SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
If true its strange to think that the GM200 yield/redundencies are enough to supply only 3072SP chips without any cutdown versions.
I agree with you, very strange!
If true its strange to think that the GM200 yield/redundencies are enough to supply only 3072SP chips without any cutdown versions.
Bad logic, so now you have to own your own website to be credible?
Taobao market is huuuuge, it probably benefit them more to sell on taobao.
VRAM isn't computing power. The GPUs of the consoles aren't powerful enough to handle more than 2GB. I doubt they can eve reach that number, since they don't run at 1080p much, as far as I'm aware.So far, but that seems like the obvious way for later-generation games to have the visual improvements we expect over the life of a console-huge textures.
He's saying it's equivalent to a seller on Amazon that isn't Amazon itself listing it, not that the website isn't big.
You have to own the website for the website to matter for your credibility.
Pretty much, that's why I also think there won't be a GM200 '980ti' as the name does not make any sense. Maybe a 985/990 (Ti and non-Ti) instead of people assuming 780Ti successor = 980Ti that is parroted by WCCFTech.If true its strange to think that the GM200 yield/redundencies are enough to supply only 3072SP chips without any cutdown versions.
VRAM isn't computing power. The GPUs of the consoles aren't powerful enough to handle more than 2GB. I doubt they can eve reach that number, since they don't run at 1080p much, as far as I'm aware.
VRAM is like having a trailer for your car. It's not much good to have a huge trailer if your car isn't powerful enough.
Because it's SHARED RAM.So Sony equipped the PS4 with 8GB of expensive and power hungry GDDR5 because?????
I don't think you understood my meaning, and I don't feel you have any interest in doing so.Please link the technical brief that illustrates how the consoles are incapable of utilizing the memory that they are wastefully equipped with.
Again - this really doesn't make sense. Even if it's true, I'm not sure how people who bought a Titan X won't feel burned by the fact that they just bought the "flagship" for $1000 only for NVIDIA to turn around and sell the "real" flagship 3 months later for less? Yikes.
If true its strange to think that the GM200 yield/redundencies are enough to supply only 3072SP chips without any cutdown versions.
Because it's SHARED RAM.
They use it to store game assets and other stuff, not related to graphical computing. My computer, for example, has 18GB of RAM, only 2 of which is used by the GPU.
I don't think you understood my meaning, and I don't feel you have any interest in doing so.
Have a nice day.
Because it's SHARED RAM.
They use it to store game assets and other stuff, not related to graphical computing. My computer, for example, has 18GB of RAM, only 2 of which is used by the GPU.
Agreed, it doesn't make financial sense for NVIDIA to release a Ti version right now at all. They could simply name a cut down GM200 GTX 1080 and sell it for $799 and people would buy it in droves. Then when 390X finally lands in August/September after their June paper launch, we'll know what the specs are and so will NVIDIA. At that time, if they need to, they can release a water cooled 1080 Ti that beats 390X WCE by 10-20% and keep the crown. Releasing a full GM200 for $200 cheaper than Titan X w/half the ram right now just undercuts profitability and wastes full dies which aren't cheap to produce despite the 28nm maturity. I also don't think 6 GB will be the sweet spot for 4K gaming as GTA V already reaches that limit with some MSAA added into the mix. I regularly reach 5.4 GB at 1440P alone with that game. With these new generation titles, we're looking at a shift where 6 GB = 1080p and maybe 1440p with no MSAA and 8GB+ for 1440p+DSR or MSAA/4K and 12GB+ for surround.
Demand for Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan X is unexpectedly high
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...dia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-is-unexpectedly-high/
That didn't stop NVIDIA from releasing the 780Ti.
They need a 1080, cut-down GM200 with 6GB, 10% slower than Titan X at $799. This way both Titan X and 1080 will sell well and the lower card competes less against the X. Economics 101.
Again - this really doesn't make sense. Even if it's true, I'm not sure how people who bought a Titan X won't feel burned by the fact that they just bought the "flagship" for $1000 only for NVIDIA to turn around and sell the "real" flagship 3 months later for less? Yikes.
Original Titan $1K => Feb 21, 2013
GTX780 Ghz $650 => May 23, 2013 (3 months)
Again - this really doesn't make sense. Even if it's true, I'm not sure how people who bought a Titan X won't feel burned by the fact that they just bought the "flagship" for $1000 only for NVIDIA to turn around and sell the "real" flagship 3 months later for less? Yikes.
That's a factory OC model (with a massive out of the box boost to ~1.25ghz). The official 780 was ~10% slower than Titan.
@RS
You have to factor in that Titan X is selling very well, better than expected based on early reports.
NV has no reason to under cut it with a faster part.