Alleged NVIDIA GK104 Specifications

[Silverforce11]

If that is true, and with what AMD's rumored pricing is going to be, AMD is going to have a very, very short ride. Nvidia will stomp all over them in the high end and performance segment. The only real traction AMD will have is with whatever they do with the barts shrink.

If you believe that and the leaks also point towards no major high end for NV until late 2012 or 2013, with the real Kepler on 512 bus.

So NV has gtx580 +30% for the entirety of 2012 as their flagship?

 

[RussianSensation]

Can you show me benchmark where nVidia beats an AMD card in the same price range?

I don't think I've seen one since 2008.

Depends on your specific country's pricing.

- GTX460 was as fast HD6850 and they cost about the same, but with overclocking GTX460 smashed the 6850.
- GTX560 Ti trades blows with HD6950 and they cost about the same.
- GTX560 Ti 448 Core (factory preoverclocked versions) is as fast as a HD6970 and cost less.
- GTX570 is slightly faster than HD6970 at 1920x1200 or below and actually costs less for the most part. Once GTX570 is overclocked, it easily beats the 6970 (6970 is a horrible overclocker).

And if you want specific benchmarks, in Crysis 2, HAWX 2, Civilization 5, Lost Planet 2, Starcraft 2, NV stomps all over AMD.

So in fact, it's very easy to find benchmarks where NV has a huge lead. Can you provide any games where AMD has a large lead?

 

[Zed03]

GTX460: $185
HD6850: $160

The GTX460 was released 6 months after the HD6850, and in most benchmarks has less than 5% lead. Their price points reflect that.

GTX560 Ti: $210
HD6950: $220

I actually can't find a single benchmark in which the GTX 560ti is ahead. The HD6950 has a consistent lead, and doesn't 'trade blows':

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6950-1gb-vs-geforce-gtx-560-ti-review/8

11 benchmarks, 0 in which Ti is head. Even in the charts you provided.

This isn't even considering the fact that a 6950 can be unlocked to a 6970, because then it just becomes a rapefest with the performance gap being over 30%.

GTX560 Ti 448 Core: $299
HD6970: $270

I'm not exactly sure how you got to the point of the 448 costing less, because it certainly does not. More importantly, I don't even know how you came to the conclusion that it's faster. The 6970 walks all over the GTX570, why would a gimped, cut down 570 all of a sudden be faster? Comparing overclocked versions to reference designs is just silly. You can just as easily compare it to an overclocked non-reference 6970.

GTX570: $310
HD6970: $270

The charts you linked are pretty funny. Lets take the first one for example, Crysis 2. Can you show me the chart where there GTX570 is compared with the HD6970? There isn't one. They compare the 6970 vs the GTX580 (same price as HD6990, which rapes it by over 50%), and they compare the 6950 vs the GTX570, not even in the same price range. That's a perfect example of 'nvidia spin' that gets the sheep. "But nvidia bar is longest in all these charts!!!"

The Starcraft 2 chart falls in that pile too, its actually hilarious. They waste their time comparing a $500 GTX580 vs a $270 HD 6970, where they SHOULD be comparing to a $500 HD 6990.

The other charts don't even mention the 6970!

Anyway the point is, nvidia is great with their gtx 460, that was a legendary card, but ever sense then, they are far and behind. The performance in each category is held by AMD, and their cards are cheaper. Thats not a combination you often see.

 

[96Firebird]

The GTX460 was released 6 months after the HD6850, and in most benchmarks has less than 5% lead. Their price points reflect that.

Huh?

Also, where are you getting your prices from?

 

[zlejedi]

This rumor is almost too good to be true. Based on this rumor, the GF104 chip will have 768 CUDA cores, which is 50% more than GTX580, and yet that's not even the flagship GK100 Kepler part....so where would that put Kepler's performance at 2x GTX580? 2012 is shaping up to be an interesting year for GPUs, after one of the most boring years for GPUs. Can't wait.

