Kepler news and discussion

[Rockdpm]

Oh NVIDIA is not that kinda of company. ATI i heard was back in the day, a used buyer. NVIDIA is still a good company. NVIDIA wouldn't need to.

Also the guy wasnt refering to NVIDIA, he was refering to "Ebay" which sells most anything. Its a Bidding website.

 

[psikaikai]

Oh NVIDIA is not that kinda of company. ATI i heard was back in the day, a used buyer. NVIDIA is still a good company. NVIDIA wouldn't need to.

Also the guy wasnt refering to NVIDIA, he was refering to "Ebay" which sells most anything. Its a Bidding website.

He said Nvidia should have a buy back program and they don't, therefore he has to sell via ebay.

 

[Rockdpm]

Ok. Yea i just read his post again. Can't Blame him for dream tho.

 

[Elevory]

Do any of you think it's worth waiting for Nvidia to release a ~$250 card from the Kepler series? I've been holding on to this cash for some time now, and the Radeon HD 7850 is looking more and more attractive.

 

[Rollo]

The 680s are amazing yes!..
but, I cant accept the 2gb Vram limitation, and yes I say limitation.
yeah I know "2gb is fine and dandy cause no current games ever use more than 1.9gb at 1080p etc etc etc" ...
BUT, 2gb is not enough for future proof reassurance honestly, games are almost maxing out the 2gb limit as is, and give it 2 years, maybe even 1 year, and they'll well breach those 2gbs.

and not to mention SLI future proofing,
I mean if you wanna plug in 2 or even 3 extra 680 into your system down the road sometime for that extra power, well shame, cause this 2gb is gonna bottleneck the sheep out of any game released in the future, and a lot of that extra processing power from 2way, 3way, and especially 4 way SLI will go to waste.

anyway
The reason for this long winded comment it to vent some of my frustration while I wait for the 4gb cards to be released.

And that's when the 680 will really be amazing!

There are some big problems with your hypothesis:

1. 2GB GTX680 is superior at 57X12 to 7970, as illustrated by HardOCPs review.
2. "Games" are not not almost maxing out the 2GB limit. There are a couple examples of being able to do this (like Skyrim with an add on pack and some AA thrown in) but what you posted is VERY inaccurate. a. tools that measure VRAM use measure "allocated" and games will grab all available whether they use it or not b.99.9% of video cards don't have more than 2GB of VRAM and 99.9% of games run fine. When you run out of VRAM, you know it.
3. The trend toward console ports means if anything "future games" will use less VRAM, not more.
4. Programmers code toward an installed user base usually, and 2GB+ crowd is a very small market.
5. It's impossible to predict the future, yet you talk about it like you've been there. (PM me with stock tips and sports scores, please)

Last I'm gaming daily with 2 X 2GB GTX680 at 57X10 resolution, in 3d as well, and used to have 2 X 3GB GTX580s in that box. Here's what I've noticed: it's a lot faster than the 3GB 580s, faster than the 3GB 7970s, and the "sheep" isn't bottlenecked out of it.

The GTX680 2GB is a very well balanced card for everything except 75X16 gaming, and if you're one of the 8 guys who have that, you should wait a few weeks for the 4GB model.

 

[Rockdpm]

Good Come back Polo lol

 

[hyder13]

any info on the mid range keppler cards with the price tag between 250-300 USD (gtx 660, gtx 660ti maybe)?

 

[lostcard]

any info on the mid range keppler cards with the price tag between 250-300 USD (gtx 660, gtx 660ti maybe)?

as far i know i should be very soon. my guess will be start may

 

[Guest]

why?
Nvidia terminates GeForce GTX 580 production

 

[kemperkipie]

Well what monitor setup and game settings do you plan to run?

