Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,209
- 50
- 91
gk100 is the family name the gk104 is the flagship.. the fermi gtx 480's codename was gf104 and the 580 was 114
Completely incorrect.
gk100 is the family name the gk104 is the flagship.. the fermi gtx 480's codename was gf104 and the 580 was 114
True, that could happen, yet does not correlate at all with an otherwise very predictable code name pattern. Just like AMD, nVidia has been cutting down their flagship GPU to get a pair (and in some cases a 3rd) of models from that flagship GPU (this has been going on for every generation dating back to the GeForce 2. The GTX580, 570 and now even the 560Ti 448core are all based off of the GF110 flagship GPU. To assume otherwise for Kepler doesn't get us anywhere, particularly when we're starting from nothing other than what we can best guess at based on their history.
Right now you're just really grasping for straws from information of what is likely a false rumor to come to that conclusion
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?
I actually wouldn't be surprised if we see close to 100% if not better
I interpreted this information as GK104 vs. GF110 (ie GTX760 vs. GTX580)
Where you might expect only 40-50% improvement, I actually wouldn't be surprised if we see close to 100% if not better, as we got nearly just that with the GTX480 vs. the GTX285
285 vs 480
*snip*
That is more telling of the Sli scalling, GTX 480 was around 45% faster then a GTX 285... seems familiar, doesn't it? (6970,7970)
So if the 480 is only 45% faster than the 285, you're implying 285 SLI scales only 45%? You're a genius.
SLI scales 80-100% (minus a few exceptions), and the 480 is obviously not just 45% faster than the 285.
I had a 285 and I have a GTX570 which is basically a 480. At my res. 1680x1050 I can tell you that the 570 is almost twice as fast as the stock 285, at least this is how I feel it.. Both cards were bought for around 350$, one a half years difference. In 8 months time I expect to be able to buy a card with the equivalent of around 350$ that will perform almost twice as fast as the 570. Considering all that's happening now with both companies I find it hard to believe this will happen.
I never said that Sli scales only 45%, but thank you for putting words in my mouth and arguing against a strawman. While other posters have already proven, that my 45% estimate was actually optimistic, lets go with a GTX 480 being 145% and a GTX 285 being 100%. (100% + 100%)*magical Sli scaling coefficient which comes out slightly bellow 75%.
Exactly, but trying to convey this concept to the pro-AMD people here who have to defend their honor seems very hard. Regardless of what Kepler turns out like, Tahiti is a pretty big disappointment. I have nothing left but hope (and some track history) that Kepler will bring more tangible increases that are actually worth spending $600 for, but besides that it's all FUD.
I go back and forth on this. Maybe the days of those kind of performance increases are over? Heck look at intel. I went from a i7 930 to a 2600k and there's really not much difference. Ivy Bridge is coming out and it's not even much faster than my 2600k. That's not a whole lot of difference and this is using intel fabs.
Do you play at 2560x1440/1600 as well?
I could see that point. At 2560x resolution even SLI 580s struggle at times with stuff like Witcher 2 and ubersampling, metro 2033 with ultra dx11 settings.
I've just become comfortable running 1 notch below full detail, both of those games run 60+ fps fluid with slightly lower settings
snip
Pretty sure he meant when highly overclocked, if we go by the overclocked [H] Eyefinity results.
Not sure if I want to drag all this up if the GTX flagship is roughly 20% faster with launch day drivers (~40% faster than GTX 580) than the 7970 and priced $50-100 more...
It is an illogical argument if you:
1. Compare raw 7970 pricing to 6970 ("It's priced out of line of the 6970 launch MSRP")
But
2. Compare performance pricing of the Radeon 7970 3GB to the GTX 580 1.5GB. ("It's a new node, it shouldn't be more expensive than the GTX 580 that it only barely beats.")
And
3. Ignore that there hasn't been much if anyone saying the 7970 is priced for value.
Choose either 1 or 2, do not cross the streams.
I had a 285 and I have a GTX570 which is basically a 480. At my res. 1680x1050 I can tell you that the 570 is almost twice as fast as the stock 285, at least this is how I feel it.. Both cards were bought for around 350$, one a half years difference. In 8 months time I expect to be able to buy a card with the equivalent of around 350$ that will perform almost twice as fast as the 570. Considering all that's happening now with both companies I find it hard to believe this will happen.
You can tel what percentage faster by how it feels? This is amazing.]Exactly, but trying to convey this concept to the pro-AMD people here who have to defend their honor seems very hard[/B]. Regardless of what Kepler turns out like, Tahiti is a pretty big disappointment. I have nothing left but hope (and some track history) that Kepler will bring more tangible increases that are actually worth spending $600 for, but besides that it's all FUD.
You can tel what percentage faster by how it feels? This is amazing.
You can tel what percentage faster by how it feels? This is amazing.
You can tel what percentage faster by how it feels? This is amazing.
So by your reasoning the the slower gtx580 should still cost $500 because it's an older node, and it barely gets beat (24% stock 40% oc'ed is not barely by the way) and that the 7970 should cost less?
Does not compute.