NVIDIA Kepler speculation thread

Well my conclusions were based on how well the follow ups fared. Fermi was eventually vindicated, R600 was still slow in RV670 guise.

If that really was their plan I hope they aimed higher this time else they won't have anything to face Tahiti. That's also doubtful because Titan was supposed to get daddy Kepler by the end of 2012 - I assume for that to happen the chips have to be ready well before then.

Summerish?

 

I'm really not sure that's fair. Newegg went out of stock for about 24 hours (maybe a bit more, I'm not sure) but they have two SKUs right now, both of which are only restricted to 10 per customer, so it might be a bit on the tight side, but supply seems about adequate.

 

I know I'm not everybody but I'm also not nobody and I have cash in hand and I'm ready to upgrade now. My current graphics card (HD5850) is faulty and I randomly get BSOD when running video files so it's not just upgrade fever..I kind of need a new card now. I was displeased with my AMD card so I want to go Nvidia but I don't want to buy a Fermi if Kepler is around the corner. Hence why I am so personally disappointed that Kepler was a no-show at CES.

 

Perhaps but honestly even a flood of $500+ cards isn't a threat on its own. Like I said, a timing advantage of a few months only plays out if your competition's response is weaksauce.

Then you will never be happy unless both companies launch competing parts at the same time. There's no guarantee of that so just buy what you need when you need it. Buyer's remorse is a bitch but so is life.

 

Kyle Bennett over at [H] says he is hearing June for Kepler

 

All of G8x (where x != 0) was on an 80nm process at TSMC. Linky

 

http://www.fudzilla.com/component/k2/item/25503-jensen-on-kepler

And apparently Nvidia's partners are getting a little antsy.
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25431-nvidia-partners-concerned-about-amds-28nm-lead

 

Silence on NV´s side is usually a better sign, than the times when NV went around creating FUAD.

 

remove emotion from the equation and you get more of the Cypress <-> Fermi situation.

One party has low-end and mainstream 28nm parts out a couple of months before the other (sales) and has the comfort of a dual-GPU spoiler product (marketing).

 

There will be some spoilers in the upcoming products, that's for sure.

 

I am quite confident, that the difference in availbility will decrease with the smaller chips.

 

Agreed, $500+ cards are never going to see much volume, no matter how fast they are—unless they start giving blowjobs or something.

But Pitcairn is scheduled for February, isn't it? And I think Cape Verde isn't far behind… It all hinges on just how many wafers TSMC can supply, at what price, and of course on yields, but a 3~6-month advantage could be a very big deal.

 

Newegg is OOS again. If you consider that launch day availability should be much higher than incremental shipments it's clear that there weren't very many chips to go around. Let's see how long it takes for everyone who wants a 7970 to get one.

Also, the 7950 will be cheaper and therefore in higher demand. Insufficient availability to meet that demand is the only real plausible reason for holding back the launch.

Yeah, there's a lot of pent up demand for a fast $150 card. The upper end of the midrange ~$250 will have to contend with discounted 560's and 6970's though as usual.

From TPU: "If two weeks ago somebody told us that today NVIDIA would be hard-launching a new high-end graphics processor under a new product family (the GeForce GTX 500 series), we'd have laughed out loud."

 

But that could also be because yields are actually pretty good and they don't want to sell Tahiti Pros when they could be selling Tahiti XTs instead. Either way, I'm sure it well get clearer within a few weeks.

 

Agreed. Though I think the point was that the name, configuration, launch date and performance were not leaked even though there was a lot of availability on launch day. So it is possible to keep things under wraps. Granted it's probably easier to hide a tweaked chip than a new architecture on a new process.

 

Actually, that's quite the opposite. A tweaked chip is harder to hide and it's much easier to estimate it's performance and features since they're basically known from the previous version of that chip.

As for June and other stuff people are hearing somewhere:

 

I can't agree. GF110 was just a new revision of a released and well known product. TSMC workers had several Fermi revisions in hands, so it was just another one for them, nothing special. That's the most likely reason why anybody didn't expect it earlier.

 

He is soo... credible....

 

Don't underestimate the importance of momentum, especially in a channel evironment where you have partners with engineering resources.