I currently have 1 1920x1080 screen, and might get 2 extra in a few months for 5760x1080.. And i would like to secure my GPU for at least the next 3 years, and planned on playing games at max possible settings... I think 2GB would bottleneck me in a few years..
Or should just get 2x 2GB gtx 680's?? will that be enough vram for the next 3 to 4 years?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

There are some big problems with your hypothesis:

1. 2GB GTX680 is superior at 57X12 to 7970, as illustrated by HardOCPs review.
2. "Games" are not not almost maxing out the 2GB limit. There are a couple examples of being able to do this (like Skyrim with an add on pack and some AA thrown in) but what you posted is VERY inaccurate. a. tools that measure VRAM use measure "allocated" and games will grab all available whether they use it or not b.99.9% of video cards don't have more than 2GB of VRAM and 99.9% of games run fine. When you run out of VRAM, you know it.
3. The trend toward console ports means if anything "future games" will use less VRAM, not more.
4. Programmers code toward an installed user base usually, and 2GB+ crowd is a very small market.
5. It's impossible to predict the future, yet you talk about it like you've been there. (PM me with stock tips and sports scores, please)

Last I'm gaming daily with 2 X 2GB GTX680 at 57X10 resolution, in 3d as well, and used to have 2 X 3GB GTX580s in that box. Here's what I've noticed: it's a lot faster than the 3GB 580s, faster than the 3GB 7970s, and the "sheep" isn't bottlenecked out of it.

The GTX680 2GB is a very well balanced card for everything except 75X16 gaming, and if you're one of the 8 guys who have that, you should wait a few weeks for the 4GB model.

680 is faster, not by alot when not Oceed, but basically true.
As for the rest, not sure where youre going here, Games are designed for consoles, and soon the new ones will come out, offering more abilities, and yes, devs will use those abilities.

Not arguing with you here, but Im just not sure what youre saying

 

[Rockdpm]

I currently have 1 1920x1080 screen, and might get 2 extra in a few months for 5760x1080.. And i would like to secure my GPU for at least the next 3 years, and planned on playing games at max possible settings... I think 2GB would bottleneck me in a few years..
Or should just get 2x 2GB gtx 680's?? will that be enough vram for the next 3 to 4 years?

Yes, two 680's should have you good to go. As long as you spread the load of the Vram between the card/monitor

 

[Rollo]

680 is faster, not by alot when not Oceed, but basically true.
As for the rest, not sure where youre going here, Games are designed for consoles, and soon the new ones will come out, offering more abilities, and yes, devs will use those abilities.

Not arguing with you here, but Im just not sure what youre saying

I'm saying that while we can't predict the future, we can observe current trends.

The fact that there are NO games out of box that are memory limited on single monitor with a 2GB VRAM video card is one trend.

Another is that games are almost always console ports now, and consoles don't have 2GB of VRAM. Will the next gen consoles? Highly doubtful. Consoles need to be able to be sold for $300. - they can't do that with $300+ video cards in them. Also, consoles are made to play at 19X10 with no user selectable AA- they don't need much VRAM.

Not arguing either, just chronicling a very weird trend I see online lately of 3GB of VRAM now being the bare minimum for "future games". Anyone wants to put up a bottle of Patron against me saying computer games at the end of 2014 will need 3GB of VRAM to run smooth, I'll make the wager and appointment to revisit Christmas 2014.

Too many factors make it unlikely.

 

[bardacuda]

I currently have 1 1920x1080 screen, and might get 2 extra in a few months for 5760x1080.. And i would like to secure my GPU for at least the next 3 years, and planned on playing games at max possible settings... I think 2GB would bottleneck me in a few years..
Or should just get 2x 2GB gtx 680's?? will that be enough vram for the next 3 to 4 years?

Well no one can predict the future, and adding more cards does not add to your VRAM...You would still only have 2GB available per card. For a single monitor I'm sure it would be fine, but for 3 monitors in 3 - 4 years you could very well run out of VRAM with high res textures and AA.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Youre right, but adding cheap vram into a console, even doubling what we currently have isnt a deal breaker, and its likely this will change at least doubling it currently.

