Report: Nvidia Working on Second GK110 Consumer GPU

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now I see why Nvidia's explanation for not getting into the console market was said. They'd have to pull resources and wouldn't be able to work on other more useful things such as making estranged video cards outside of the lineup. I guess there is more profit margin selling your own product to the community with a confusing, expensive naming scheme rather than be a vendor to a manufacturer that will hold you to the pricing agreed to before orders are placed.

Well done Nvidia. Just use those profits to keep shelling out phenomenal cards like the legendary 8800GTX that stayed on top of the performance charts for 2.5 years and customers like me wont complain a bit. I still have that old card in another system and I'm kinda anxious to see when it dies what kind of card EVGA gives me to replace it with if it died in the near future. Likely a GTX 640 since its in the same ballpark performance wise.
 
[citation][nom]murzar[/nom]It's powerful hardware.. if you were going to give it feminine names, it should be something powerful like 'Victoria' or 'Catherine'.[/citation]
Powerful sounding female names are perceived differently from person to person. Females don't get the obviously intimidating names, like "Brutus". :)
 
[citation][nom]tomfreak[/nom]lets see..GTX480/580 = 384bit + large 500mm2 chip + 48ROP = $499GTX470/570 = 320bit + large 500mm2 chip + 40ROP = $399GTX460/560 = 256bit + 330mm2 chip + 32ROP = $229-299GTX Titan = 384bit + large 500mm2 chip + 48ROP = $999GTX Titan SE = 320bit + large 500mm2 chip + 40ROP = $899GTX680 = 256bit + 290mm2 chip + 32ROP = $499GTX670 = 256bit + 290mm2 chip + 32ROP = $399GTX660 = 192bit + 220mm2 chip + 24ROP = $229

I guess Nvidia is being a dick for overpricing the whole kepler line by almost double.[/citation]

Well, they have to adjust for inflation and the weakness of the US dollar somehow.
 
"the price of the new card will be between the GTX 680 and the GTX Titan or GTX 690."

Why would you even mention the GTX 690? You know the price will fall below the price of the Titan so how doesn saying "or GTX 690" make any sense? Are they going to lower the price of the GTX 690 to below the Titan?

I'll just call it expensive and be done with it.
 
when the 580 came out, they priced it like a 480 and reduced the 480 price- I refuse to help nvidia scam the customer- the titan is a $750 card at best
 
@utroz:
So which apps are you speeding up with gpgpu that cuda doesn't already support or can't be done faster on a cuda enabled similar software? :)

And please don't tell me folding@home or bitcoin mining...LOL. I'd rather have cuda for apps and faster gaming silicon. But that hasn't made me upgrade my 5850 yet...LOL. Just sayin...People claim AMD for gpgpu but never give anything more than these two useless examples. Nothing that makes you money (bots get all the bitcoins, what little there is left to discover and nobody will pay you for running up your electric bill to solve cancer).
 


Actually they're just charging what makes some money as opposed to AMD who's losing 1.18Bil/yr :) This is the difference between making ~725mil and losing 1.18B. I'm not quite sure why AMD has decided to continually lose money by giving cheap card prices, then doubling down on losses by giving away 4-8 games with them. This is called GOOD business practice by NV. Apparently 65% of the discrete gpu buyers think NV cards are worth the price, or AMD would have that percent correct? Nvidia isn't being a dick, AMD is being stupid. Until they make money, they're charging YOU too little. Get it?

I guess you wouldn't think NV pricing is cool until they're going bankrupt too?
 


It's worth $1000 or they'd still be on the shelf. There are NONE in stock at newegg. If I was NV I'd be charging 1100 starting next week...and another $100 each week until there was some stock left :) You price your product at what the market bares or you simply make less money. Being generous never got anyone ahead in business :) Ask AMD.
 
I'm going with "GTX Unnecessary". Although I can appreciate the fact that they would want to do something with chips that didn't make the grade, but can be cut down and reused for other models. Or they just want to bury the Radeon 7970 with as many products as possible...
 
