• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

[chiphell] kepler rumors suggest 15% better than 580.. price and transistors

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Crap Daddy

Senior member
May 6, 2011
610
0
0
Again, the 7970 is up to 20% faster than GTX580. Even far less at the most common resolution of 1080p across many games not some specific ones.That is a fact.

We don't discuss here the oveclockability and the fact that Fermi is over one year old arch on 40nm and the AMD is new at 28nm.

We talk about the leaks and the presumed performance of the Kepler GF104 GPU which would be 10-15% faster than the 580.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
Again, the 7970 is up to 20% faster than GTX580. Even far less at the most common resolution of 1080p across many games not some specific ones.That is a fact.

We don't discuss here the oveclockability and the fact that Fermi is over one year old arch on 40nm and the AMD is new at 28nm.

We talk about the leaks and the presumed performance of the Kepler GF104 GPU which would be 10-15% faster than the 580.
Here's a fact for you. At stock setting, this test is 38% faster at stock than GTX 580 at 1080p. This is a fact.


Now you can add 49-70% on top of that by overclocking the 7970.

You are also basing your argument on a part that doesn't exist and isn't in prototype. That chart you're talking of was also proven fake -- While that chart was proven untrue, even if it were -- there is simply no way a part with 900mhz shaders would even come close to beating the GTX 580. Furthermore, your argument about overclocking was proven wrong. When comparing overclocked 580 to overclocked 7970, the 7970 came out on top by 49-70%. And this is after you made a big fuss about the GTX 580 being stock, which is wasn't, what say you?

edit: apologies


Re: "you're probably taking a dump on this thread because you're a NV brand loyalist"

You were doing ok. You should have stopped and not added this line. This is a personal attack and not acceptable.

Moderator jvroig
 
Last edited:

Arzachel

Senior member
Apr 7, 2011
903
76
91
Again, the 7970 is up to 20% faster than GTX580. Even far less at the most common resolution of 1080p across many games not some specific ones.That is a fact.

We don't discuss here the oveclockability and the fact that Fermi is over one year old arch on 40nm and the AMD is new at 28nm.

We talk about the leaks and the presumed performance of the Kepler GF104 GPU which would be 10-15% faster than the 580.
There is absolutely nothing suggesting a 10-15% performance increase until we see something more than a spec sheet. Peak Flops is a bad way to measure performance between different architectures
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,082
1,224
126
not only is this all very much hearsay and speculation taken way overboard, its comparing a flagship GPU to a midrange one
You don't know if the GK104 is midrange, flagship or an HTPC card - it's unreleased and there is no information from nvidia about it. What we are discussing is this rumour and it puts this card at a $400 pricepoint, that is hardly a midrange price.

...and just as there is huge potential for the 7970 with overclocking..
]The huge potential and gains seen in the 7970 with overclocking is fact, as we have the data:





...whos to say the GK104 won't have just as much potential when overclocked from its stock speeds? or that GK100 won't be that much beastlier?
Your comment here is what is hearsay as we know nothing about these cards and there is no data from nvidia on them. All we have to go on are discussions like the data in this thread's OP, rumours.

So far the 2 or 3 slides we have seen about whatever nvidia is cooking up look to be completely fake. But if we are going to discuss this one, it looks disappointing. About all we are getting from any of this is there is nothing really solid to be said about kepler yet and we'll just have to wait until it is finished and actually ready to be released.
 
Last edited:

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
People should really read the original chiphell thread where this chart originated.

This chart is fake and there is no fantasy chip from NV that magically outperforms the GTX 580 with 900mhz shaders. Give me a break.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,082
1,224
126
Again, the 7970 is up to 20% faster than GTX580. Even far less at the most common resolution of 1080p across many games not some specific ones.That is a fact.

We don't discuss here the oveclockability and the fact that Fermi is over one year old arch on 40nm and the AMD is new at 28nm.

We talk about the leaks and the presumed performance of the Kepler GF104 GPU which would be 10-15% faster than the 580.
This thread is talking about the possibilities of a potential part in the future.

Bringing up the possibilities of what AMD can do with Tahiti in the future and how it will contrast to that makes good sense. Looking at things like overclocking is exactly one of the data points you would use, as this is one of the obvious changes a future 7970 derivative will use to improve performance.

7970 has stellar overclocking and linear gains seen in FPS performance from overclocking. In that context this rumoured nvidia card 15% faster than a 580 at $400 looks disappointing with what AMD could release in the future when you account for overclocking showing AMD to be 50% faster in the game it fares worst in and 70% faster in one of the games it does best in against the overclocked 580.

Why can we only discuss what you want and not other relevant data ?
 
Last edited:

Crap Daddy

Senior member
May 6, 2011
610
0
0
Here's a fact for you. At stock setting, this test is 38% faster at stock than GTX 580 at 1080p. This is a fact.


Now you can add 49-70% on top of that by overclocking the 7970.

You are also basing your argument on a part that doesn't exist and isn't in prototype. That chart you're talking of was also proven fake -- While that chart was proven untrue, even if it were -- there is simply no way a part with 900mhz shaders would even come close to beating the GTX 580. Furthermore, your argument about overclocking was proven wrong. When comparing overclocked 580 to overclocked 7970, the 7970 came out on top by 49-70%. And this is after you made a big fuss about the GTX 580 being stock, which is wasn't, what say you?

At this point you're probably taking a dump on this thread because you're a NV brand loyalist. I don't see why you're bothering, you were also wrong about the GTX 580 being stock in that review, BTW.
You might misunderstood me. I failed to see the overclocked 580 in that review, I admit. But you keep showing us benchmarks with one game. I very much trust this site and the benchmarks did here:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/28.html

I was talking about overall performance and we are debating here whether this leak looks real, will this card surpass the 580 or not. And about being an NV brand loyalist I would not like to comment. This thread is about the upcoming NV cards.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
I love when I see "apples-to-apples" and have to conclude that some people don't know what an apple is...
 

JAG87

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
3,921
3
76
7970 has stellar overclocking and linear gains seen in FPS performance from overclocking. In that context this rumoured nvidia card at $400 looks disappointing with what AMD could release in the future.
Bla bla bla, then AMD will reply with the 7980 clocked at 1.5 gigahurts, and NV will launch GK100, then AMD again with 7990, and NV with an under clocked GK100 x2 card. And the beat goes on.

The only relevant fact to observe here is that the 7970 should have been launched at $399 because in a few months it will compete with a card that performs the same for $399.
 

Riek

Senior member
Dec 16, 2008
409
14
76
Bla bla bla, then AMD will reply with the 7980 clocked at 1.5 gigahurts, and NV will launch GK100, then AMD again with 7990, and NV with an under clocked GK100 x2 card. And the beat goes on.

The only relevant fact to observe here is that the 7970 should have been launched at $399 because in a few months it will compete with a card that performs the same for $399.
A few months... you mean an undetermined time of months before an undetermined product will launch that will have undetermined performance?

Months where they have a supply that will be sold at almost any price... so why again would they launch a product with a lower price thus competing with their other products and at the same time have shortages. Seems foolish... as we see now, they sell every card they make with an additional 150$ profit compared to your pricepoint.
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
Bla bla bla, then AMD will reply with the 7980 clocked at 1.5 gigahurts, and NV will launch GK100, then AMD again with 7990, and NV with an under clocked GK100 x2 card. And the beat goes on.

The only relevant fact to observe here is that the 7970 should have been launched at $399 because in a few months it will compete with a card that performs the same for $399.


Should have? It looks OOS to me so people are buying at that price. That's simply good business. Too rich for me and I hope Nvidia releases something to drive prices down. I'm not sure I want to bite at $550 no matter how much it may overclock.
 

PrincessFrosty

Platinum Member
Feb 13, 2008
2,301
68
91
www.frostyhacks.blogspot.com
A few months... you mean an undetermined time of months before an undetermined product will launch that will have undetermined performance?

Months where they have a supply that will be sold at almost any price... so why again would they launch a product with a lower price thus competing with their other products and at the same time have shortages. Seems foolish... as we see now, they sell every card they make with an additional 150$ profit compared to your pricepoint.
Assuming they sell the same number of cards.

Gamers have been known to wait out small gaps (in the order of <6 months) for possible new hardware, especially with today's hardware which vastly out performs what is required from software.

Performance per $ is still important, it's more important than ever now we're in a period of not really requiring that performance unless you're running massive resolutions (2560x1600 or eyefinity)
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
Too early to gauge anything on such spotty data to me. It's simple: AMD has 28nm product available and nVidia doesn't.

It's so tough to gauge on the utter silence from nVidia.
 

Quantos

Senior member
Dec 23, 2011
386
0
76
The only relevant fact to observe here is that the 7970 should have been launched at $399 because in a few months it will compete with a card that performs the same for $399.
What?

How does that make any sense? We could extrapolate on that, you know. The 7970 should have been released at 150$ because in 4 years there'll be a card that performs similarly at that price point!

Compare the 7970's price with current products and see that its price makes total sense.
 
May 13, 2009
12,296
550
126
Should have? It looks OOS to me so people are buying at that price. That's simply good business. Too rich for me and I hope Nvidia releases something to drive prices down. I'm not sure I want to bite at $550 no matter how much it may overclock.
The early adopters would of paid $600. It has been very slow to sellout for a next gen card. After the initial run of early adopters get their fill then I see really lagging sales.

This is just my opinion.
 
Last edited:

IonusX

Senior member
Dec 25, 2011
392
0
0
30-50%? What benchmarks have you been viewing?

All signs point to 20% for 7970 over 580, and the gk104 isn't even the top chip.

10-15% puts it right there with the 7970, while being Nvidia's "Mainstream" option.
benchmark reviews review of hd 7970 fac. oc'd to 1.12ghz core 5500mem, when manually oc'd to 1.28ghz with proper drivers the 7970 would be a real force to be reckoned with.
 

IonusX

Senior member
Dec 25, 2011
392
0
0
Why would that be a joke? GK104 isn't competing against Tahati XT, GK100 is. $400 vs $550, 3.2B vs 4.3B. Not sure how you did your rough math, but assuming that table is correct, wouldn't 12.5% more CUDA cores and 17.5% higher clocks vs 580 give much more than 10-15% over the GTX580?
gk100 is the family name the gk104 is the flagship.. the fermi gtx 480's codename was gf104 and the 580 was 114
 

96Firebird

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
5,654
272
126
Looka good, except the price may be a little high... Makes me think the full GK100 will be a beast. :)
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
The early adopters would of paid $600. It has been very slow to sellout for a next gen card. After the initial run of early adopters get their fill then I see really lagging sales.

This is just my opinion. I know it isn't really accepted here to put AMD in any negative light even if true. So I hope I'm not infracted and accused of derailing this thread for my opinion.
I don't think anyone is going to infract you for having an opinion... it's just weird that your opinion doesn't seem connected to reality... just your imagination.
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
benchmark reviews review of hd 7970 fac. oc'd to 1.12ghz core 5500mem, when manually oc'd to 1.28ghz with proper drivers the 7970 would be a real force to be reckoned with.
I'll wait to see the one where it isn't put against a factory overclocked card.

Either way it's not fast enough, even overclocked at least for me. It also has horrendous price vs performance, pass.

Unless Nvidia has major problems there is no reason not to believe a 760 mainstream card will compete directly with the 7970. The real question is will we be paying $500+ for that card too, or will somebody bring a product to market with some freaking sense? The economy is awful right now, why the heck would they bring out this card at $550... rich get richer, poor get poorer.
 
Last edited:

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
1
0
it's just weird that your opinion doesn't seem connected to reality... just your imagination.
Thats a nice way of saying "playing the victim".
Now watch as you get a infaction for that :p

for stating that I thought 7970 sales were slow
Their all sold out though, on newegg and most other places.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
57
81
Which, apart from the flaming from that guy, proved to be right...
:confused: The CPU forum was littered with threads all last year based on OBR's "latest leaked benchmarks" on bulldozer.

What part proved to be right? The part where he totally trashed his credibility by admitting straight up on his site that he faked them in some elaborate scheme to crap on donamhibar?

1,570,000 hits speaks to his integrity.

Just like bulldozer, OBR takes it to 11 when it comes to performance.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,082
1,224
126
Bla bla bla, then AMD will reply with the 7980 clocked at 1.5 gigahurts, and NV will launch GK100, then AMD again with 7990, and NV with an under clocked GK100 x2 card. And the beat goes on.

The only relevant fact to observe here is that the 7970 should have been launched at $399 because in a few months it will compete with a card that performs the same for $399.
That is not an accurate statement at all, that is a rumour. A small slide that some random individual could of slapped together and thrown on the internet. Not a fact at all, one I don't think is right personally.

My statements on the 7970's overclocking abilities and performance were facts.

The one relevant thing I see this rumour pointing to is an indication that there is nothing but unsubstantiated and likely false rumours about kepler. That those waiting for kepler, have themselves a good four months and possibly even six months of a wait for nvidia's 28nm flagship card.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY