• 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.

NVIDIA Pascal Thread

Page 148 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Since this is a PASCAL thread I'll try to stay on it. Pascal. in addition to the die shrink adds a number of new feature since Maxwell that bode well for the future. Perhaps some of the price structure reflects the addition of these new features?
 
Last edited:
R0H1T said:
What about PoP or TSS, for bypassing interposer, isn't that something what mobile APUs would benefit from?
Click to expand...
Don't worry about what is being said here. A lot of FUD being spouted by the usual suspects.

This is a good while ago [2012]. $1 / 100mm^2.
http://electroiq.com/blog/2012/12/lifting-the-veil-on-silicon-interposer-pricing/

Sesh Ramaswami, managing director at Applied Materials, showed a cost analysis which resulted in 300mm interposer wafer costs of $500-$650 / wafer. His cost analysis showed the major cost contributors are damascene processing (22%), front pad and backside bumping (20%), and TSV creation (14%).
..........................................................
Since one can produce ~286 200mm2 die on a 300mm wafer, at $575 (his midpoint cost) per wafer, this results in a $2 200mm2 silicon interposer.
Click to expand...
APUs can use 1 stack HBM2 or 2, or 3, or whatever just like GPUs. People saying HBM2 is extremely, extremely expensive don't think expansively. They are locked in with the past and can't separate why something [4 HBM stacks on the 1st interposer GPU product] was done vs what can actually be done. Notice how no numbers are EVER offered in these arguments? Just vague feelings.

I can't begin to imagine why anyone thinks that 4 stacks of HBM1 or 2 is needed. There is no theoretical, only practical limits to # stacks. 1 to X, X being much greater than 4.

There is no reason why a small die [200-250mm^2] GPU/APU with 1 or 2 stacks of HBM2 [4-8 GB] should be extremely, extremely expensive to produce.

Why can't we have an 2 stack HBM2 top end die with 8 GB memory. The product differentiator would be HBM2 vs GDDR5X, not the amount of ram. Anyone wants to argue that 16GB ram is needed anytime soon for consumer GPUs, and those proposing a GP102 are certainly talking consumer and not professional product.
 
maddie said:
Why can't we have an 2 stack HBM2 top end die with 8 GB memory. The product differentiator would be HBM2 vs GDDR5X, not the amount of ram. Anyone wants to argue that 16GB ram is needed anytime soon for consumer GPUs, and those proposing a GP102 are certainly talking consumer and not professional product.
Click to expand...

I suspect that part of the answer is marketing reason (you want more RAM in your higher end product - otherwise it looks like you are going backward). The other may just be practicality. 12 GB of 384 bit wide GDDR5X may provide all the bandwidth the the rumored GP102 actually needs especially if faster variants will be available when it ships.
 
Ajay said:
The other may just be practicality. 12 GB of 384 bit wide GDDR5X may provide all the bandwidth the the rumored GP102 actually needs especially if faster variants will be available when it ships.
Click to expand...

^^ This. We are back to some people want HBM because its HBM. Not for the need or considering cost issues etc. And for those people you can ask the obvious question, why settle with the second best, when you can get better than HBM (HMC).

384bit 12Ghz gives 576GB/sec for example.
 
I frankly don't see why we need 12Gb yet, but if NV needs 384bit GDDR5X to get the usual 30% generational boost, then that's what we'll get. But with a larger chip it could be possible to pull it off with higher clocked 256bit G5X too. Not that I'm complaining memory wise, far from.
 
CakeMonster said:
I frankly don't see why we need 12Gb yet, but if NV needs 384bit GDDR5X to get the usual 30% generational boost, then that's what we'll get. But with a larger chip it could be possible to pull it off with higher clocked 256bit G5X too. Not that I'm complaining memory wise, far from.
Click to expand...

Because.. I posted this a while back but Jayz2cents proved to us that there's at least one title that uses 9GB in DirectX-12 at just 1080p.

Not to mention we've "already had" for the better part of quite a long time now Shadows of Mordor. Which, with the high quality textures pack requires minimum of 6GB of video ram no matter what resolution you're playing at.

Any resolution higher than 1080p will use even more ram with these titles. And they aren't alone, this is a new, growing trend these days with newer games.

I would expect at bare minimum new GPU's from both sides to have at least 8GB - 12GB of ram or they're not worth spending money on.

Most of this is why I didn't even bother trying to buy anything new from the 900 line up.. all of the 8GB cards were incredibly expensive. I'm really hoping we can get at least 8GB cards in the affordable range (GTX 1060) this time around.
 
Last edited:
CakeMonster said:
I frankly don't see why we need 12Gb yet, but if NV needs 384bit GDDR5X to get the usual 30% generational boost, then that's what we'll get. But with a larger chip it could be possible to pull it off with higher clocked 256bit G5X too. Not that I'm complaining memory wise, far from.
Click to expand...

At the time GP102 releases I'm sure 12Ghz GDDR5X will be standard.

I can see a refresh series for 1080 and 1070 also moving up 2Ghz in memory speed..
 
kithylin said:
Because.. I posted this a while back but Jayz2cents proved to us that there's at least one title that uses 9GB in DirectX-12 at just 1080p.

Not to mention we've "already had" for the better part of quite a long time now Shadows of Mordor. Which, with the high quality textures pack requires minimum of 6GB of video ram no matter what resolution you're playing at.

Any resolution higher than 1080p will use even more ram with these titles. And they aren't alone, this is a new, growing trend these days with newer games.

I would expect at bare minimum new GPU's from both sides to have at least 8GB - 12GB of ram or they're not worth spending money on.

Most of this is why I didn't even bother trying to buy anything new from the 900 line up.. all of the 8GB cards were incredibly expensive. I'm really hoping we can get at least 8GB cards in the affordable range (GTX 1060) this time around.
Click to expand...

I think you're mistaken. Games don't need more than 1gb vram upto 1080p. Only when you go above that or multi monitor you MAY need more.. So 1gb is more than enough.
2b26ca37f9eb465c84f39fd9423f5b11.jpg

d07b518ed1a9cce7335c87196b396d1d.jpg

So just trust me on this one..
 
Last edited:
mohit9206 said:
I think you're mistaken. Games don't need more than 1gb vram upto 1080p. Only when you go above that or multi monitor you MAY need more.. So 1gb is more than enough.
So just trust me on this one..
Click to expand...
You're seriously deluding yourself, & many others, if you think a GB of VRAM is enough. In fact 4GB is quickly become the norm for 1080p, however it largely depends on the game & settings used, & 2GB is the bare minimum to even launch a game.
 
R0H1T said:
You're seriously deluding yourself, & many others, if you think a GB of VRAM is enough. In fact 4GB is quickly become the norm for 1080p, however it largely depends on the game & settings used, & 2GB is the bare minimum to even launch a game.
Click to expand...
And yet we are expected to believe this.

I would expect at bare minimum new GPU's from both sides to have at least 8GB - 12GB of ram or they're not worth spending money on.
Click to expand...

Wow. I guess those game studios are going to recover development costs by ignoring those with 4 GB cards. Everyone, the hundreds of millions of lower budget gamers, are going to upgrade within the yr.
 
R0H1T said:
You're seriously deluding yourself, & many others, if you think a GB of VRAM is enough. In fact 4GB is quickly become the norm for 1080p, however it largely depends on the game & settings used, & 2GB is the bare minimum to even launch a game.
Click to expand...
Yeah actually i was wrong to say 1gb is enough. Actually 256mb is more than enough. So i stand corrected. Look at this.
ee529b3752b2889ff4ce38bc4c9ecd16.jpg

just kidding man, i know 4gb is the minimum these days


Threadcrapping and trolling are not allowed. And until I edited the post I did not see your comment. at the bottom
Markfw900
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mohit9206 said:
I think you're mistaken. Games don't need more than 1gb vram upto 1080p. Only when you go above that or multi monitor you MAY need more.. So 1gb is more than enough.


.............


So just trust me on this one..
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you're just trolling for the sake of trolling.. which is not cool.

But it's not about FPS performance, everyone knows that. Higher video ram (if the game needs to use it) results in less hitching/stalling/delays when loading new areas/etc and in general leads to a smoother gaming performance.

I only have a 4GB card, but I have a rather short list here of games that use at least that much.. (they want more but I don't know how much more).. even at 1080p @ DX-11.

Project C.A.R.S., GTA-V, BF4, Ark: Survival Evolved. And everyone already knows 6GB minimum for Shadows of Mordor ultra pack, the developers actually specify that as a requirement for the ultra pack.

All these titles slam my card right at flat 4GB / 4GB the entire time playing.

I've almost considered switching from a GTX 770 a 1st gen Titan used (if they come cheap used) instead of 900 series.. just for video ram.

If people are after a smooth 60 FPS -constantly- with no stutters, dips or drops @ 1080p.

Mind you.. all this "high vram usage" and everything is with the game's settings 100% maxed out, every single possible last setting turned on to max.

So yes, everyone in to "butter-smooth gaming" on PC, even at 1080p, pays attention to video ram usage. FPS isn't different but the experience sure is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmsfw9GnWUY#t=8m4s

See here, Jayz2centz talks about video ram and it actually has -quite a big impact- on DirectX-12 performance. See his discussion and results and after thoughts.
 
Last edited:
kithylin said:
I'm assuming you're just trolling for the sake of trolling.. which is not cool.

But it's not about FPS performance, everyone knows that. Higher video ram (if the game needs to use it) results in less hitching/stalling/delays when loading new areas/etc and in general leads to a smoother gaming performance.

I only have a 4GB card, but I have a rather short list here of games that use at least that much.. (they want more but I don't know how much more).. even at 1080p @ DX-11.

Project C.A.R.S., GTA-V, BF4, Ark: Survival Evolved. And everyone already knows 6GB minimum for Shadows of Mordor ultra pack, the developers actually specify that as a requirement for the ultra pack.

All these titles slam my card right at flat 4GB / 4GB the entire time playing.

I've almost considered switching from a GTX 770 a 1st gen Titan used (if they come cheap used) instead of 900 series.. just for video ram.

If people are after a smooth 60 FPS -constantly- with no stutters, dips or drops @ 1080p.

Mind you.. all this "high vram usage" and everything is with the game's settings 100% maxed out, every single possible last setting turned on to max.

So yes, everyone in to "butter-smooth gaming" on PC, even at 1080p, pays attention to video ram usage. FPS isn't different but the experience sure is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmsfw9GnWUY#t=8m4s

See here, Jayz2centz talks about video ram and it actually has -quite a big impact- on DirectX-12 performance. See his discussion and results and after thoughts.
Click to expand...
I don't think he is trolling, he might be a little off, I have used a GTX 570 1.2GB Gram with BF4 and only had a little hitching, it was buttery smooth at ultra settings. When played with my new GTX 970 4GB, the only difference was the hitching was gone and more FPS with 1080p.
 
Last edited:
I realized in a lot of newer games are subtle enough that I don't notice the differences right off between ultra, high and medium settings. Some games where you can see the changes as you make them, then I notice what changes, but just to enter a game from ultra to medium, I still see it as looking great and don't realize right off what changed.

I think it's in my mind, that I fear of missing out on some level of immersion when in reality I probably wouldn't notice if someone just switched it without me looking. I once used Geforce experience and let it optimize Farcry 4 for me, It looked fine, but I felt like a heroin addict yearning for a fix...I had to go in, had to change it that one extra notch higher. I even have to set CP quality settings to high quality thinking that clarity difference will matter despite knowing it likely won't. I could probably do fine without a 1080...but fuck it, I wants.

Anyone else think most of the settings are subtle enough not to notice but can't help themselves?
 
HeXen said:
I realized in a lot of newer games are subtle enough that I don't notice the differences right off between ultra, high and medium settings. Some games where you can see the changes as you make them, then I notice what changes, but just to enter a game from ultra to medium, I still see it as looking great and don't realize right off what changed.

I think it's in my mind, that I fear of missing out on some level of immersion when in reality I probably wouldn't notice if someone just switched it without me looking. I once used Geforce experience and let it optimize Farcry 4 for me, It looked fine, but I felt like a heroin addict yearning for a fix...I had to go in, had to change it that one extra notch higher. I even have to set CP quality settings to high quality thinking that clarity difference will matter despite knowing it likely won't. I could probably do fine without a 1080...but fuck it, I wants.

Anyone else think most of the settings are subtle enough not to notice but can't help themselves?
Click to expand...
This^^^ I also can't tell the difference from medium to ultra in the new games. I can't help my self I need to run the games at max.
 
Ares202 said:
Sorry if this is already common knowledge but how long roughly are we expecting to wait to these? I'm thinking of buying a 1080 but not that overpriced 'Founders Edition' garbage
Click to expand...

As early as first/second week of June according to rumours. Probably depends on the manufacturer.
 
$1,400.00 for a Titan-next? I wonder if they are naming it after Graphics Core Next or trying to confuse the naming. If the pricing is anything like accurate, then we can say we called it. It looks like it would be one hell of a card, but aren't they always? Yes, they always are amazing within the context of what's currently available. But as the prices keep climbing, the value and intrigue of the product plummets since it will be soon replaced. The price makes sense based on the 1080's price.

Mid Range - $700
High End 1080Ti - $1,000
Titan Core Next - $1,400.00

Wonder if this bothers anyone...

Jesus people, the only card most of us can afford is a 1060ti, uh, I mean GTX 1070. No one can afford this crap. I wonder who will be buying all these? $1000+ GPU's? LOL damn. I didn't know the economy was doing so well. People must be just rolling in cash (mastercard) to afford these things. Good lord.
 
Last edited:
I guess if a 'mid range' card (GTX 1080) can do 1080/1440 with ease, and 4K without too many issues as well, why buy anything more than that on this current gen?

I don't see the value myself to get anything higher than a 1080 currently unless the prices come down severely.
 
moonbogg said:
$1,400.00 for a Titan-next? I wonder if they are naming it after Graphics Core Next or trying to confuse the naming. If the pricing is anything like accurate, then we can say we called it. It looks like it would be one hell of a card, but aren't they always? Yes, they always are amazing within the context of what's currently available. But as the prices keep climbing, the value and intrigue of the product plummets since it will be soon replaced. The price makes sense based on the 1080's price.

Mid Range - $700
High End 1080Ti - $1,000
Titan Core Next - $1,400.00

Wonder if this bothers anyone...

Jesus people, the only card most of us can afford is a 1060ti, uh, I mean GTX 1070. No one can afford this crap. I wonder who will be buying all these? $1000+ GPU's? LOL damn. I didn't know the economy was doing so well. People must be just rolling in cash (mastercard) to afford these things. Good lord.
Click to expand...

GTX 1070 is $379 for cheap aftermarket and $449 for Founders Edition. $449 for 980 Ti performance is a price reduction of around 30% for the same performance.

Seems to me that the "value" is going up for the cards people are most likely to buy. And, if you want the best, yes, it's going to cost $. Such is everything in life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top