Yeah sounds to good to be true for me too.

I'd rather think that 560 replacement part will be 512 CUDA cores at higher clockspeeds than 580 than't to 28nm and real high end will be 768.

 

[tviceman]

GTX460: $185
HD6850: $160

The GTX460 was released 6 months after the HD6850, and in most benchmarks has less than 5% lead. Their price points reflect that.

GTX560 Ti: $210
HD6950: $220

I actually can't find a single benchmark in which the GTX 560ti is ahead. The HD6950 has a consistent lead, and doesn't 'trade blows':

I know your entire post is just awful trolling, but here you go: http://techreport.com/articles.x/22151. 1 day old review. Shows the regular gtx560ti leading the hd6950 in most of the benchmarks they produce. All games tested are recently released games and are running at settings that produce playable frame rates.

 

[thilanliyan]

I know your entire post is just awful trolling, but here you go: http://techreport.com/articles.x/22151. 1 day old review. Shows the regular gtx560ti leading the hd6950 in most of the benchmarks they produce. All games tested are recently released games and are running at settings that produce playable frame rates.

In terms of benchmark wagging, seriously, anybody can find a site that shows what they want to show (ie. whether they are trying to show nV or ATI as being faster)...heck you can show a 6970 getting close to a GTX580...when the res is cranked up. I'd say things are fairly even nowadays at the respective pricepoints.

 

[tviceman]

In terms of benchmark wagging, seriously, anybody can find a site that shows what they want to show (ie. whether they are trying to show nV or ATI as being faster)...heck you can show a 6970 getting close to a GTX580...when the res is cranked up. I'd say things are fairly even nowadays at the respective pricepoints.

I agree, I was just countering the trolling comment that I replied to.

 

[Zed03]

I know your entire post is just awful trolling, but here you go: http://techreport.com/articles.x/22151. 1 day old review. Shows the regular gtx560ti leading the hd6950 in most of the benchmarks they produce. All games tested are recently released games and are running at settings that produce playable frame rates.

Thats a TI 448, not a gtx 560 ti.

GTX560 Ti: $210
GTX560 Ti 448 Core: $299
HD 6950: $220

It barely beats the HD 6950 (it doesn't beat an unlocked 6950) and is $80 more expensive.

 

[96Firebird]

Did you read the review? It has the 560 Ti benchmarked as well...

 

[tviceman]

thats a ti 448, not a gtx 560 ti.

Gtx560 ti: $210
gtx560 ti 448 core: $299
hd 6950: $220

it barely beats the hd 6950 (it doesn't beat an unlocked 6950) and is $80 more expensive.

Read the review. Quit trolling. Thanks for coming out.

 

[thilanliyan]

Read the review. Quit trolling. Thanks for coming out.

Unfortunately posting just the average fps numbers from this review doesn't tell the whole story according to TR themselves (from pg.6 BF3):
"Yeah, so all of those FPS numbers we've reported for years? Not very confident in them now. The GeForces capture the top three spots in the average FPS sweeps, yet they clearly are slower in ways that matter. The 99th percentile frame time results capture that fact. "

No really sure what to make of this but just posting the avg numbers and claiming the 560 Ti wins is not entirely correct is it? (at least according to this review)

 

[tviceman]

No really sure what to make of this but just posting the avg numbers and claiming the 560 Ti wins is not entirely correct is it? (at least according to this review)

BF3 was the only game that displayed poor frame time results with Nvidia's cards in that review. The gtx560ti still led in every benchmark they ran, and had equal or better frame times in all benchmarks except BF3. So yeah, it's a hell of alot more correct than:

I actually can't find a single benchmark in which the GTX 560ti is ahead. The HD6950 has a consistent lead, and doesn't 'trade blows':

The whole point I am making is that the original troll post by Zed was blantantly false and a lie.

 

[thilanliyan]

BF3 was the only game that displayed poor frame time results with Nvidia's cards in that review. The gtx560ti still led in every benchmark they ran, and had equal or better frame times in all benchmarks except BF3. So yeah, it's a hell of alot more correct than:

The whole point I am making is that the original troll post by Zed was blantantly false and a lie.

What about this then:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5153/nvidias-geforce-gtx-560-ti-w448-cores-gtx570-on-a-budget/3

The 6950 is able to beat and keep up with the Ti 448 (not the same games as your link but still some demanding games). Is this any less correct? Just saying that looking at the review that Zed03 quoted, he is no less correct if just interpreting the results from ONLY that review. What he posted was not false, looking at the results from that review.
It is very selective on his part to look at only one site and claim a winner, that I totally understand.

Now, you can call into question the validity of the site he linked to, but that is a whole other argument.

 

[MrK6]

What about this then:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5153/nvidias-geforce-gtx-560-ti-w448-cores-gtx570-on-a-budget/3

The 6950 is able to beat and keep up with the Ti 448 (not the same games as your link but still some demanding games). Is this any less correct? Just saying that looking at the review that Zed03 quoted, he is no less correct if just interpreting the results from ONLY that review. What he posted was not false, looking at the results from that review.
It is very selective on his part to look at only one site and claim a winner, that I totally understand.

Now, you can call into question the validity of the site he linked to, but that is a whole other argument.

It's less correct because certain members of this board will throw a hissy fit the minute NVIDIA is talked down or shown to not be the better.

 

[96Firebird]

It's less correct because certain members of this board will throw a hissy fit the minute NVIDIA is talked down or shown to not be the better.

Go trash talk someplace else... Unnecessary post.

 

[MrK6]

Go trash talk someplace else... Unnecessary post.

And this isn't?

The whole point I am making is that the original troll post by Zed was blantantly false and a lie.

Interesting. :hmm:

 

[tviceman]

What about this then:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5153/nvidias-geforce-gtx-560-ti-w448-cores-gtx570-on-a-budget/3

The 6950 is able to beat and keep up with the Ti 448 (not the same games as your link but still some demanding games). Is this any less correct? Just saying that looking at the review that Zed03 quoted, he is no less correct if just interpreting the results from ONLY that review. What he posted was not false, looking at the results from that review.
It is very selective on his part to look at only one site and claim a winner, that I totally understand.

Now, you can call into question the validity of the site he linked to, but that is a whole other argument.

He said this:

I actually can't find a single benchmark in which the GTX 560ti is ahead. The HD6950 has a consistent lead, and doesn't 'trade blows':

Which, again, is a completely false statement and is a lie. There is an abundance of benchmarks, and the majority show the gtx560ti and hd6950 trade blows. He needs to look no further than the very site which we are on now (and I'm sure he HAS looked at the benchmarks on this site) to prove his own statement false. This entire derail is completely off topic and is no longer worth going on about.

 

[Vesku]

I'd hope for some frame delay improvements with next gen NVIDIA, at least regarding Battlefield 3. Based on the Techreport findings I'd avoid NVIDIA for BF3 play. The last thing I need in a shooter is random screen delay and those delay times are human noticeable.

 

[tviceman]

I'd hope for some frame delay improvements with next gen NVIDIA, at least regarding Battlefield 3. Based on the Techreport findings I'd avoid NVIDIA for BF3 play. The last thing I need in a shooter is random screen delay and those delay times are human noticeable.

Agreed. I was getting some noticeable hitching in Deus Ex, despite consistently high frame rates. Turning AO down to medium fixed my problem. I wonder if there is a particular graphical feature that is inducing the bad frame times for BF3.

 

[96Firebird]

I find some hiccups while in tank battles (that is what TR's benchmark found caused the issues) with my GTX 460 as well, but the rest of the game is fairly smooth. I figured it might be due to the dust and such that is thrown around during these battles, but it can be very annoying at times.

 

[RussianSensation]

Thats a TI 448, not a gtx 560 ti.

GTX560 Ti: $210
GTX560 Ti 448 Core: $299
HD 6950: $220

It barely beats the HD 6950 (it doesn't beat an unlocked 6950) and is $80 more expensive.

So you are comparing an HD6950 that can be unlocked to a stock GTX560Ti? What about if we overclock the Ti card to 950/1000mhz? Let's be fair shall we.

GTX560 Ti 448 is as fast as a GTX570 since almost all the cards come factory preoverclocked, even if by small amounts. GTX570 is as fast as an HD6970 up to 1920x1200.

Either way, HD6950 1/2GB is within 2-3% of the performance of a GTX560 Ti, but of course NV still wins in those key 5 games I listed. The only reason I provided a quick GTX580 vs. HD6970 in SC2 is because I didn't even bother to search for other cards. The performance hit 6970 takes in SC2 with AA is massive. Obviously, you can just force MLAA and solve that problem.

The only advantage HD6950 2GB has is that it has more VRAM for mods and if you want to CF. Otherwise, an overclocked GTX560 Ti is just as good as an GTX570 ~ HD6970 (which is what an unlocked 6950 is).

Regarding GTX560 Ti 448, it performs well and overclocks better than a GTX570. So certainly one can make an argument for the GTX560 Ti 448 vs. a 6970.

This generation has been extremely close. Neither camp was particularly better than the other except for GTX580 that had no competition. The major distinction is that NV performed better in 4-5 games while AMD doesn't have a lead in any particular game to speak of (at least I am not aware of one game like that). While AMD offered excellent texture fill-rate performance and more VRAM which made its cards more suitable for multi-GPU operation scenarios (HD6950 2GB in CF provided a huge bang for the buck in that respect).

 

[Zed03]

So you are comparing an HD6950 that can be unlocked to a stock GTX560Ti? What about if we overclock the Ti card to 950/1000mhz? Let's be fair shall we.

GTX560 Ti 448 is as fast as a GTX570 since almost all the cards come factory preoverclocked, even if by small amounts. GTX570 is as fast as an HD6970 up to 1920x1200.

Either way, HD6950 1/2GB is within 2-3% of the performance of a GTX560 Ti, but of course NV still wins in those key 5 games I listed. The only reason I provided a quick GTX580 vs. HD6970 in SC2 is because I didn't even bother to search for other cards. The performance hit 6970 takes in SC2 with AA is massive. Obviously, you can just force MLAA and solve that problem.

The only advantage HD6950 2GB has is that it has more VRAM for mods and if you want to CF. Otherwise, an overclocked GTX560 Ti is just as good as an GTX570 ~ HD6970 (which is what an unlocked 6950 is).

Regarding GTX560 Ti 448, it performs well and overclocks better than a GTX570. So certainly one can make an argument for the GTX560 Ti 448 vs. a 6970.

This generation has been extremely close. Neither camp was particularly better than the other except for GTX580 that had no competition. The major distinction is that NV performed better in 4-5 games while AMD doesn't have a lead in any particular game to speak of (at least I am not aware of one game like that). While AMD offered excellent texture fill-rate performance and more VRAM which made its cards more suitable for multi-GPU operation scenarios (HD6950 2GB in CF provided a huge bang for the buck in that respect).

great post

 

[skipsneeky2]

Perhaps they will phase out the 580 and replace it with the GK104, assuming it performs at least a little better.

So basically we are back at the days of replacing the g80 core with the g92?

Rehashed branding anyone?

The g80 must be the most sold gpu processor ever its big brother g92 still spams stores with the 8400gs,9800gt and gts250...the card that will never die.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Read the review. Quit trolling. Thanks for coming out.

Nothing i hate more then charts with no settings nor resolution stated prior to the post.

I will assume these are 1920x1080 numbers?