iMacmatician
Regular
Okay, let's assume the 780 has a 320-bit bus as rumored. While 3 GB seems to be possible (2x 2 Gbit + 8x 1 Gbit), I'm not sure why they would do this when they could just have 2.5 GB (or 5 GB) using a symmetric memory configuration. Maybe to match the 7970's memory size?Sweclockers (Google Translate) said:
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Yeah, definitely, maybe he was drunk while typing:
Luckily there is also a “new” Geforce 770 based on the same GK104 die as the current 680 but in GK104-425 guise. This one is promised for the middle of May, so slightly before Computex with ~25% higher performance than the current GeForce GTX680 and around the same price
...
Last up is the profit sinking special, the “new” GeForce GTX780 the current Titan with a few more fuses blown. This “new” chip is called the Titan LE and will be less than 10% faster than the GT680 for a significant price premium
To laugh or to cry?!
I agree- 3 GB is a bad joke for this card and it will become useless much sooner with the new demanding games...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7990/12.html
Luckily there is also a “new” Geforce 770 based on the same GK104 die as the current 680 but in GK104-425 guise. This one is promised for the middle of May, so slightly before Computex with ~25% higher performance than the current GeForce GTX680 and around the same price
...
Last up is the profit sinking special, the “new” GeForce GTX780 the current Titan with a few more fuses blown. This “new” chip is called the Titan LE and will be less than 10% faster than the GT680 for a significant price premium
To laugh or to cry?!
I agree- 3 GB is a bad joke for this card and it will become useless much sooner with the new demanding games...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7990/12.html
Silent_Buddha
Legend
If this proves true it just proves the point I've been making that Nvidia has been wanting to get up and over the 650 USD price point that they first established with the GTX 280.
I'll be interested see if they go for 650 USD or try to bump it up to 750 USD for the card. Assuming of course, that there's any truth to the rumor.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if AMD would like to get into that situation as well
Regards,
SB
Blazkowicz
Legend
From semi-accurate
If the GK104 has a 294 mm² die size, as I could read on B3D forum, then is the GK110 "up to" 882 mm²?
. This sure sounds expensive.
But anyway GTX 780 can either have 2.5G or 5GB. Barring interleaving as on 550 ti and 660 ti, which could give, err, 3.5GB? (I'm counting 1.5GB on 192bit plus 2GB on 128bit)
But it seems very likely the GTX 780 has 5GB, and I thought 4GB on the GTX 770 would be reasonable too. How do you justify the big margins elsewise..
The "nvidia cards can't have more than 3GB" rumour, I question it and it seems to me it's someone trolling to make it look like the 7970 will still be on top (and it will when faced to the GTX 770, unless you want to be in a flamewar about which card is 6% faster than the other one in a nvidia friendly game.)
GTX 780 will be better for people willing to spend more dough to play those GCN friendly and bandwith hungry games. Or it's good news for engineers and scientists who do CUDA dev duties to get their shit done. AMD still is the bargain, unless you're a linux user.
If the GK104 has a 294 mm² die size, as I could read on B3D forum, then is the GK110 "up to" 882 mm²?
. This sure sounds expensive.But anyway GTX 780 can either have 2.5G or 5GB. Barring interleaving as on 550 ti and 660 ti, which could give, err, 3.5GB? (I'm counting 1.5GB on 192bit plus 2GB on 128bit)
But it seems very likely the GTX 780 has 5GB, and I thought 4GB on the GTX 770 would be reasonable too. How do you justify the big margins elsewise..
The "nvidia cards can't have more than 3GB" rumour, I question it and it seems to me it's someone trolling to make it look like the 7970 will still be on top (and it will when faced to the GTX 770, unless you want to be in a flamewar about which card is 6% faster than the other one in a nvidia friendly game.)
GTX 780 will be better for people willing to spend more dough to play those GCN friendly and bandwith hungry games. Or it's good news for engineers and scientists who do CUDA dev duties to get their shit done. AMD still is the bargain, unless you're a linux user.
Have I missed a link for this? Sounds like rubbish to me anyway, 3GB would be pretty ridiculous for a high end card at the end of this year, never mind that they have to achieve it via some crazy memory configuration.
From semi-accurate
semiaccurate said:
If the GK104 has a 294 mm² die size, as I could read on B3D forum, then is the GK110 "up to" 882 mm²?
Titans die is 551mm², around 1.9x GK104. Charlie is as usual talking out of his ass.
I think the question is: there is real need for more than 3gb of vram in fullhd, now and for next couple of years? I prefer 3gb of vram, which I think is sufficient for the period of time that I said, than more money to buy the vga...
For the next 2 years that will still be covered by first generation console games then perhaps not but a lot of people buy a gpu like this with the expectation that it will last longer than 2 years or simply be able to handle anything the new consoles can throw out. With only 3GB of RAM I dont think that claim can be made. With 5 though your probably in fairly safe territory.
Look more like a problem of scaling ( if we can expect any scaling at 12-16fps lol.. should be a lag fest ), i have just watch 2 reviews ( some use only High quality instead of Ultra anyway ), and this is by far not the result they have. Look the 680 who close 7970Ghz gap and this is with 2Gb only ... AMD need maybe watch a bit the driver at 5760x1080. ( but there again, other review i have watch are not report this for the Ghz and the 7990 ). ( nothing against TPU, but i definitively find their review more strange each time )
Last edited by a moderator:
UniversalTruth
Veteran
The point being is that there is no card produced yet which is capable to run smoothly Crysis 3 maxed out. Of course, the problem is not only the insufficient memory size, but the slow chips anyway. This is actually a proof that such shitty cards don't deserve to have price tags of more than 400-500$ anyway.
And those who pay for them, help no one, neither themselves because they are screwed , nor the other people because corporations think- oh, well, if this shit is going to sell, why should I release something better?
And those who pay for them, help no one, neither themselves because they are screwed , nor the other people because corporations think- oh, well, if this shit is going to sell, why should I release something better?
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
Geforce GTX 780 coming on May 23rd, GTX 770 on May 30th
Less than 3 weeks away so performance leaks should be happening sometime soon.
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
Crysis 3 graphics will “melt down PCs” says Crytek
And that was by design.
No this is not proof that either the current cards are sh*tty or overpriced. Crysis 3 was "by design" to overtax current cards on max settings.
And that was by design.
No this is not proof that either the current cards are sh*tty or overpriced. Crysis 3 was "by design" to overtax current cards on max settings.
It's an interesting balancing act of consumer perception of value. Most games could be configured to overwhelm the best cards. I could set up a modded Oblivion that would do so no problem. You can get out Crysis 1 and do some config file editing and make the game not-so-realtime.
When a game company offers menu settings that reduce the current $600 cards to smoldering ash, they get called out on "bad coding" by morons. I'm not sure the impact it has on the IHVs, unless one IHV performs considerably better than the others.
Anyway the only reason we see any of the 3D cards as fast is because games are built with their limitations in mind. And this perception typically is only maintained until the next hot hardware is ready to be pushed our way, which again will be quickly pushed past its limit.
When a game company offers menu settings that reduce the current $600 cards to smoldering ash, they get called out on "bad coding" by morons. I'm not sure the impact it has on the IHVs, unless one IHV performs considerably better than the others.
Anyway the only reason we see any of the 3D cards as fast is because games are built with their limitations in mind. And this perception typically is only maintained until the next hot hardware is ready to be pushed our way, which again will be quickly pushed past its limit.
I think that's more because once you turn up the settings past some point you just get a big performance hit but need a magnifying glass to actually see a difference.
But this is probably understandable, after all they can't put in a huge effort for some better rendering which you'd only be able to enjoy 3 years down the road...
Inidentally there are quite a few cards that can play crysis 3 maxed out perfectly fine at normal resolutions.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
What kind of normal resolutions? 1024 X 768?
Seriously, don't you think it is time to play Crysis 3 at Ultra HD 4K or 8K?
Are you saying it doesn't exist? Because everything points to different economic interests which have nothing to do with justice.