As they say, theres no future proofing in HW, only forwars looking, and looking forwards, I do expect much more ram in consoles

 

[mactronix]

I fully agree that 2GB is plenty, 3GB is a marketing ploy. There are limited scenario's where 3GB + would be truly needed but we are talking a single digit % of computer users here and as such its natural that a company would go for what is needed and nothing further for its general cards.
Yes there will be those who want the extra and they can buy cards that have it, everyone else is fine with 2GB in my opinion.

Mactronix

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If consoles come underpowered compared to apus, they lose some marketshare, just one example

 

[Rollo]

Youre right, but adding cheap vram into a console, even doubling what we currently have isnt a deal breaker, and its likely this will change at least doubling it currently.

As they say, theres no future proofing in HW, only forwars looking, and looking forwards, I do expect much more ram in consoles

Yes, but even if they double it, it's still nowhere near 2GB, let alone three. 360 has 512MB of System RAM it shares between the CPU and GPU, PS3 has 256MB dedicated. So with consoles we're currently at less than half a GB.

Next Gen consoles are going to more than quadruple VRAM?

Then we get into the whole need issue. Not many people have 25X16 monitors because they cost over a $1000.. While 57X10 is more affordable, it's all over the board game compatibility with three panels, you need a BIG desk space, and you need very end graphics to do it right- again- a small market.

The business and practicality end of the equation will keep 2GB plenty of VRAM for the next two years, and probably beyond.

 

[mikeny]

Soooo, stupid question...what does reference/non-reference card mean?

*I'm thinking of visiting Kepler when Ivy Bridge comes out or probably will wait til June-July.

 

[Rockdpm]

reference is this case means, Its what NVIDIA's Engineering PCB design is based off on. So ALL reference PCB's were shipped to NVIDIA partners so they could make Full reference Cards with just their partners Respective Logo on it.

Non reference would be changing anything from the Clock speeds to Changing the PCB or the Heatsink and fans for a more cooler operation

Kepler is looking good. but i am not liking what i am hearing about the Very Lowest end of Kepler. with the GT 640 and below it. They are just rebranding the Current fermi architecture as of right now. Idk about the rest. But Unless you can afford a 680. Your stuck in the sand for NVIDIA right now...

 

[renz496]

i think amd doing the same with their low end segment. either rename their card or does not introduce any new card for the entry level. if the rumor i read was true the GT 640 should be based on GK107. lower than that will be re-brand fermi such as GT620. honestly i'm interested with GK107. i heard some rumor the the chip will perform in GTX550 Ti range but with out needing the 6 pin to power the card

 

[Rockdpm]

I would bet, but why would they need to, i mean they got the 7750 out and it requires no power what so ever and is kinda performance of mid range cards from the 500-6000 series

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

With all this hype about ram and bus size etc, big K will only have 2 gigs of memory as well, since more isnt needed then?

 

[Rockdpm]

yea Please do tell. It would seem since they are using even number ram count..... its gonna be 4gb instead of 3gb for the K

 

[mactronix]

Bus size, I can see the issue people are having, however truth be told for both you really only need a look at reviews to tell you they are non issues.

Personally I have stated that I did not want to see the midrange cards meaning what will end up being the 660Ti cards hamstrung by a small bus.
It looks like they will use a 192 bit bus from the rumoured/leaked info. That's disappointing to me personally as I feel that a card with that type of performance needs a 256 bit bus.
Had it been a 128 bit bus then I would assert that there must be a restriction based on the performance level and the testing done previously on older 128 bit cards showing there to be a restriction only in certain games and then only just.

However I'm pretty sure Nvidia and AMD know what they are doing better than I do though and as I said the performance results in benchmarks have shown that the cards perform very nicely, the 7770 for example shows through over-clocking that it to is engine limited and not bandwidth limited and that's on a 128 bit bus.

Mactronix