecare/tmp/eye-care-facts-and-myths.cfm

“Sitting close to the television can damage children’s eyes.”

False. Children can focus at close distance without eyestrain better than adults. They often develop the habit of holding reading materials close to their eyes or sitting right in front of the television.

There is no evidence that this damages their eyes, and the habit usually diminishes as children grow older. Children with nearsightedness (myopia) sometimes sit close to the television in order to see the images more clearly