Did NVIDIA Originally Intend to Call GTX 680 as GTX 670 Ti?

[w0mbat]

10-15% with a 25% smaller die is a tour de force. Hope for AMD that they have another chip in fab 'cause GK110 will hurt some butts.

What? HD 7970 totally trashes GTX 680. Even the HD 7870 it faster. That's because GK104 has only limited GPGPU abilities and that's why NV needs GK110 to keep up with Tahiti XT.

Now, I guess your talking about gaming performance. And yes, in 1080p the GTX 680 is about 8-10% faster than Tahiti XT while having a smaller die. But the reason for that is, that Tahiti is not only a gamer GPU, but also very potent in the compute area.

Let's compare Pitcairn here. This chip is much smaller too and runs head-to-head with Tahiti PRO. So if AMD would beef up Pitcairn a bit, you'd have a die size about the same as GK104 and a performance ahead of HD 7970.

GK110 won't "hurt some butts" but will bring the desperately needed GPGPU performance to keep up with Tahiti.

[tajoh111]

AMD actually has to be happy about this one. I mean Nvidia not going through with their original plans and remarketing it and pricing it.

If this was sold as a gtx 660 and came out with a 300 dollar price tag, it would completely annihilate AMD lineup and profit margins.

AMD would need to price their 7970 at $250-300 to sell. Nvidia could make profit with such pricing probably because they did with a bigger die gf114 which was also cheaper. They wouldn't make as much, but it would still make them money. But with a 7970 at 250, we would be seeing 200 dollar 200 7950s, 150 dollar 7870s and honestly at this point, AMD would be completely F...ed The consumer might win in the short term, but AMD would be in for such a terrible quarter in the graphic department that we could see quarters from them that made the gtx 8800/2900 xt look like golden years.

The pricing of gk104 is completely AMD fault(79xx should have been faster and or cheaper from the get go) and is nice/greedy based on your level of fanboyism or business sense.

To call nvidia greedy for pricing their cards at $499 and to call the 7970 at $550 because it's performance is completely nonesensical. Both are being greedy or both are pricing it according to performance. Gx104/114 has traditionally has much more similar die size than AMDs high end range/rvx70. If you applied your logic to AMD logic to nvidia, the gtx 680 that was released yesterday should have been priced at 599.

Most of AMD reason to shift their lineup to x8xx and x9xx products(i.e 6970s appearing 2 years go when the name should have stayed 6870s considering the performance jump) up a notch is very similar to why the gtx 680 is priced this high/rebranded. It is to market the chip for a higher price than it really is or was designed to be. AMD wanted to market their chip like it was a super high performance die/big die. They wanted to get back into the rx00 pricing rather than this rvx70 pricing they were out of years back. The thing is AMD didn't want to make a big die like the 2900xt to do it. Traditionally the rvx70 cards were meant to be high performance/upper mainstream cards, hence their conservative die sizes. AMD wanted to get back into their $500+(but without making an expensive costly to make monolith) graphic card game so they tried to make a name change shift(which was cheap and free). That didn't work out last generation because fermi was fixed and beat them to the punch. AMD came out first this time around, hence the 550 pricing. But compared to earlier years, the chip size didn't jump that much. Sure we got more memory but not nearly enough to justify the price change. What we have here is AMD rebranding their card to a higher number so they can market the cards at higher pricing and/or to trick the consumer to think they are getting more performance than the number series actually means. Nvidia is doing the same thing with the gtx 680, but they are just following the competitions lead.

What? HD 7970 totally trashes GTX 680. Even the HD 7870 it faster. That's because GK104 has only limited GPGPU abilities and that's why NV needs GK110 to keep up with Tahiti XT.

Now, I guess your talking about gaming performance. And yes, in 1080p the GTX 680 is about 8-10% faster than Tahiti XT while having a smaller die. But the reason for that is, that Tahiti is not only a gamer GPU, but also very potent in the compute area.

Let's compare Pitcairn here. This chip is much smaller too and runs head-to-head with Tahiti PRO. So if AMD would beef up Pitcairn a bit, you'd have a die size about the same as GK104 and a performance ahead of HD 7970.

GK110 won't "hurt some butts" but will bring the desperately needed GPGPU performance to keep up with Tahiti.

Its atleast 10-15%, for the games that really matter at 1080p. Lets face it, most people are buying this card for new games. And for the most part, these are the games that the gtx 680 does best. The biggest games for the pc in recent times have been sky rim(33%) and battlefield 3(16%). Batman Arkham(20%) city is up there as well as Mass effect 3(9%). There are occasional newer games like deus ex were they are even, but the higher averages of the other games balance it out to the double digit range. Without older games diluding the average, it definitely hits around that space of 10-15%.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/..._card_review/3

This is all from hardocp, which people typically used in the past for the 69xx and 68xx series to make these AMD cards look better.

In addition, who to say how well pitcairns will scale up in games. Same with Gk110 vs gk104. If we look at 7970 and 7950 at the same clocks. There is 14% more shaders, but there is less than a 5% difference between the 2 at the same clocks. Same with 6970 and 6950. Scaling up with die size does not mean a scale up with performance. Scaling up 50% might only lead to 30% performance increase. Architecture tend to be the most efficient at smaller die sizes. Tahiti pro loses pretty badly to the gtx 680 and pitcairns would lose even worse. It has a lot of grounds to make up.

[zalbard]

What I find quite strange is that AMD isn't in a hurry to drop prices now that GTX 680 is out. At least that's what the article on FUD says.
I was hoping that they would both start undercutting each other nicely since both of the offers are quite overpriced and they have larger margins than usually. Perhaps the volume of supplies is to blame.

GK110 won't "hurt some butts" but will bring the desperately needed GPGPU performance to keep up with Tahiti.

How would you know?
Perhaps Nvidia wants to leave most of the compute functionality (and performance) for their professional cards. GK110 could be just 1.5 x GK104 (both gaming and compute performance-wise; they could easily cripple Geforce computing performance compared to Tesla/Quadro like they did before). If it comes out at all.
Let's face it, most 'normal' home consumers don't need much compute performance. Nvidia introduced their own encoding tech (NVENC), they could leave it at that for this round and force all the non-CUDA compute applications' users to look at their professional cards.

[BababooeyHTJ]

What I find quite strange is that AMD isn't in a hurry to drop prices now that GTX 680 is out. At least that's what the article on FUD says.
I was hoping that they would both start undercutting each other nicely since both of the offers are quite overpriced and they have larger margins than usually. Perhaps the volume of supplies is to blame.

I think that you're right. There really must be limited supplies of 28nm chips. I guess that we'll have a better idea when we see how long it takes for Nvidia to be able to resupply retailers.

[Olivon]

What? HD 7970 totally trashes GTX 680. Even the HD 7870 it faster. That's because GK104 has only limited GPGPU abilities and that's why NV needs GK110 to keep up with Tahiti XT.

Now, I guess your talking about gaming performance. And yes, in 1080p the GTX 680 is about 8-10% faster than Tahiti XT while having a smaller die. But the reason for that is, that Tahiti is not only a gamer GPU, but also very potent in the compute area.

Let's compare Pitcairn here. This chip is much smaller too and runs head-to-head with Tahiti PRO. So if AMD would beef up Pitcairn a bit, you'd have a die size about the same as GK104 and a performance ahead of HD 7970.

GK110 won't "hurt some butts" but will bring the desperately needed GPGPU performance to keep up with Tahiti.

Seems nVidia made a good calibration. Seriously, who cares about GPU capabilities ?
@gamez, GK104 is better than Pit Cairn (a really good small chip as I already said).
@GPGPU, GK110 will bring some serious stuff that professionnals need and will crush HD7970 compute capabilities.
Tahiti is a "bastard" chip, not the best while gaming and their compute capabilities mean nothing in professionnal world.
Unleash Teraflop they said, we're still waiting. TOP 500 use hot Fermi chips right now. Where is AMD dev support ?

[zalbard]

Seems nVidia made a good calibration.

This could be a bit risky move. Some people could look at AMD offers instead.

Where is AMD dev support ?

But this could also be a stopping point for those people. I guess it really depends on the particular person/application. Either way, this situation shouldn't affect a great deal of people. I understand that people like cutting corners, and being able to make money on machines equipped with $500 cards instead of $2000 ones sounds attractive, but Nvidia isn't stupid either, so perhaps more will have to play by the rules.

[kromosto]

today gpgpu may not be so important but it will be in everywhere in a short time. today i look at microsofts c++ amp which is a feature in vs2011. it gives developer a very simple way to use gpu in your apps. it needs no other sdk no other compiler no ther project no nvidia, amd difference. mostly in 2 years computing power will be very very important while choosing a gpu.

[zalbard]

If it's not needed NOW then they may be excused, technically.
Besides, this could be a good way to market the refresh.
Look, our compute performance is up by 50%! (Don't look at our gaming performance which only increased by 10%.)
However, I am not sure if GK104's compute performance limitations are on BIOS / driver level, or by design. Some people are saying that there is something wrong with Nvidia's OpenCL driver as well.

[Manicdan]

the 7970 is smaller than the 560ti as far as mm2, is that a mid range gpu too?

[zalbard]

the 7970 is smaller than the 560ti as far as mm2, is that a mid range gpu too?

It isn't.
7970 is 365 mm2, 560 Ti is 360 mm2.
They are completely different architectures as well.
Same as for Intel / AMD chips, it's not quite comparable.
FYI, 560 Ti packs 1950m transistors while 7970 sports whooping 4.3b. Quite a difference.
Also, GF110 has 3b transistors while GK104 consists of 3.54b. And that's after jumping from 40nm to 28nm tech and highly optimising the architecture as well.

[GoldenTiger]

the 7970 is smaller than the 560ti as far as mm2, is that a mid range gpu too?

Must be, by some people's logic.

Yup, thats the way that I'm looking at it. I can get GTX590 like performance now for $500 and hopefully pick up a second one when the next generation hits for cheap.

Yeah, I'm wondering if I ought to be selling one of my new eVGA 680's once they arrive monday, and just wait for a second. I think these will probably drop a good bit in price later. Still, that could be quite a ways away before it drops enough that I would be kicking myself at all... and I would love the performance now. 99% chance I won't sell though.

[Manicdan]

It isn't.
7970 is 365 mm2, 560 Ti is 360 mm2.
They are completely different architectures as well.
Same as for Intel / AMD chips, it's not quite comparable.
FYI, 560 Ti packs 1950m transistors while 7970 sports whooping 4.3b. Quite a difference.
Also, GF110 has 3b transistors while GK104 consists of 3.54b. And that's after jumping from 40nm to 28nm tech and highly optimising the architecture as well.

you got the point, its not so simple to call something mid range.
i think people were spoiled by getting one major update every few years, instead of now they have a whole line of minor updates once a year.
id say the 480 should have been called the 470 since it had some parts shut off, and then the 580 would have been the proper model to call a 480. but i bet they didnt do that because it means they wouldnt have had a complete line out for nearly a year.

if they called the 680 something like a 670, they wouldnt have had what people know of as their high end card for months, so instead they gave everyone a small update, for a small price. and they are going to repeat that again later this year by releasing the 780 which might be nearly double a 580. but in that time why look like your not competing by releasing something and not calling it high end. if amd was stronger then i could see a reason to call it a 670, because it would have been under their top gpu. or maybe someone got smart and realized it dosnt matter how much faster amd was than nvidia, calling it a 680 could net them free sales by people who always believe nvidia is stronger (they just so happen were this time too)

pricing however is just weird. simple fact is that prices have not fallen much these past few years, ever since 40nm. but if people look at perf/price for the high end cards (anything over a 250$) this is at the top. im thinking the high prices have to do with using such large chips. the 4800s were practically tiny compared to todays high end. which is why i keep an eye on price/mm2 as my reference point from one generation to the next, which btw has gone up in these latest releases compared to the first 40nm chips.

[Mungri]

the 7970 is smaller than the 560ti as far as mm2, is that a mid range gpu too?

No because its the highest GPU that AMD were planning for that generation.

GK104 was intentended as the successor of G114 and G104, the high end GPU that was planned from Nvidia this generation was the GK100 / GK110 as the successor of the GTX 580.

Due to the 7970 not performing up to Nvidias expectations, they got to play a renaming game and released the chip they intended to release as a successor to the GTX 560 / 570 as their highest end GPU.

Memory bandwidth is also a contributing factor - for the last several generations high end Nvidia GPUs have at least 384 bit memory, cut down to around 320 bit for the £250 model. 256 bit was used on the mid range cards like the 560 ti.

GK104 and all the versions based on this card was meant to have been this generations equivalent of the GTX 560 up to the GTX 570. The full high end model was likely going to have been an early cut down version of the GK110, called the GK100.

The GK104 is a fantastic GPU, but Nvidia originally had something better planned for the GTX 680, and this GK104 was meant to have cost significantly less. Due to AMDs performance and price on their highest end GPU, Nvidia now get to make a huge profit from selling the GK104 as a high end £400 card, and they are still selling fast everywhere. OCUK reported that they were selling one every minute which is great for Nvidia, but I'll be waiting for the prices to drop on this GPU before buying it.

[GoldenTiger]

No because its the highest GPU that AMD were planning for that generation.

GK104 was intentended as the successor of G114 and G104, the high end GPU that was planned from Nvidia this generation was the GK100 / GK110 as the successor of the GTX 580.

I'm sure if GK100 were ready, they would have released it too. GK100 clearly wasn't suitable for release for them. People spin this all day long, but at the end of the day this is what nVidia had ready and released it. It performs better at high-end at a high-end price that's $50 less than the Radeon 7970 people call high-end. I can't really figure any issue here.

[Manicdan]

I'm sure if GK100 were ready, they would have released it too. GK100 clearly wasn't suitable for release for them. People spin this all day long, but at the end of the day this is what nVidia had ready and released it. It performs better at high-end at a high-end price that's $50 less than the Radeon 7970 people call high-end. I can't really figure any issue here.

exactly. there is no business logic to hold back something that can be worth so much.
i sure wouldnt want to be the guy to suggest not releasing the GK100, weve seen how strong Jen is. youd be lucky if you were only fired.

[tajoh111]

I'm sure if GK100 were ready, they would have released it too. GK100 clearly wasn't suitable for release for them. People spin this all day long, but at the end of the day this is what nVidia had ready and released it. It performs better at high-end at a high-end price that's $50 less than the Radeon 7970 people call high-end. I can't really figure any issue here.

I think we get to see that the 79xx series wasn't all it was cracked up to be. The performance was simply not that impressive, at least for a next gen 28nm part that raises the pricing bar for a company. I remember even the lowest expectations of 79xx against the gtx 580 was 30% and we got way less than that. I think what AMD tried to do was make GPU compute/gaming chip while compromising on the gaming portion so they didn't need to make the die that big. This compromise bit them in the ass this time around, because the gaming portions is the only thing being evaluated currently because their professional parts are not out yet. There's a reason why past Nvidia GPU don't outperform AMD's pure gaming parts of last gen as much as their die difference suggest. That GPU compute part takes a decent amount of space.

As a result we got something slower than we were expecting and the worst price to performance jump ever. 79xx isn't a bad part, it just needed to be bigger and faster to have the 550 price point and keep it there.

[Khaotic]

Anybody have a GPUZ screenshot of a 680?

[zalbard]

I'm sure if GK100 were ready, they would have released it too. GK100 clearly wasn't suitable for release for them. People spin this all day long, but at the end of the day this is what nVidia had ready and released it. It performs better at high-end at a high-end price that's $50 less than the Radeon 7970 people call high-end. I can't really figure any issue here.

Price/performance ratio is the issue.

[Rollo]

They can call it Big bubba black -2GB STD edition and as long as it works I really don't care. You know what I care about? The value of a product and how well it performs.

But you can bet in every single forum on the internet ATi fans are going to post that NVIDIA is "ripping you off dude! you should wait for the big chip- at least till ATi launches their dual GPU part" and they can go back to promoting something.

Just amazing. Of course as NVIDIA has higher performance per watt and mm, the rest of the kepler line should beat the rest of the ATi line. Then the NVIDIA logo will be "too green".

[Russian]

Anybody have a GPUZ screenshot of a 680?

They're all over the place, I've got one in my review...

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news....aspx?pageid=9

[Mungri]

GK100 didn't have to be released!

Even if the 7970 was just 10% faster than GK104, it would have been released as a GTX670 Ti at around $400 / £280 instead. The price to performance would have been so overwhelming that AMD would be forced to slash prices on the 7970 to remain competitve.

The point isn't about the GK100 at all, the point is that the GK104 was meant to have been a GTX570 Ti priced far far lower than a 7970 and the next price to performance champion, if only the 7970 had performed as Nvidia had been anticipating it.

[UrbanSmooth]

No because its the highest GPU that AMD were planning for that generation.

GK104 was intentended as the successor of G114 and G104, the high end GPU that was planned from Nvidia this generation was the GK100 / GK110 as the successor of the GTX 580.

Due to the 7970 not performing up to Nvidias expectations, they got to play a renaming game and released the chip they intended to release as a successor to the GTX 560 / 570 as their highest end GPU.

Memory bandwidth is also a contributing factor - for the last several generations high end Nvidia GPUs have at least 384 bit memory, cut down to around 320 bit for the £250 model. 256 bit was used on the mid range cards like the 560 ti.

GK104 and all the versions based on this card was meant to have been this generations equivalent of the GTX 560 up to the GTX 570. The full high end model was likely going to have been an early cut down version of the GK110, called the GK100.

The GK104 is a fantastic GPU, but Nvidia originally had something better planned for the GTX 680, and this GK104 was meant to have cost significantly less. Due to AMDs performance and price on their highest end GPU, Nvidia now get to make a huge profit from selling the GK104 as a high end £400 card, and they are still selling fast everywhere. OCUK reported that they were selling one every minute which is great for Nvidia, but I'll be waiting for the prices to drop on this GPU before buying it.

This sums up the whole GTX 680 "phenomenon". Why are people still talking?

[NEOAethyr]

Anyone wanna swap there 680 for a 7 layer burrito?

[Tha Last Meal]

Seems nVidia made a good calibration. Seriously, who cares about GPU capabilities ?
@gamez, GK104 is better than Pit Cairn (a really good small chip as I already said).
@GPGPU, GK110 will bring some serious stuff that professionnals need and will crush HD7970 compute capabilities.
Tahiti is a "bastard" chip, not the best while gaming and their compute capabilities mean nothing in professionnal world.
Unleash Teraflop they said, we're still waiting. TOP 500 use hot Fermi chips right now. Where is AMD dev support ?

I agree with you %200 , but don't forget that some don't have any clue of what they are talking about yet they talk and talk and talk...god help us all

[Glow9]

But is the product their best? Or are they holding back something else, their actual best, simply in an effort to force enthusiasts to pay twice?

Buy yeah they are holding back why wouldn't they, they went with what they saw as the best option to make a profit. They are not forcing enthusiasts to pay anything. If people are dumb enough to run out and throw money at a company just because they offer something new thats their problem. It's not like their back to charging $800 or whatever ridiculous prices the 8800GTX was.
If consumers don't see it as a good buy they wont buy it, Nvidia would have to lower prices. Blame all the people who throw money at hardware that can't max out games ported from 5 year old consoles. Interesting dichotomy.... Now if you were to pay $500 for something that can max out something made to play on a 1 year old system makes sense, its like buying a new console.

What? HD 7970 totally trashes GTX 680. Even the HD 7870 it faster. That's because GK104 has only limited GPGPU abilities and that's why NV needs GK110 to keep up with Tahiti XT.

Now, I guess your talking about gaming performance. And yes, in 1080p the GTX 680 is about 8-10% faster than Tahiti XT while having a smaller die. But the reason for that is, that Tahiti is not only a gamer GPU, but also very potent in the compute area.

Ummm so what else would you be using a AMD/ATI video card for besides gaming performance?