NVIDIA Maxwell Speculation Thread

A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y said:
Because marketing has found that most gamers don't upgrade every cycle but every two cycles so that comparison is directed to them.
Click to expand...
Do you have any proof to back this "two cycle theory" or it's just what you think that the marketing department is thinking?


A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y said:
Tin foil hat comment.
Click to expand...
Which is always better than troll baiting.
Feel free to express a different opinion than mine, but please refrain from shallow accusations on a personal level.
 
ToTTenTranz said:
Do you have any proof to back this "two cycle theory" or it's just what you think that the marketing department is thinking?
Click to expand...

It has been mentioned many times in full reviews. Try Googleing it first.

EDIT: Link from Google Search: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6994/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-review

This won’t be nearly enough to justify replacing a GTX 670 with a GTX 770, but it makes it a respectable increase as a mid-generation part, and very enticing for those GTX 470 and GTX 570 owners on 2-3 year upgrade cycles.
Click to expand...
Which is always better than troll baiting.
Feel free to express a different opinion than mine, but please refrain from shallow accusations on a personal level.
Click to expand...
Like your obvious personal level comments such as "any proof & you think"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y said:
It has been mentioned many times in full reviews. Try Googleing it first or do I have to hold your hand all the way.
Click to expand...

Meaning: you don't have anything to back your theory.
Maybe you should just present it as that - a theory - and not a fact.


EDIT: the fact that you edited your post and came up with an article saying "oh there's this $400 graphics card that could be a nice upgrade if you're looking to upgrade within a ~3 year cycle" -> doesn't serve as any kind of proof for your theory that people wait 3 years to change their $150 graphics cards. Or that it's the logic behind their marketing department.
 
Comparing to 265 is a joke considering it's laughbly super inefficient 150W vs super efficient 60W card.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6276/...0-review-gk106-rounds-out-the-kepler-family/3

The most immediate conclusion is that while NVIDIA is of course worried about stiff competition from AMD, they’re even more worried about competition from themselves right now. The entire computer industry has been facing declining revenues in the face of drawn out upgrade cycles due to older hardware remaining “good enough” for longer period of times, and NVIDIA is not immune from that. To even be in competition with AMD, NVIDIA needs to convince its core gaming user base to upgrade in the first place, which it seems is no easy task.

NVIDIA has spent a lot of time in the past couple of years worrying about the 8800GT/9800GT in particular. “The only card that matters” was a massive hit for the company straight up through 2010, which has made it difficult to get users to upgrade even 4 years later. As a result what was once a 2 year upgrade cycle has slowly stretched out to become a 4 year upgrade cycle, which means NVIDIA only gets to sell half as many cards in that timeframe. Which leads us back to NVIDIA’s press presentation: even though the GTX 460/560 has long since supplanted the 9800GT’s install base, NVIDIA is still in competition with themselves 4 years later, trying to drive their single greatest DX10 card into the sunset.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense to target the GTS 450/GTX 550 Ti users. Those that already own the GTX 650 Ti won't buy this because it's not as big an upgrade to them as it is to older gen hardware owners.

This is common sense, you don't have to think deep and hard to get it but I guess some people here are unable to use their brain to think.
 
DSC said:
Comparing to 265 is a joke considering it's laughbly super inefficient 150W vs super efficient 60W card.
Click to expand...
At least the review samples of R7 265 are one of the most efficient cards around: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R7_265_Dual-X/25.html (95W average consumption)
GTX 650 Ti is also measured in the most reviews at ~70W, although TDP was set a 110W.

Of course GM107 will be significant better. I would assume ~50% better perf/W in real measurement.
 
not surprising given how old tech is that in AMD's case... they haven't worked on anything more efficient and who knows when they will present something really competitive...

just rebrands should be definitely forbidden by law
 
iQnjHJY.png


GTX 750 55W beats the GTX 650 Ti 110W in performance. It doesn't lose a single benchmark to the GTX 650 Ti.
 
DSC said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6276/...0-review-gk106-rounds-out-the-kepler-family/3



It makes perfect sense to target the GTS 450/GTX 550 Ti users. Those that already own the GTX 650 Ti won't buy this because it's not as big an upgrade to them as it is to older gen hardware owners.

This is common sense, you don't have to think deep and hard to get it but I guess some people here are unable to use their brain to think.
Click to expand...

That statement made sense in a period where the performance demand for PC games is being pulled back by a ~7 year-old console generation, and G92 graphics cards become more than enough for almost any console port.
It's absolutely not the reality of 2014, where the new consoles have a theoretical performance level similar to ~150-180€ graphics cards.


So yes, seeing how some people like to think we're still in 2012, I have to agree that some people here are unable to use their brain to think.
 
A bit sad to see Maxwell is still limited to the D3D11.0 feature support, with partial 11.1/2 compatibility like its predecessors.

Apparently, CUDA and the GameWorks library is what NV wants to push to the game developers, as an answer to Mantle, while the common standards remain somewhat neglected in the process.
 
Very disappointed for any lack of new features..
This also makes one to wonder on what K1 doesn't have that M1 will have. (it should have low power features already, so if 'full maxwell' is this..)

Sadly it seems that only Intel wants to increase graphics quality and programmability.
 
For the power efficiency, well done.. on performance / price level otherwise, i m not even really sure it is better of the 650TI boost ( who is in all review, but left completely outside conclusion... ok the boost version is based on GK106 and not gk107 and is a 650TI with turbo clock speed enabled )..

Again, i applaud the work on power efficiency... but somewhere i will better like to see them push a bit more the envelope and features. Many "gamers" who buy cards at this price point, will strictly dont care about +-20W, ( even 40W ) but more about performance. On notebook otherwise this start to be more interessant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
GPU Stability testing for Nvidia cards - PowerSweep
Replies
0
Views
446
T2098
T
D
Speculation and Rumors: Nvidia Blackwell ...
45 46 47
Replies
928
Views
103K
Kaotik
Kaotik
Rys
  • Sticky
Hello again
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
12K
homerdog
homerdog
M
AMD made a mistake letting NVIDIA drive Ray Tracing APIs
5 6 7
Replies
122
Views
20K
MfA
M
xpea
Nvidia Hopper Speculation, Rumours and Discussion
7 8 9
Replies
177
Views
38K
Deleted member 2197
D
Back
Top