Kepler Nvidia GeForce GTX 780

[Lanek]

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. He's been in SF at the press conference, so assuming reviewers got their cards there, then he has one or at least he should have some information, that was presented there.

Its not OBR who was there, this is allways the guy from the side site ( i dont want call it ) from the same country .. the problem is not what he hear, but what he write as assumptions from what he hear. he hear a finger, he do an harm with that, he hear a leg, he do 2 legs with it. In general peoples who are invited to this type of " show " .. are not the peoples who write thousands of rumors all day in their blog.

I don't want to be the one to say it, but this thread simply teabaggs the Fermi thread . I thought it's impossible to over speculate one product(like it was the case with Fermi) ,but Kepler did it. I hope the chip is as good as the hype is.

Something is sure, the buzz internet and over have work at the perfection, we are in march, 3 months after the 7970 release, and during thoses 3 months, we have nearly heard only about Kepler. ( i dont say this was orchestred by Nvidia anyway .)

[The Jesus]

SOURCE: http://www.arabpcworld.com/?p=6289


disregard, they do not have a Kepler: Based on data from many sites in the world said that the GTX680 card will come in higher than the performance of HD7970 card behind about 5%

Anyone notice that the chart had a 1.5GB 7950? Those aren't released either... (and not really comparable to a 660Ti unless the cost is exactly the same)

[Rollo]

I met literally everyone there, including the EU and APAC press. Unless he was invisible or hiding really, really well, he wasn't among the crowd.

This isn't true. I was in the front row, even asked a question. (the one about water cooling) I was drinking beer with friends in the back room at the pre-event party. I had lunch with 4 guys from NV at the lowest level of tables at the chicken/pasta lunch. The only thing I skipped was the dinner the second night, because I was beat from the last two days and wanted to get to bed early before my 12 hour travel day yesterday.

And Sky, I'm about 6'5" and go over 3 bills in my post weight lifter middle aged slide. I can't exactly "hide". Would have been a pleasure to meet you, but there were a lot of people there. I couldn't have met them all if I tried. (although as you're at all of these I can see how you'd know most of those people- I'm sure it's the same crew every time unless a fringe guy like me opts to attend)

[Rollo]

2GB vs 3GB. No matter how fast it is, 2GB doesn't seem like being enough for HD texture packs, 2560x1440 etc
Nvidia should ship this cards wit 3GB.

You should provide some data to back that up.

As a person who has gamed a whole lot with 1.5GB/2GB/3GB VRAM at both 25X16 and 57X10, I can tell you that 2GB is plenty for my needs.

The need for more than 1.5GB of VRAM doesn't really come into play on ANY single monitor, and when you start getting into three monitors is where you start running into VRAM limitations depending on the game, and type/amount of AA applied.

The thing is that when you start trying to do stuff like 8X MSAA at 57X10 or 57X12, even when you have the VRAM available performance tanks to the point you just don't do it anyway. I'd hazard a guess that 2GB VRAM is enough for any game at 57X10 4X MSAA, with the exception of BF3.

I'm not confirming or denying any Kepler specs, I am saying if it turns out 2GB that will be about the last thing that should be a deciding factor for 99.99% of the world.

[STEvil]

doesnt help that most game engines are not optimized for anything beyond ~1.5gb/1920x1080

[UrbanSmooth]

GDC 2012 reveals that Kepler is the most speculated GPU ever. Read more about it here.


(In this thread.)

[SKYMTL]

This isn't true. I was in the front row, even asked a question. (the one about water cooling) I was drinking beer with friends in the back room at the pre-event party. I had lunch with 4 guys from NV at the lowest level of tables at the chicken/pasta lunch. The only thing I skipped was the dinner the second night, because I was beat from the last two days and wanted to get to bed early before my 12 hour travel day yesterday.

And Sky, I'm about 6'5" and go over 3 bills in my post weight lifter middle aged slide. I can't exactly "hide". Would have been a pleasure to meet you, but there were a lot of people there. I couldn't have met them all if I tried. (although as you're at all of these I can see how you'd know most of those people- I'm sure it's the same crew every time unless a fringe guy like me opts to attend)

Ummmm.....suddenly this doesn't make sense.

I was talking about OBR and our dear friend Mr. Obrovsky isn't 6.5 ft unless someone propped him up on a pair of skates.......

Neither is he a member of the NVIDIA focus groups from my understanding. The raging NVIDIA fanboy club on the other hand....well.....

You aren't claiming to be him, are ya?

And if you were the guy who asked the water cooling question (good question BTW), we did meet for about 2 seconds in front of the main entry. We both laughed when we saw the whole APAC posse sprint to the first row like hyenas chasing down a carcass. I was the guy in the black blazer with jeans who tried to trip up the front-runner.

[Rollo]

Ummmm.....suddenly this doesn't make sense.

I was talking about OBR and our dear friend Mr. Obrovsky isn't 6.5 ft unless someone propped him up on a pair of skates.......

Neither is he a member of the NVIDIA focus groups from my understanding. The raging NVIDIA fanboy club on the other hand....well.....

You aren't claiming to be him, are ya?

And if you were the guy who asked the water cooling question (good question BTW), we did meet for about 2 seconds in front of the main entry. We both laughed when we saw the whole APAC posse sprint to the first row like hyenas chasing down a carcass. I was the guy in the black blazer with jeans who tried to trip up the front-runner.

No claim of being him (I haven't even seen his site) just noting I don't believe we met in response to your assertion you met everyone there. Yep that was me with the water cooling question, sitting in front of where Drew was standing.

[boxleitnerb]

I meant for people predicting Q3 / Q4....

Regarding GK110?

[Elfear]

You should provide some data to back that up.

As a person who has gamed a whole lot with 1.5GB/2GB/3GB VRAM at both 25X16 and 57X10, I can tell you that 2GB is plenty for my needs.

The need for more than 1.5GB of VRAM doesn't really come into play on ANY single monitor, and when you start getting into three monitors is where you start running into VRAM limitations depending on the game, and type/amount of AA applied.

The thing is that when you start trying to do stuff like 8X MSAA at 57X10 or 57X12, even when you have the VRAM available performance tanks to the point you just don't do it anyway. I'd hazard a guess that 2GB VRAM is enough for any game at 57X10 4X MSAA, with the exception of BF3.

I'm not confirming or denying any Kepler specs, I am saying if it turns out 2GB that will be about the last thing that should be a deciding factor for 99.99% of the world.

Sorry Rollo. Calling shens on that assertion.



That was playing Skyrim with the HD texture pack at 2560x1600 with 8xAAA & 8xMSAA. I saw spikes up to 2.4GB during some scenes. I doubt 1.5GB would be sufficient even at 1080p.

[boxleitnerb]

The VRAM usage alone says little. It's like Windows - give it more memory and it will take it to a certain degree. Doesn't necessarily mean it will run badly with less. Ideally you would have to measure fps and describe the gameplay experience qualitatively, like are there lags and texture streaming problems with textures popping up to late.

[Roadhog]

Sorry Rollo. Calling shens on that assertion.



That was playing Skyrim with the HD texture pack at 2560x1600 with 8xAAA & 8xMSAA. I saw spikes up to 2.4GB during some scenes. I doubt 1.5GB would be sufficient even at 1080p.

You have to divide the memory usage by the number of gpu's you have. So, it looks like you have two 6950's which would be 2233/2=1116MB of vram usage.

EDIT: NM, you have a single 7900.

[jaredpace]

You have to divide the memory usage by the number of gpu's you have. So, it looks like you have two 6950's which would be 2233/2=1116MB of vram usage.

u see the core clock? its a single 7970

[Roadhog]

u see the core clock? its a single 7970

I do now. :p

The sig is a lie.

[dasa]

change these two settings and watch skyrim start using ~3g
uGridsToLoad=5 to =9
iShadowMapResolution=4096 to =8192

when running these settings
2560x1440 no aa default textures
uGridsToLoad=7
iShadowMapResolution=8192
gtx480 sli 1.5g would drop from 60 to 3fps which seemed to be simply due to lack of memory
now have a 3g 7970 and despite being a fair bit slower the fps only briefly drop to 30fps while some files are shuffled then it goes back to ~60fps with texture packs installed which puts the memory usage even higher

[Cold Fussion]

change these two settings and watch skyrim start using ~3g
uGridsToLoad=5 to =9
iShadowMapResolution=4096 to =8192

when running these settings
2560x1440 no aa default textures
uGridsToLoad=7
iShadowMapResolution=8192
gtx480 sli 1.5g would drop from 60 to 3fps which seemed to be simply due to lack of memory
now have a 3g 7970 and despite being a fair bit slower the fps only briefly drop to 30fps while some files are shuffled then it goes back to ~60fps with texture packs installed which puts the memory usage even higher

But that is a non typical example. Of course if the shadow maps are of a stupidly high resolution of 8192 the ram usage will be insane, but no sane developer is going to set the shadow map size so damn large.

[LordEC911]

some hint

You are welcome for that one.
It's always fun to try and bait Dave to give more than just a quick sentence.

I hope the chip is as good as the hype is.

In some ways, yes.

Now that only about 5% of the info we got was right from major sites, I'll never even bother about rumors in the future apart from release dates. It seems it keeps getting worse and with that little relevant information it doesn't worth the time.

You just need to learn what to look for.

I can't remember a release where we didn't really have ANY hard facts this close to release,speculation/opinions have been all over the place concering Kepler...strange but kinda exciting.

That's the best part though, seeing who actually has a clue and who doesn't.
Truth be told, this is quite different from recent Nvidia launches, with how close they are keeping this.

[Shera]

You are welcome for that one.
It's always fun to try and bait Dave to give more than just a quick sentence.


In some ways, yes.


You just need to learn what to look for.


That's the best part though, seeing who actually has a clue and who doesn't.
Truth be told, this is quite different from recent Nvidia launches, with how close they are keeping this.

Yes, ma'am.

Kyle's making it sound like it'll be "give or take".

Nvidia might actually try to go for 30% over 7970 in anticipation of AMD's "counter" just in case..

[dasa]

But that is a non typical example. Of course if the shadow maps are of a stupidly high resolution of 8192 the ram usage will be insane, but no sane developer is going to set the shadow map size so damn large.

no developer making a game for current consoles would anyway
it may seem stupidly high but you should see the difference it makes in skyrim you go from very blocky shadows at 4096 to fairly sharp shadows at 8192

4096 (blur is disabled) http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83...9/TESV4096.jpg
8192 http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83...ESV8192-00.jpg
and a few shots of it with a bunch of mods
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83...reenShot11.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83...nshot45140.jpg

[Morgoth]

Holy , man,

I had no idea that would improve the shadows so dramatically!

I'll be trying this out next time I actually have a PC

[Andrea deluxe]

NVIDIA GTX 680 & GTX670Ti 3DMARK11 X SCORE



Based on data from many sites in the world said that the GTX680 card will come in higher than the performance of HD7970 card behind about 5%, while the card will come GTX670Ti a difference of about 16% lower than 7970 and higher than the HD7950 card ahead of about 10% in tests 3DMARK11 X.

Card will come GTX670 Ti energy consumption rate of about 200 watts and contains the card on power sockets 6 +6 bin any that the rate of the total consumption of the card will be 225 watts.

As for the GTX680 card, it is likely to come by an average consumption of 240 Watt will contain the card on power sockets 6 +8 bin any that the rate of the total consumption of the card will be 300 Watt.

And will come Releases depend on a slide GK104 and will be used for cooling of the type of vapor such as that was used with the cards GTX570 & GTX580 standard, received us also some information will be Atalaaq cards in one day. Where he was said to be absolutely foliar on March 12 of any after tomorrow Alatlq will be official in the world in the markets on March 23.

http://www.arabpcworld.com/forum/sho...?t=408&p=47963

[zalbard]

NVIDIA GTX 680 & GTX670Ti 3DMARK11 X SCORE

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5066875

[Kuroimaho]

You just need to learn what to look for.

Then please let me know what info you gathered until now, I do not want to wait any longer.

[bamtan2]

IMO none of the alleged benchmarks show kepler as being "4 months better" than 7950/7970, so no matter what it'll be a bit of a disappointment. the disappointment MAY be minimized if the prices fall a LOT. but I don't think they will because everyone knows 28nm is having trouble, is rare, and is under incredible demand.

[spicypixel]

Sigh, this isn't making the choice to buy the 7970 any easier - almost like it's deliberate.