[citation][nom]tomfreak[/nom]lets see..GTX480/580 = 384bit + large 500mm2 chip + 48ROP = $499GTX470/570 = 320bit + large 500mm2 chip + 40ROP = $399GTX460/560 = 256bit + 330mm2 chip + 32ROP = $229-299GTX Titan = 384bit + large 500mm2 chip + 48ROP = $999GTX Titan SE = 320bit + large 500mm2 chip + 40ROP = $899GTX680 = 256bit + 290mm2 chip + 32ROP = $499GTX670 = 256bit + 290mm2 chip + 32ROP = $399GTX660 = 192bit + 220mm2 chip + 24ROP = $229I guess Nvidia is being a dick for overpricing the whole kepler line by almost double.[/citation]

Kepler isn't comparable to Fermi and Fermi's second generation because it's not a copy of Fermi, but a whole new architecture. The GTX 680, like the GTX 480, managed to greatly improve on its predecessor (in the 480's case, the 280 and 285) despite a slimmer memory bus. It actually does follow how Nvidia did things if you think about it and put things into more context.

GTX 285 had a 512 bit bus and a 550mm2 chip.
GTX 480 had a 384 bit bus and a somewhat smaller chip.
GTX 680 has a 256 bit bus and a greatly smaller chip.

Nvidia went for a smaller chip because they could do it without having issues for it. Customers still got their roughly doubling of gaming performance compared to the first top card of the previous architecture (the 480) and that Nvidia did it with a smaller chip and memory bus doesn't stop that from being true.

Nvidia wasn't a dick about this and most certainly didn't overprice things because of it (well, they're still somewhat more expensive than AMD, but not by anywhere near double), at least not other than Titan which might simply be so expensive because of crap yields (which Nvidia had even worse issues with than AMD for this generation). That Nvidia priced things more according to performance then nearly irrelevant numbers isn't a bad thing at all as far as I'm concerned.
 
[citation][nom]somebodyspecial[/nom]Actually they're just charging what makes some money as opposed to AMD who's losing 1.18Bil/yr This is the difference between making ~725mil and losing 1.18B. I'm not quite sure why AMD has decided to continually lose money by giving cheap card prices, then doubling down on losses by giving away 4-8 games with them. This is called GOOD business practice by NV. Apparently 65% of the discrete gpu buyers think NV cards are worth the price, or AMD would have that percent correct? Nvidia isn't being a dick, AMD is being stupid. Until they make money, they're charging YOU too little. Get it? I guess you wouldn't think NV pricing is cool until they're going bankrupt too?[/citation]

AMD's graphics card pricing has almost nothing to do with their loss in cash (if anything, it's mitigating it from being worse). That's mostly on their CPU side and how they dealt with Global Foundries, among other things. You can't treat this companies as if they do only one thing that affects their bottom line and get an accurate result from that.
 
[citation][nom]somebodyspecial[/nom]It's worth $1000 or they'd still be on the shelf. There are NONE in stock at newegg. If I was NV I'd be charging 1100 starting next week...and another $100 each week until there was some stock left You price your product at what the market bares or you simply make less money. Being generous never got anyone ahead in business Ask AMD.[/citation]
My bet is that it is not gamers buying this card. It is a fantastic card at a fantastic price (compared to the Tesla line) for HPC where DP FP is necessary. I am willing to bet that is it the HPC market that is buying this card.
 
[citation][nom]ashesofempires04[/nom]I'd bet that the reason why they don't use GK110 as their 700 series, is because it's not particularly efficient, it suffers from yield issues due to the complexity, and AMD and nVidia are both realizing that throwing more SMX units isn't necessarily faster. The Titan isn't a newer, more efficient architecture, it's Kepler with near double the SMX units that the 680 has. When you compare Titan with a 690 (or 680's in SLI) the only real benefit is less micro-stuttering (a common drawback to SLI or Crossfire).These new Titan-derivatives are only being released because nVidia is trying to use the chips that failed the binning process that would have put them into a Tesla or Titan GPU.[/citation]
Then why does it consume so little power?
 


