It's not. For the same price I got vastly improved relative wattage performance, and that's what I wanted. I didn't even want to upgrade - my croacking 4850 finally forced my hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
Printable View
It's not. For the same price I got vastly improved relative wattage performance, and that's what I wanted. I didn't even want to upgrade - my croacking 4850 finally forced my hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
K10 and K20 are completey different... we can speak about whole computing as a market, but yet the capability they aim and the public aimed are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
The K10 is an computing server card who is made of 2x GK104.. it achieve something peak like 4.58Tflops SP, but only 200Glfops DP ... If your need is for DP, forget this card, a single 7970 have allready 5x the capability in DP of the dual GK104 ... Just for give an idea 2x 7970 draw 7.58Tflops SP and 1.98 Tflops DP .. so 10x more DP rate of the dual GK104 K10 .. ( its for an idea, cant compare both ofc ).
The K20 will get surely a little bit faster SP of a single GK104 but a DP rate of 1Tflops minimum (vs 0.1 Tflops )... The card is aimed at server AND workstation use.
Basically K10 and K20 are not aimed at the same public. As it will serve different needs. speaking about market is a bit vague imo. K10 is aimed at CUDA acceleration mostly (and with his miserable DP rate, i m tempted to say only CUDA ) when the K20 will be capable of all.
anandtech has rops incorrectly there ^ it should be..Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
ROPs <=60
the actual 3072 cores performance on gtx690 is equivalent to the 2880 cores on gk110 and who knows maybe a geforce gk110 will end up with 3840 cores
it doesnt matter what k10 vs k20 is intended for from a geforce point of viewQuote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
they can certainly build a 7.1billion 3072core 64rop 384/512bit gpu
they can certainly build a 7.1billion 3840core 60rop 384bit gpu
but only for gaming ? gk110 whitepaper is exactly the fermi compute whitepaper: compute blah blah blah
just how many kepler gpus do you guys think nvidia has in the pipeline.. for every low/high end markets ?
gk110 is it this is the motherload.. what will remain to be seen is how theyre going to go about those 960 dp units in a geforce ;)
since they are very hush hush about the actual number of cores
Oooh sorry, i was think you was speak specially about K10 and K20 (both cards are clearly aimed at different computing needs, just cause their spec and perf are aimed at another needs, SP in one case, and SP+DP in the second ) .... Geforce GK110 ( gaming card ) is another story... I just speak about K10-K20 ..Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
You guys are confusing me. K20 is GK110
You are correct. I'm not even going to try to wade through this thread and make sense of what people said.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
K10 is dual GK-104 and K20 is GK-110. Period.
and no one said otherwise period.
k10 is dual gk104 just as gtx690 is dual gk104
"gtx780" is gk110 just as k20 is gk110
period.
:)
Now, I'm interested in what the GTX 880 will be like. There really doesn't seem to be a huge jump coming anytime soon.
depends if the roadmap with maxwell on it pans out..
http://h13.abload.de/img/nvidia_cuda_gpu_roadmaoelo.jpg
Remember this?
if the trend continues.. gm104 is going to be 10x the gtx680 per that roadmap ^ and gm110 so forthQuote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
indeed two years away (2014 q1)Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Looks to me like GTX680 performance is pretty similar to GTX480 SLi performance:Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1511766&mpage=1
Yes it is, I have ran both setups, My thoughts were that the 680 felt smoother on some games that I play but the 480's I have are smooth enough. FPS in min. were very simular best I could tell. My brother is running on the 680 now and I continue to use my 480's untill the next gen. The 680 is a fantastic card but I think 780 or whatever is going to be the point when it makes sence to dump my 480's. All depends on what your after and what your needs are I suppose.
Why spend that much if you don't care much about performance? If a 4850 is good enough why not just pick up a 5770 or 6850?Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Honestly, you're just an AMD fanboy that likes to complain about the competition at any possible opportunity.
You could have gotten video cards that would have wiped the floor with that 4850 while drawing less power years ago for half the price of what you paid for that 7870. Performance clearly isn't even that important to you.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by ClockZ
Till I get a game that I can't play on high settings with my current setup then I won't bother upgrading.
-PB
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by ClockZ
Till I get a game that I can't play on high settings with my current setup then I won't bother upgrading.
-PB
Chill. I was already wanting to upgrade since Civ 5 and even source games don't take well to 4xAA and 16xAF. With the 4850 I can't play on high settings in modern games, and the 512 vram prevents high detail settings. I just didn't need to. It's a question of wants, money, and timing. If I bought a x770 or a 6850 I would be paying money for a replacement, and why would I want that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
Your attempts to armchair psychology me are not very good.
Why are you attacking him so much? His opinion may not be 100% valid, but then you're paying him out for buying a HD7870?Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
It is clearly a better card than the 570 for the same money.. that's all he said. Your aggressiveness makes you look like more of a fanboy than him.
Considering the GTX 670 is only $50usd more expensive than the 7870, I'm not sure how anyone can honestly believe such nonsense. The GTX 670's price is only 15% higher than AMD's offering but while playing modern games like Battlefield 3, the 670 completely wipes the floor with the AMD card by 35-50%. And in Skyrim, the 670 is again a clear winner by 15-25%.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
Btw... i'm assuming you meant to type 670 instead of 570 in your post because I highly doubt many consumers are having to decide between the latest gen and the previous gen. The performance difference between the 570 and 670 is massive, and those 570's are still far too expensive.
no I (they) are talking about the 570...Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
670 is a completely different story (and great value)
Its the over the top fanboy posts and not just in this thread that just rub me the wrong way. Check his post history and you'll see what I mean. Why would a person who finds a 4850 to be "good enough" come and troll the video card discussions at a place called xtreme systems? Is this the AMD version of Rollo?Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
Thats another very good point, actually. Do you think the thought of picking up a GTX670 even entered into his mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
I don't think that 7870 is a bad card at all. I actually considered picking up a couple for crossfire but it doesn't offer much as far as price vs performance goes. Look at the lack of excitement on the forums when that card was released. They just sort of slipped it in at the same price as other cards with similar performance. All that it really has going for it is the performance per watt which goes back to my point originally on that being just one part of the equation and for most people a small one.
Hey, if you're going to make insinuations about me, do it to my face. Don't be passive aggressive.
Because I like the news section. I don't really bother with anything else. You might say it's mostly a matter of finding other uses with my money, like buying food and paying for rent. The amount of money I take home at the end of the month, on a grad student's pittance, isn't much. In fact, I would not have purchased one without my tax return.Quote:
Why would a person who finds a 4850 to be "good enough" come and troll the video card discussions at a place called xtreme systems? Is this the AMD version of Rollo?
$50 is about a weeks worth of groceries. Also, all GTX670 models have garbage stock coolers, and higher idle wattage, while I purchased a Sapphire 7870 with a much better and quieter cooler for the same as MSRP.Quote:
Do you think the thought of picking up a GTX670 even entered into his mind?
LOL what are you talking about? I just got a pair of Gigabyte 670's for $400 a piece, and you won't find a nicer cooler. Wanna compare PCMark11 scores? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125423
Why not buy a midrange card like a GTX560 or 6870, it would have been a massive upgrade, similar performance per watt, and an all around better bang for your buck?Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
As mentioned above, buy a more common AIB model at the same price.Quote:
Also, all GTX670 models have garbage stock coolers, and higher idle wattage, while I purchased a Sapphire 7870 with a much better and quieter cooler for the same as MSRP.
Do you really not see the difference between someone saying "the card has similar performance to a card you could have bought a year and a half ago at a similar price but at least it draws a little less electricity" and "its faster than the competitions offering, cheaper, and draws less electricity while to boot"? Really?
HEY! I have a watercooled 990X with 680Sli and 57X10 3D VisionSurround on my main box. I may not be icing down my cpu for 3D Mark competition, but I'm a hell of a lot more "xtreme" than a guy sporting a 4850.Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