• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GeForce Kepler 104 (GK104) 256-bit GDDR5 Memory Bus - 225W TDP

They stated that this card was the successor to the 560 ti and then at the bottom said the GTX680 could be out as soon as February. Did I miss something or is the GTX 680 the replacement to the 560 ti? Are they talking about 2 different cards coming out?


**Edit**

I also find it odd to release the midrange card first. Maybe the "large" gpu is quite a bit immature to be released? As with any of these types of articles, I'm believe the sole purpoose is damage control and mearly to serve as deterent from purchasing what's already out (in this case 7970).

As much as I would love to see Nvidia's midrange card best the 7970 I find it unlikely. Not that the 7970 is unbeatable but we have heard this song and dance before.

Also, as been stated here for quite a while, the 7970 may also be a "mid range" release if we are to believe the rumors of the 7970 being a short lived card.

Cheers for speculation!
 
Last edited:
lavaheadache said:
They stated that this card was the successor to the 560 ti and then at the bottom said the GTX680 could be out as soon as February. Did I miss something or is the GTX 680 the replacement to the 560 ti? Are they talking about 2 different cards coming out?
Click to expand...

I believe it's two different cards. At least, they're referring to the GK104 as the mainstream model, which shouldn't be the 680. It's a bit weird they'd just throw that at the end of the GK104's article, though. :hmm:
 
There should be at least three cards like with 4xx and 5xx, and then a troop of worthless cards as well.

But the main three should be x80/x70/x60, x60 which this card references should be a $250~ card, x70 which should have a larger bus would be in the $350 range with the x80 of course sitting in the $500 range.

But that's just based on the past few releases, speculation I guess.
 
It is foolish to think AMD *is/will be* unprepared for this either. The 7970 has proven near 100% capable of massive overclocks as released. *If* Kepler variants are ready and waiting to pounce, so are Godzilla Tahiti's.
 
Dear nVidia, and nVidia Focus Members/Shills/whatever, if you're reading this:

Give me GTX 580 performance @ $250-350 price points and I will buy it without question. My GF's GTX 460 is starting to show it's age and she doesn't need to drive more than one monitor or anything fancy you may stick into higher models. Actually, if I can get GTX 580+10% in the same price bracket that would be even better.

Sincerely,
Railven
 
badb0y said:
225 watt for the mainstream model? What's the flagship going to be 300 watts?
Click to expand...

Dunno.

The 470 was 225, the 480 was 250, while the 460 was 150.


Nvidia did a good job of refining with 5 series GF100 vs GF110, giving better performance for power draw. They didn't really improve performance per clock though.

Here's to hoping they can give us the raw power of 4 series, with the improvements of the 5 series within the same gen with these new chips.

Though honestly I hope the new chips have a ton of raw performance potential and poor performance per watt so I can snag a couple for cheap on the refresh :ninja:
 
Last edited:
As awesome as this would be, it's just too-good-to-be-true/unheard of. Has this ever happened before in the history of GPUs? A mid-range card from OEM1 handily beats the top-end card from OEM2 on the same process level (28nm in this case)? Even if we assume AMD doesn't release any faster cards than the 7970 it's just really hard to believe.
 
superjim said:
As awesome as this would be, it's just too-good-to-be-true/unheard of. Has this ever happened before in the history of GPUs? A mid-range card from OEM1 handily beats the top-end card from OEM2 on the same process level (28nm in this case)? Even if we assume AMD doesn't release any faster cards than the 7970 it's just really hard to believe.
Click to expand...

9500Pro beat the FX5800Ultra on occasion.
 
Madcatatlas said:
Gtx460 also beat radeon 5870 at some things, civ5 heavy tess among those i belive
Click to expand...

I should have added "on all metrics" which the semi-accurate article from Charlie states. Having a higher tessellation score, higher FPS in 1-2 games isn't the same as "beats X in all metrics". Noise, temp, GPGPU, FPS, etc.
 
superjim said:
I should have added "on all metrics" which the semi-accurate article from Charlie states. Having a higher tessellation score, higher FPS in 1-2 games isn't the same as "beats X in all metrics". Noise, temp, GPGPU, FPS, etc.
Click to expand...

I think the 9600GT gave the Radeon 2900XT a decent run, often as fast to somewhat faster.
 
Has everyone forgotten 2 things:
1) The "Radeon 7900" series is more than 1 card.
2) The GTX560Ti was almost on par with the HD6950.
3) You would hope that it's close to the 7900 series with a 225w TDP if true.

(4) It may have performance "on the level" in a select few situations. Depends on whether we're looking at marketing speak or "real" speak.
Here's an example: http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6950-1gb-vs-geforce-gtx-560-ti-review/8
GTX560 Ti beats the HD6950 at 1280x1024 but loses by a reasonable margin at 2560x1600. Marketing speak would allow BOTH manufacturers to claim their card is the faster of the two)

5) WHO GIVES A SHIT?
All I care about is how much performance I get for my money. If it's "on par" and costs $50 more, I don't give a damn where on NV's "scale" it is.
If it's "on par", or even a bit slower, but $100+ less, then it's an easy sale and ends up being good for the consumer.

I would anticipate that the majority of people here have a set budget, it may be a high budget, but it's a budget.
Sure, some people can (and do) buy triple GTX580s or triple HD7970s, but most people have $x to spend. If the GTX680 (or whatever) means I get more performance for my $x, I don't care whether it's the bottom card or the top card. Much like I don't care if AMD's top card is half the performance of NV's top card. If NV's top card costs $2x and AMDs costs $x, then I'm going to pick between NV's $x priced card and AMD's $x priced card, not between NV's top card and AMD's top card.
 
Last edited:
When its a real product with real benchmarks done by a reviewer then we'll give a crap 😛 Until then no one knows for sure
 
Lonyo said:
Has everyone forgotten 2 things:
1) The "Radeon 7900" series is more than 1 card.
2) The GTX560Ti was almost on par with the HD6950.
3) You would hope that it's close to the 7900 series with a 225w TDP if true.

(4) It may have performance "on the level" in a select few situations. Depends on whether we're looking at marketing speak or "real" speak.
Here's an example: http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6950-1gb-vs-geforce-gtx-560-ti-review/8
GTX560 Ti beats the HD6950 at 1280x1024 but loses by a reasonable margin at 2560x1600. Marketing speak would allow BOTH manufacturers to claim their card is the faster of the two)

5) WHO GIVES A SHIT?
All I care about is how much performance I get for my money. If it's "on par" and costs $50 more, I don't give a damn where on NV's "scale" it is.
If it's "on par", or even a bit slower, but $100+ less, then it's an easy sale and ends up being good for the consumer.

I would anticipate that the majority of people here have a set budget, it may be a high budget, but it's a budget.
Sure, some people can (and do) buy triple GTX580s or triple HD7970s, but most people have $x to spend. If the GTX680 (or whatever) means I get more performance for my $x, I don't care whether it's the bottom card or the top card. Much like I don't care if AMD's top card is half the performance of NV's top card. If NV's top card costs $2x and AMDs costs $x, then I'm going to pick between NV's $x priced card and AMD's $x priced card, not between NV's top card and AMD's top card.
Click to expand...

Yes, it could be competing with a 7930 for all we know.
 
superjim said:
As awesome as this would be, it's just too-good-to-be-true/unheard of. Has this ever happened before in the history of GPUs? A mid-range card from OEM1 handily beats the top-end card from OEM2 on the same process level (28nm in this case)? Even if we assume AMD doesn't release any faster cards than the 7970 it's just really hard to believe.
Click to expand...

well, in an engineering point of view, amd is doing this since the HD48xx cards.

they never released a 500+nm² since then, a true old-school top-end card
 
superjim said:
As awesome as this would be, it's just too-good-to-be-true/unheard of. Has this ever happened before in the history of GPUs? A mid-range card from OEM1 handily beats the top-end card from OEM2 on the same process level (28nm in this case)? Even if we assume AMD doesn't release any faster cards than the 7970 it's just really hard to believe.
Click to expand...

+1. I think another revealing question would be if any company has ever released a mid-range product that's substantially (20% or more) faster across the board than the previous generation's ultra card. Comparing the 7970 to the 580, it tops it by a solid margin in most (non-artificial) aspects. For the 660 to be decently faster than the 7970, it would have to be substantially faster (again, in most respects) than the 580. Like you, I'd love to see this happen (more GPU for less money is always a big win for the consumer), but hype is usually just that.
 
railven said:
Since we're all just talking about fictious cards - I bet you the 7930 would be a monster bitminer 😛
Click to expand...

There is a "7930" card which was indicated on the full lineup leaked lists, but it was called the 7890 IIRC. Basically a double cut down 7970, like the 4830 and 5830 was, only called a 7890 instead of 7930.
 
Lonyo said:
There is a "7930" card which was indicated on the full lineup leaked lists, but it was called the 7890 IIRC. Basically a double cut down 7970, like the 4830 and 5830 was, only called a 7890 instead of 7930.
Click to expand...

Roadmaps are nice to see where we can get, but until we get there - it's just speculation. Thus my tongue-in-cheek comment haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top