Ignore the efficiency mistake in that post and it makes a lot of sense. Efficiency isn't the issue for such chips as this, but flaws that cause some parts to not function properly if at all can still be common yield issues. Some people seem to forget that there are multiple types of yield problems 😉
 


This is not true, I can compare the earning from each gpu division. Well, NV is pretty much all that though they now cut their reports into the tegra line and gpu lines.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6690/amd-q412-and-fy-2012-earnings-closing-out-a-rough-year-looking-towards-the-next
AMD gpu division made 22mil. NV made ~750mil TTM and this is WITH the loss tegra produces if memory serves. So why wouldn't I compare the to gpu divisions or even companies. The gpu division would contribute more money if they charge MORE MONEY. This is not rocket science. If you are only making 22mil off all the gpus you sell, you need to up the price or quite giving way games that down your profits on the gpus. Right? This is exactly the comparison I should be making, and exactly what AMD must do to stop losing money. Barely breaking even isn't going to fund a billion in R&D any time soon to keep up with NV (let alone Intel). They have good cards, there is no reason for the FREE games. NV would be glad to raise profits, jen hsun has said this FREELY in public in interviews. If they quit giving games today, NV would follow suit or raise their prices a bit. If AMD would quit lowering prices NV would not cut again. AMD cuts prices, NV is forced to respond. AMD needs to QUIT this practice for a good long while if we ever expect them to get another great card out on time. When AMD makes 500mil from the gpu division then it's MITIGATING their cpu losses. At 22mil they aren't even showing up to contribute. But that is directly related to pricing and free games.

AMD sells ~8mil discrete gpu chips (NV the other 21mil or so). So are you saying you think the performance of AMD's gpus are not worth more than a $2-3 bucks a piece profit? They are charging ridiculously low pricing (or just cut the dang games out so you make that in profits instead of the game companies). That division should be contributing $200-300mil at least. Which pretty much means up your prices $20-30 across the board or dump all included games. People may not like me saying that, but do any of us want a weaker AMD? They'd still be losing their arse even after doing this, but it's better than making next to nothing from gpu's right? Actually I'd argue they should just add $50 to every single card they make. They are that much faster than integrated crap and gamers would pay it no matter what if they did. NV would respond accordingly and there would be nowhere to run if you wanted a gaming card and both companies would make more profits from this stuff. NV isn't getting filthy rich either. There debt being zero and NV 300mil payments distorts the profits a bit. Take that away and they are making peanuts for the #1 gpu company. They used to make more just a few years ago with NO intel help.
 


Your ignoring tons of factors. For example, ~400mil of Nvidia's profits was a payoff and a huge portion of AMD's debt stems from their getting out of of Global Foundries. Those are just two small examples. You're also forgetting that there simply wouldn't be nearly as many Radeon sales if not for their prices and free games and such. Heck, with Nvidia launching a new GTX 650 Ti Boost that competes with the Radeon 7850 in performance at a lower price, the only thing that AMD has going for it is the free games. AMD can't just raise prices and expect there to not be much of a boycott of the more expensive cards. Unlike Nvidia, most people won't buy Radeons at just any price because AMD simply doesn't have the fan followers like Nvidia does. Then, instead of making only a little money from their graphics, AMD gets to make even less.

You're also ignoring how most non-gamers nowadays are content with integrated graphics and that really hurts Nvidia and even AMD since most systems sold are still not AMD, but Intel for the CPU. That's only the beginning. How can you possibly expect any opinion of yours to be valid on such a subject when you only consider a mere fraction of the factors? I could go on and on with things that you're just disregarding, but shouldn't be.
 
The NVidia GTX ODABTY Edition - Our Drivers are Better than Yours edition.

Purely because every single ATI/AMD card I have ever owned has had driver issue after driver issue. The cards work well when they hit a good run with drivers (like recently I hear).

We all have our biases, but I would prefer to sit on the green team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom