GK106 die shot, once again with new specs

[AnandThenMan]

Dirt Showdown, Sniper Elite V2, Sleeping Dogs are games where the compute and bandwidth performance is making a difference. For people complaining that these cards perform poorly on Nvidia because they are designed in such a way it will be known when the GTX 780 launches. With a focus on compute performance and with huge bandwidth if the GTX 780 performs much better and competes with HD 8970 in these same games than all these arguments are going to be proven as lame excuses.

Well said. And please remember people that Nvidia is free to amp op their compute performance no one is stopping them. So if (more like when) Nvidia does, everyone will benefit, including the titles where NV is currently weak in.

Probably an extreme setting that adds some fidelity or AMD trying to utilize their memory advantage more.

Why would AMD not want to utilize their memory bandwidth? That's what it's for, and we're seeing that memory bandwidth does matter, contrary to the apologists. People complain about the power usage and scream how much more efficient Kepler is (even though it's not). But when games actually use the extra abilities on the Radeon and the game runs much faster, some choose to completely ignore this. A more robust design like Tahiti has its advantages, the extra transistors are not there for the heck of it.

The same was true with Fermi, power draw not withstanding it is a more balanced and capable design versus Evergreen, and was a more future proof part. Unfortunately Nvidia castrated Kepler, I would much rather have seen them continue with an enhanced Fermi like GPU. I'm very vocal about efficiency but Kepler gives up too much for it IMO.

It's wonderful to see more GPU compute but it's not like nVidia is ignoring it --- they also bring a GPU PhysX component and a forced dynamic Ambient Occlusion to many popular titles as well.

PhysX and compute are vastly different. Whatever work devs do, aided by AMD, on compute enhanced titles have the potential to benefit everyone.

 

[SirPauly]

PhysX and compute are vastly different.[/B]

How, exactly? There are three popular API's that may allow for GPU compute: OpenCL, Direct Compute and Cuda.

 

[Lonyo]

How, exactly? There are three popular API's that may allow for GPU compute: OpenCL, Direct Compute and Cuda.

Read the next bit?
Two of those 3 work on all cards which support them, which is potentially any card, including Intel.
PhysX works on NV and NV.
Interesting way to cut off a sentence mid way and then question the meaning of the bit you cut out, when it's explained by the bit which came after it.

 

[SirPauly]

And?

So, because Cuda is proprietary it isn't GPU compute?

 

[boxleitnerb]

With mid-40s avg and mid 30s min fps its definitely playable.

What? A shooter is playable with these low fps? Maybe you have really low standards, that would explain this misconception. 60-80, then we're beginning to talk (SP) and 80+ (MP).

It is always funny that people argue over 5fps more or less in fast games when in fact both setups are way too slow for really good gameplay. Lower the settings to get good fps, then the min fps problem goes away automatically.

 

[Arkadrel]

How, exactly?

PhysX and compute are vastly different. Whatever work devs do, aided by AMD, on compute enhanced titles have the potential to benefit everyone.

The Answear to your question, was answeared by AnandThenMan, before you asked it (its the part in blue you left out).

Hes assumeing AMD doesnt impliment CUDA into a game
Your saying hes makeing assumptions. "how is it differnt there are 3 APIs for GPU compute"

Yeah but 2 of the 3 benefit everyone.

 

[BigBuster]

You haven't been reading reviews lately?

The current hot game: Sleeping Dogs

Add Sniper Elite v2 and Dirt Showdown.

So in the more recent DX11 games, Tahiti faceplants Kepler.

Which recent games have Kepler doing the same vs Tahiti?

Since you read reviews, it's funny that 2 out of the 3 games you mention absolutely suck and nobody plays. I doubt you even do, but you'll use the benchmarks to show AMD is better than NVIDIA for a game nobody cares about.

Dirt Showdown - Rated 72% across major review sites

Sniper Elite v2 - Rated 65% across major review sites

I'm glad NVIDIA actually cares about the big, huge games such as all blizzard games, Battlefield 3, Arkham city and Skyrim that people actually play.

Markyd, you just made your short vacation a much longer vacation for creating a second account
-ViRGE

 

[AnandThenMan]

And?

So, because Cuda is proprietary it isn't GPU compute?

Did anyone say that? I realize you never, ever plan to own anything other than Nvidia, but others are not like that. So it is in the best interest of buyers that purchase on the merits of the card rather than the name of the box. People should be able to take advantage of technology going forward no matter what they buy, not be chained to a particular vendor.

 

[SirPauly]

The Answear to your question, was answeared by AnandThenMan, before you asked it (its the part in blue you left out).

Hes assumeing AMD doesnt impliment CUDA into a game
Your saying hes makeing assumptions. "how is it differnt there are 3 APIs for GPU compute"

Yeah but 2 of the 3 benefit everyone.

I left out?

The poster is comparing a middle ware to an API and not apples to apples. PhysX is not an API but a middle ware and the GPU Physic component is using the Cuda API for GPU compute.

From my understanding, Cuda is also used in Just Cause 2, GPU PhysX component, and may also help with the forced on dynamic ambient occlusion feature that is in quite a few titles.

Hey, man, PhysX doesn't count at all and shouldn't be ---- and yet going to be in Borderlands 2, PlanetSide2 and Metro last light -- it's a non issue and not even worth raising it.

Good Grief.

 

[Silverforce11]

HardwareHeaven is gospel for AMD right now, because they like the results.
Everyone else is corrupt, doing something wrong etc.

Not sure if you are stupid or missing the entire point we have raised, even TPU has stated as such IN THEIR REVIEW. They received a nonfunctional sample, the entire heatsink wasn't in contact, the card fried and shutdown.. they had to manually fix the thing before they went to bench it, giving the terrible results shown.

So out of TWO review sites that did this specific card, one received a broken sample, the other receive a functional sample. The one with the functional sample showed it beating the 690, severely in more recent dx11 games.

What conclusions do you draw? That HardwareHeaven is gospel? Can you be even more obvious in your biased?

 

[Silverforce11]

Since you read reviews, it's funny that 2 out of the 3 games you mention absolutely suck and nobody plays. I doubt you even do, but you'll use the benchmarks to show AMD is better than NVIDIA for a game nobody cares about.

Dirt Showdown - Rated 72% across major review sites

Sniper Elite v2 - Rated 65% across major review sites

I'm glad NVIDIA actually cares about the big, huge games such as all blizzard games, Battlefield 3, Arkham city and Skyrim that people actually play.

Except Tahiti isn't slower in BF3, Arkham and Skyrim in recent reviews. At high res, its faster.

But since you are new here, lets see if you just are here to troll or debate, show us RECENT "good" games where NV has a significant lead. By signifcant, more than single digit % delta.

 

[SirPauly]

I'm glad NVIDIA actually cares about the big, huge games such as all blizzard games, Battlefield 3, Arkham city and Skyrim that people actually play.

I believe it is good to see IHV's try to improve the gaming experiences for their customers and don't expect ideal examples or ideal situations.

For example, GPU PhysX has been in some titles with lower ratings as well. The key is they are both trying and competing -- trying to offer compelling choice for consumers.

 

[chimaxi83]

Not sure if you are [biased] or missing the entire point we have raised, even TPU has stated as such IN THEIR REVIEW. They received a nonfunctional sample, the entire heatsink wasn't in contact, the card fried and shutdown.. they had to manually fix the thing before they went to bench it, giving the terrible results shown.

So out of TWO review sites that did this specific card, one received a broken sample, the other receive a functional sample. The one with the functional sample showed it beating the 690, severely in more recent dx11 games.

What conclusions do you draw? That HardwareHeaven is gospel? Can you be even more obvious in your biased?

Some people don't care about facts, like taking a review of what appears to be a defective card with a bag full of salt, or a review of a fully functioning card showing a majority of wins for AMD. Anything that aligns with biased opinions work for them.

Except Tahiti isn't slower in BF3, Arkham and Skyrim in recent reviews. At high res, its faster.

But since you are new here, lets see if you just are here to troll or debate, show us RECENT "good" games where NV has a significant lead. By significant, more than single digit % delta.

There are none, but I'm assuming new member thinks something like 47.1 fps is somehow vastly superior to 45.9 fps. Who knows, maybe he has a beast GTX 470 SLI setup.

I believe it is good to see IHV's try to improve the gaming experiences for their customers and don't expect ideal examples or ideal situations.

For example, GPU PhysX has been in some titles with lower ratings as well. The key is they are both trying and competing -- trying to offer compelling choice for consumers.

How exactly is PhysX a compelling choice? I own Nvidia and AMD, I've used PhysX in the Batman games, and I honestly couldn't care less about it. Its extra fluff, that's all. The Scarecrow level showcased it well I suppose, but it neither adds (when you have it) or detracts (when you don't) from the game. I realize this is just my opinion, like "PhysX is compelling" is yours, but when was the last time someone said "PhysX - ya gotta have it!"?

 

[BigBuster]

Except Tahiti isn't slower in BF3, Arkham and Skyrim in recent reviews. At high res, its faster.

But since you are new here, lets see if you just are here to troll or debate, show us RECENT "good" games where NV has a significant lead. By signifcant, more than single digit % delta.

The 7970 ghz is just an OC'd version of a 7970. Do you think that speaks highly of AMD's business integrity to release a graphics card and re-release it after a competitors version that is better?

The 680 and even 670 in some cases such as BF3 beat the 7970 in its original condition.

Do you realize NVIDIA can do the same thing? Where do you draw the line and look at it from a realistic perspective of NVIDIA releasing quality products from the start and sticking with their products?

As a consumer, how can you only look at remade products and overclocked products to decide between two graphics cards. This is quite frankly stupid and shows exactly why AMD has the 'stereotype', if you will, of being CHEAP.

The same thing happened with the 7950B. You have to overclock the hell out of AMD cards to achieve anything similar the 670/680 come with out of the box. Overclocks are also not guaranteed.

If NVIDIA released the 670/680 'B' to pull ahead in benchmarks (just a mild overclock), would that influence you to go back to NVIDIA?

Lets look at it from another perspective, if BMW released a direct competitor to an AUDI A5 and it had a lot more horsepower and AUDI countered this by releasing the A5 B which only had higher horsepower at the cost of higher mpg, what do you think would be the result? People would be outraged and AUDI could just say, well, you can just have a tune up or slight modification and the car will be the same as the B! This is exactly what AMD is doing and is simply stupid.

Now, who wants to be running their cards at maximum clocks while if you go with nvidia you have basically lower everything at a much more stable clock (that it comes with and is designed for).

Lastly, why don't the companies just keep releasing overclocked cards one after another ?

 

[BigBuster]

And here, you can see what games the gtx 680 wins at
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/555?vs=618

 

[AnandThenMan]

The 7970 ghz is just an OC'd version of a 7970.

Which of these is overclocked?

Core Clock: 1019MHz
Boost Clock: 1097MHz

Core Clock: 915MHz
Boost Clock: 980MHz

Core Clock: 980MHz
Boost Clock: 1059MHz

Core Clock: 967MHz
Boost Clock: 1058MHz

Core Clock: 1006MHz
Boost Clock: 1084MHz

Core Clock: 1032MHz
Boost Clock: 1111MHz

Core Clock: 980MHz
Boost Clock: 1059MHz

Core Clock: 941MHz
Boost Clock: 1019MHz

Core Clock: 928MHz
Boost Clock: 1006MHz​

 

[BigBuster]

Which of these is overclocked?

Core Clock: 1019MHz
Boost Clock: 1097MHz

Core Clock: 915MHz
Boost Clock: 980MHz

Core Clock: 980MHz
Boost Clock: 1059MHz

Core Clock: 967MHz
Boost Clock: 1058MHz

Core Clock: 1006MHz
Boost Clock: 1084MHz

Core Clock: 1032MHz
Boost Clock: 1111MHz

Core Clock: 980MHz
Boost Clock: 1059MHz

Core Clock: 941MHz
Boost Clock: 1019MHz

Core Clock: 928MHz
Boost Clock: 1006MHz​

I don't see your point, are you saying the ghz edition is not an overclocked 7970 lol. Way to ignore the rest of my points.

 

[Jaydip]

Which of these is overclocked?

Core Clock: 1019MHz
Boost Clock: 1097MHz

Core Clock: 915MHz
Boost Clock: 980MHz

Core Clock: 980MHz
Boost Clock: 1059MHz

Core Clock: 967MHz
Boost Clock: 1058MHz

Core Clock: 1006MHz
Boost Clock: 1084MHz

Core Clock: 1032MHz
Boost Clock: 1111MHz

Core Clock: 980MHz
Boost Clock: 1059MHz

Core Clock: 941MHz
Boost Clock: 1019MHz

Core Clock: 928MHz
Boost Clock: 1006MHz​

So 7970 is not a oced 7970??

 

[AnandThenMan]

I don't see your point...

Try harder. You can call most GPUs overclocked by pointing to a card that runs at a lower clock. It doesn't matter if it is "overclocked" or not what matters is how it performs for the money and power draw.

So 7970 is not a oced 7970??

So GTX6xx is not an overclocked 6xx? Who cares, what matters is performance.

 

[Jaydip]

Try harder. You can call most GPUs overclocked by pointing to a card that runs at a lower clock. It doesn't matter if it is "overclocked" or not what matters is how it performs for the money and power draw.

So GTX6xx is not an overclocked 6xx? Who cares, what matters is performance.

Neither do I but you posted a clock speed chart and my response was regarding that

 

[chimaxi83]

The 7970 ghz is just an OC'd version of a 7970. Do you think that speaks highly of AMD's business integrity to release a graphics card and re-release it after a competitors version that is better?

Lol, integrity. If people buying graphics cards really cared about a company's integrity, why buy Nvidia after Crysis 2 invisible tess, or Bumpgate?

680 and even 670 in some cases such as BF3 beat the 7970 in its original condition.

Do you realize NVIDIA can do the same thing? Where do you draw the line and look at it from a realistic perspective of NVIDIA releasing quality products from the start and sticking with their products?

What matters is that 670 and 680 are no longer what they used to be. Tough, isn't it? Hopefully the competition is just as fierce with 780 and 8970, and AMD drivers continue to make huge strides in performance.

As a consumer, how can you only look at remade products and overclocked products to decide between two graphics cards. This is quite frankly stupid and shows exactly why AMD has the 'stereotype', if you will, of being CHEAP.

You meant to say cheaper AND faster, didn't you? Nvidia cards self overclock, and nearly all of them come factory overclocked. Nvidia cheap too?

If NVIDIA released the 670/680 'B' to pull ahead in benchmarks (just a mild overclock), would that influence you to go back to NVIDIA?

Moot point, the 680 everyone buys now is factory overclocked. All of them.

Now, who wants to be running their cards at maximum clocks while if you go with nvidia you have basically lower everything at a much more stable clock (that it comes with and is designed for).

As stable as Asus DC II 670 which needed a BIOS update to be stable? Or as stable as EVGA 670 that had to be outright replaced to be functional and stable?

Lastly, why don't the companies just keep releasing overclocked cards one after another ?

That's exactly what is coming from Nvidia now. Factory overclocked, self overclocking cards. Kepler Boost is cool, but all it is is an overclock algorithm that saves you a few minutes of adjusting sliders. Overclock, overclock, overclock, its all the rage these days. The companies see the value in it, why don't you? Because Nvidia loses to AMD overclocks?

 

[BigBuster]

Try harder. You can call most GPUs overclocked by pointing to a card that runs at a lower clock. It doesn't matter if it is "overclocked" or not what matters is how it performs for the money and power draw.

So GTX6xx is not an overclocked 6xx? Who cares, what matters is performance.

Who cares? What a stupid reply.

GTX6XX is not an overclocked 6xx? No, they are not.

If you're going to reply with nonsense such as this, why bother replying? What do you add to the discussion, saying who cares ?

NVIDIA PLEASE RELEASE A 680 BOOST AND THEN AMD CAN RE RELEASE AMD GHZ 2ND EDITION AND THE CYCLE CAN KEEP GOING, BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, WHO CARES?!

A classic example here of why NVIDIA is the better company.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Neither do I but you posted a clock speed chart and my response was regarding that

I posted a clock chart to show that "overclocking" is something both AMD and Nvidia are doing to maximize performance. Would people prefer if NV and AMD locked down clocks and made it almost impossible to get better performance even though the headroom is there? Is AMD supposed to sit idly by and not raise clocks on their GPUs even if they can? :\

I responded to the sarcastic post attempting to say, well the 7970GHz edition is overclocked, meaning there must be something wrong with it. Which is hypocritical ignorance at its best.

A classic example here of why NVIDIA is the better company.

Okay then. Nothing left to discuss, your job here is done.

 

[chimaxi83]

Which of these is overclocked?

Core Clock: 1019MHz
Boost Clock: 1097MHz

Core Clock: 915MHz
Boost Clock: 980MHz

Core Clock: 980MHz
Boost Clock: 1059MHz

Core Clock: 967MHz
Boost Clock: 1058MHz

Core Clock: 1006MHz
Boost Clock: 1084MHz

Core Clock: 1032MHz
Boost Clock: 1111MHz

Core Clock: 980MHz
Boost Clock: 1059MHz

Core Clock: 941MHz
Boost Clock: 1019MHz

Core Clock: 928MHz
Boost Clock: 1006MHz​

Exactly! Every single Kepler is overclocked, but that's ok, right?

How about this. People say 7970 GHZ was in reaction to losing to (overclocked) 680? Well wasn't 680 originally meant as a mid ranged replacement to 560? That's what everyone says, and I tend to agree. Nvidia just [b/]overclocked[/b] the hell out of the stock 705MHz the card was going to have and sold it as high end, because

1. Real high end wasn't ready and
2. Overclocked mid range beat stock AMD high end

Nvidia reacted before they even released their product, and AMD turned up the heat. Don't be mad about it, competition is great.

 

[BigBuster]

Lol, integrity. If people buying graphics cards really cared about a company's integrity, why buy Nvidia after Crysis 2 invisible tess, or Bumpgate?
That isn't the same as offering a new version of the exact same card. That's crippling performance for a competitor, it is in a sense, an exclusive deal. An example of this is a timed/completely exclusive title for consoles.



What matters is that 670 and 680 are no longer what they used to be. Tough, isn't it? Hopefully the competition is just as fierce with 780 and 8970, and AMD drivers continue to make huge strides in performance.

How are they not what they used to be ? they are still the best cards on the market, NVIDIA doesn't have to release the 670 AND 680 B to convince consumers they have the best video cards available.



You meant to say cheaper AND faster, didn't you? Nvidia cards self overclock, and nearly all of them come factory overclocked. Nvidia cheap too?

What does that have to do with a company releasing the 7970 ghz and 7950 B ?
Moot point, the 680 everyone buys now is factory overclocked. All of them.

Again, it is for benchmark purposes that AMD released the 7950b and 7970 ghz, just to increase performance to compete with NVIDIA.


As stable as Asus DC II 670 which needed a BIOS update to be stable? Or as stable as EVGA 670 that had to be outright replaced to be functional and stable?
Is it NVIDIA's fault EVGA had one faulty card and ASUS had bios problems? get real.



That's exactly what is coming from Nvidia now. Factory overclocked, self overclocking cards. Kepler Boost is cool, but all it is is an overclock algorithm that saves you a few minutes of adjusting sliders. Overclock, overclock, overclock, its all the rage these days. The companies see the value in it, why don't you? Because Nvidia loses to AMD overclocks?
again, another point speaking of other companies overclocking cards. How is that in any way the same as 7950 B and 7970 GHZ? If that was the case, why did AMD bother releasing both cards with higher clocks, if factory overclocked cards were already available?

Nice try, maybe next time.