Unfortunately not. OBR says September/October, other sources say it will be difficult to get a release even this year. Personally I hope November at the latest.Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
Printable View
Unfortunately not. OBR says September/October, other sources say it will be difficult to get a release even this year. Personally I hope November at the latest.Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
I guess it all depends on AMD. I still don't get why they've been sitting on their hands now that NV is getting enough supply. Yes they reduced their prices but they should have launched the 7990 at the same time to steal the top end sales. Until they give Nvidia a real threat on their sales they've got no reason to release the gtx 780
The market for the dualcards is so small, it doesn't matter except for prestige. I'm also pretty sure that the 780 is far from being ready. The tape out of GK110 was only last month afaik. Add 4-6 month, rather 6 and you end up at September at the earliest. And then most of the chips will go to Tesla cards. Desktop most likely will come in second. I wouldn't count on good supply before 2013.
3072 CUDA cores... Yeah, right. With added compute functionality that thing would be like 800mm2.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
2304 CUDA cores sounds FAR more realistic.
Continuing on the monitor discussion, it seems the Crossovers are the way to go if you don't care about 100 hz. They have a far better stand, the same panel and apparently have slightly better input lag (though I'm not sure how people came to that conclusion). Still it seems that stuck pixels are the primary issue of concern.
Can you imagine gaming on 3 of those with tri sli gtx 780? Assuming they have enough horse power to chew through 7680*1440 with aa that would be a site to behold
I just barfed until I filled a pool big enough for the 2012 Olympics in London.Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
7680x1600 (16:10) would be much more 'stomachable.'
Three 16:9 monitors = ***HHHUUUUUUUUU...***
Except that it literally costs $3000 more to get 3 30" Dell panels than it does 3 CatleapsQuote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
Or, you could get three reasonably priced 1920 x 1200 monitors (still glorious 16:10).Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
I believe you specifically referenced 2560*1600Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
Ultimately, 16:10 > 16:9 in triple monitor setups.Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
I wish that there were 16:10 monitors with 120hz, though. I would replace 60hz monitors right now.
GK110 is supposed to be around 550mm2, so roughly double GK104. 2304 is not correct according to my info.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Sauces?Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
-PB
A guy (Ailuros) who knew pretty much everything about GK104 as he has his own sources:
http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulle...d.php?t=523399
To be honest that is what I expected for big Kepler, those are specs I would associate with a high-end card from Nvidia. Now let's see this chip on a dual GPU card, that would be truly amazing!Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
64 rops 6b transistors and 6+8 pin!!!
I like Tomato myself. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by paulbagz
:-)
I do hope the king Kelper card comes with 4GB of 512 bit memory sounds heavenly to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
Lol your sig.. this scene in this movie is absolutely excellent. ( Well the movie is excellent... )
Totally agree with you. It is one of the best for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
I haven't read the entire thread, but 6 GPCs, 3 SMXs/GPC, and 192 CCs/SMX is 3456 CCs, not 3072. What's the reason for this discrepancy?Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
lol, you are right.. And wy "3" SMX / GPC ? dont 2 or 4 will not be more appropriate ? Strange to use a number of SMX like that. And why they use "6" GPC ? Look like a typo for me .Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacmatician
For 3072, something like 4 SMX for 4GPC or 2 SMX x 8 GPC will be correct. But they could too reduce the numbers of CC / SMX . ( instead of use 192SP ). Something we have allready seen with Fermi. ( 32SP /SM on GF100, instead of 48SP /SM for the GF104 ).
Lets not forget the LDST+FU+caches etc cost a lot of place in an SMX ( there's 32 of them / SM in addition of the 192CC) ( and this without count the uncores units ( polymorph, warp, dispatch unit, TMU etc ).
.
Good question, I'll ask :)
Okay, I just did some calculations and 3072 CCs at 850 MHz doesn't give the listed 5.875 TFLOPS, but 3456 CCs do. So I'm tempted to say the "3072" number is the typo. Also, the GTexels/s number works out with the given 8 TMUs/SMX and 18 SMXs.Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacmatician
Also Ailuros in the other thread says that GK110 CC ≠ GK10x CC, so that might account for why there are so many CCs reported in GK110.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
I lol'd when "according to my info" became "I read it in a random forum post" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb