NVIDIA preparing four Maxwell GM204 SKUs (VideocardZ via S/A)

[tviceman]

On a side note, many here thought GK110 wouldn't even see a Geforce release. And when it did, many didn't think it would ever see GK110 in the $400 price range.

I think that might be a tell-tale sign. GK104 is arguably the most successful chip for Nvidia since G92. Who's to say Nvidia might not push the mid-die strategy even harder, releasing a slightly more competent chip to be it's Geforce highest end, while stripping out graphic-specific transistors in it's big daddy chip to save on die space and/or to more efficiently compete with Intel's looming threat? That, to me, seems very plausible. I'm not chip engineer, but how many transistors and mm^2 could have been saved in GK110 if it was compute only? Perf/watt would have gone up, die space would have gone down, Knights Landing would have looked even more retarded.

 

[tviceman]

Just don't want people to be fooled by the name (gtx-880) into believing this is the GK110 replacement.

IF it's 50% faster, who is the fool? IF GM200/210 isn't coming for another 12-15 months, who is the fool? IF AMD can't beat GM204, who is the fool? IF GM200/210 never sees prices below $900, who is the fool?

 

[3DVagabond]

IF it's 50% faster, who is the fool? IF GM200/210 isn't coming for another 12-15 months, who is the fool? IF AMD can't beat GM204, who is the fool? IF GM200/210 never sees prices below $900, who is the fool?

Anyone who buys it thinking that it's something that it isn't because of the name.

It's been claimed that the 800 series will cost less than the 700 series, but is that because they are going to shove the GM204 up into the GK110 slot? Or will GM204 actually be cheaper than the chip it replaces?

 

[tviceman]

Anyone who buys it thinking that it's something that it isn't because of the name.

It's been claimed that the 800 series will cost less than the 700 series, but is that because they are going to shove the GM204 up into the GK110 slot? Or will GM204 actually be cheaper than the chip it replaces?

Hypothetically, if Nvidia built a 220mm^2 GPU on 28nm that was 75% faster than gtx780 TI and priced it at $549, what would be your reaction?

 

[desprado]

I dont know about other but i wont buy any GPU until 2015 fall.Seriously guys there no game yet than can push boundaries of GTX 780 TI or R9 290X.

I am really happy with my R9 290 CF and GTX 780 TI SLI.

 

[3DVagabond]

Hypothetically, if Nvidia built a 220mm^2 GPU on 28nm that was 75% faster than gtx780 TI and priced it at $549, what would be your reaction?

I'd say that Maxwell isn't actually less expensive than Kepler.

Now, the odds of what you are saying happening are pretty slim, though.

 

[BD2003]

I dont know about other but i wont buy any GPU until 2015 fall.Seriously guys there no game yet than can push boundaries of GTX 780 TI or R9 290X.

I am really happy with my R9 290 CF and GTX 780 TI SLI.

Tell that to a 4K monitor.

 

[desprado]

Tell that to a 4K monitor.

lol not even 1% pc user are on 4k and tell that more than 99% of user.

 

[3DVagabond]

lol not even 1% pc user are on 4k and tell that more than 99% of user.

Considering you have 3x 780 ti in SLI (running 1440 IIRC?) I can understand why you don't feel the need to upgrade.

 

[desprado]

Considering you have 3x 780 ti in SLI (running 1440 IIRC?) I can understand why you don't feel the need to upgrade.

no 1 GTX 780 TI just for gaming on 1080p with another computer and that computer is used by my parents and my brother.

R 290 CF and GTX 780 TI SLI is on another rig.

 

[Grooveriding]

I sort of agree. I had a 4K monitor briefly and sent it back because the horsepower to push it wasn't there. I want to go 4K permanently, but I'm waiting on the GPUs to do it.

So given where we are at now with how 780ti / 290X multi-gpu setups perform at 4K, I think we'll get max settings at 4K with 2 or 3 of the 20nm big die flagships. Right now 780ti SLI wrecks everything at my resolution, the only exception I've hit so far is Watch Dogs, which is a combination of VRAM and just being an unoptimized turd of a game.

Not to say I wouldn't upgrade if some new cards came out that were 40% faster than my current ones, but what I'm really waiting on are the 16nm/20nm big die cards to launch so I can go to 4K.

The problem with 4K gaming is that it's not really feasible without compromising on settings more than I'd like to keep 60fps.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I sort of agree. I had a 4K monitor briefly and sent it back because the horsepower to push it wasn't there. I want to go 4K permanently, but I'm waiting on the GPUs to do it.

So given where we are at now with how 780ti / 290X multi-gpu setups perform at 4K, I think we'll get max settings at 4K with 2 or 3 of the 20nm big die flagships. Right now 780ti SLI wrecks everything at my resolution, the only exception I've hit so far is Watch Dogs, which is a combination of VRAM and just being an unoptimized turd of a game.

Not to say I wouldn't upgrade if some new cards came out that were 40% faster than my current ones, but what I'm really waiting on are the 16nm/20nm big die cards to launch so I can go to 4K.

The problem with 4K gaming is that it's not really feasible without compromising on settings more than I'd like to keep 60fps.

I think API's like mantle and DX12 are going to be a big factor in helping multicard setups maintain high framerates at 4K.

We need new GPU's, and API's that allow CPU's to keep multicard setups fed before 4k becomes enjoyable.

 

[poohbear]

lol not even 1% pc user are on 4k and tell that more than 99% of user.

Correction: not even 0.1% have 4k monitors!!

Look @ the steam hardware survey for June 2014, the VAST majority are on 1080p or lower resolutions. I remind myself of this everytime i complain about text being too small for my 1440 setup! Us people above 1080 are a small minority. People with 4k are practically non existant.

 

[Baasha]

I sort of agree. I had a 4K monitor briefly and sent it back because the horsepower to push it wasn't there. I want to go 4K permanently, but I'm waiting on the GPUs to do it.

So given where we are at now with how 780ti / 290X multi-gpu setups perform at 4K, I think we'll get max settings at 4K with 2 or 3 of the 20nm big die flagships. Right now 780ti SLI wrecks everything at my resolution, the only exception I've hit so far is Watch Dogs, which is a combination of VRAM and just being an unoptimized turd of a game.

Not to say I wouldn't upgrade if some new cards came out that were 40% faster than my current ones, but what I'm really waiting on are the 16nm/20nm big die cards to launch so I can go to 4K.

The problem with 4K gaming is that it's not really feasible without compromising on settings more than I'd like to keep 60fps.

Sorry, this is completely subjective and frankly erroneous.

If you're pushing just one 4K monitor, 2x GTX-Titan (Blacks) or 2x GTX-780 Ti can push most games at the highest settings (sans AA for the Ti's).

I have tested a single 4K monitor (I run 4K Surround) w/ 2x GTX-780 Ti SC, 2x GTX-780 Ti Classified, and 4x GTX-Titan Black SC.

All three setups just demolish 4K on the latest games at the highest settings.

The 4x GTX-Titan Black SCs that I run for the 4K "Uber Rig" of course took the Ti's to the cleaners, but 2x 780 Ti's are plenty to run a single 4K monitor with the latest AAA games.

People conflate myth and opinion with hard facts.

Here is my 4K Surround benchmark thread:4K Surround Benchmarks

Of course, that's 3 4K monitors but if I can run that at max settings on most modern games, running a single 4K is quite feasible.

I am looking at getting a ROG Swift monitor for my X58 rig for using w/ 2x GTX-780 Ti Classified GPUs. Doing 1440P @ 144Hz or 120Hz w/ ULMB should be as taxing on the GPUs as one 4K monitor @ 60Hz.

 

[desprado]

Correction: not even 0.1% have 4k monitors!!

Look @ the steam hardware survey for June 2014, the VAST majority are on 1080p or lower resolutions. I remind myself of this everytime i complain about text being too small for my 1440 setup! Us people above 1080 are a small miority. People with 4k are practically non existant.

lol agreed.

If u are gaming 1080p with GTX 770 or even R9 280X than it is enough at high or ultra setting with some compromises.

 

[metalliax]

Correction: not even 0.1% have 4k monitors!!

Look @ the steam hardware survey for June 2014, the VAST majority are on 1080p or lower resolutions. I remind myself of this everytime i complain about text being too small for my 1440 setup! Us people above 1080 are a small minority. People with 4k are practically non existant.

It's worth noting that the steam hardware survey measures install-base and not what people are buying. At least 1% of gamers will be buying 4k monitors before the end of 2014. I bet it will be closer to 2-5% depending on quality of monitors/video cards announced.

 

[Atreidin]

Just don't want people to be fooled by the name (gtx-880) into believing this is the GK110 replacement.

I doubt very many people care which chip is in what card, only how fast it is. It isn't news that newer, faster GPUs are being released in the future. My guess is that a minority of gamers actually care about the details of the technology in their GPUs.


Also people spouting off historical trends is nice and all but those trends don't include analysis of changing costs for the company. Also don't be surprised if the yearly gains slow down as we start to approach theoretical limits. Not a lot of segments get the huge yearly growth in speed that GPUs have had, and none of them that I can think of continue that way indefinitely. A business and pricing model that assumes explosive speed growth every year forever is retarded.

If changing the release schedule of GPUs is what it takes for these companies to stay profitable and remain interested in continuing GPU R&D then I'm fine with it. If they are still moving off the shelves at those prices then good for them. If the products costs too much then don't buy them. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy anything.

 

[Grooveriding]

Sorry, this is completely subjective and frankly erroneous.

If you're pushing just one 4K monitor, 2x GTX-Titan (Blacks) or 2x GTX-780 Ti can push most games at the highest settings (sans AA for the Ti's).

I have tested a single 4K monitor (I run 4K Surround) w/ 2x GTX-780 Ti SC, 2x GTX-780 Ti Classified, and 4x GTX-Titan Black SC.

All three setups just demolish 4K on the latest games at the highest settings.

The 4x GTX-Titan Black SCs that I run for the 4K "Uber Rig" of course took the Ti's to the cleaners, but 2x 780 Ti's are plenty to run a single 4K monitor with the latest AAA games.

People conflate myth and opinion with hard facts.

Here is my 4K Surround benchmark thread:4K Surround Benchmarks

Of course, that's 3 4K monitors but if I can run that at max settings on most modern games, running a single 4K is quite feasible.

I am looking at getting a ROG Swift monitor for my X58 rig for using w/ 2x GTX-780 Ti Classified GPUs. Doing 1440P @ 144Hz or 120Hz w/ ULMB should be as taxing on the GPUs as one 4K monitor @ 60Hz.

It depends on what you're willing to live with. I ran a PQ321 and this was with 2 Titans in SLI, so VRAM was not an issue, and you could not hold good minimums at all with maximum settings. Tons of minimums framerate drops to sub 30 FPS, especially in intense action. Metro LL was the same story, no SSAA at all either. The horsepower just wasn't there.

Dealing with minimums below 50fps just doesn't work for me. Maybe you can hold 50+ on a single screen with 4 Titans, but I'm not interested in shelling out 4 grand to do it today when I can get a better experience next year out of two cards.

 

[3DVagabond]

It depends on what you're willing to live with. I ran a PQ321 and this was with 2 Titans in SLI, so VRAM was not an issue, and you could not hold good minimums at all with maximum settings. Tons of minimums framerate drops to sub 30 FPS, especially in intense action. Metro LL was the same story, no SSAA at all either. The horsepower just wasn't there.

Dealing with minimums below 50fps just doesn't work for me. Maybe you can hold 50+ on a single screen with 4 Titans, but I'm not interested in shelling out 4 grand to do it today when I can get a better experience next year out of two cards.

I'm curious Groove, was it a lot of games, or most games, or just One or two? Could they still be played with hi IQ, or did you have to turn the settings down too far? I would think that almost all games could be played at very hi IQ settings @4K on a pair of Titans.

 

[Grooveriding]

I'm curious Groove, was it a lot of games, or most games, or just One or two? Could they still be played with hi IQ, or did you have to turn the settings down too far? I would think that almost all games could be played at very hi IQ settings @4K on a pair of Titans.

The biggest offender for me was Battlefield 4. To get the game to maintain 60fps mins I had to lower some settings to med & high and use no AA. I can't remember every game that couldn't play well on the best settings, but off the top of my head the ones I'm certain of were Tomb Raider, Metro, Crysis 1 & 2. Plenty of games older games could hold 60fps easily though. I'm sure there are a lot more games on the market that play well at 4K on top tier cards in multi-gpu than don't, but of the newer demanding games, none could hold good minimums for what I like to game at. I don't like anything under 50fps ever.

I wasn't happy with the performance and the monitor was a little over $4200 with taxes so I didn't see the point in keeping it for the future. I figured by the time the GPUs have caught up to where I want them to be I can get a better IPS/IGZO 4K screen than what is available now. Hopefully one that uses SST - another issue was nvidia's drivers having issues running MST 4K - and probably with gsync support if I went Asus again. Though I'm pretty sure I'll get a Dell when I get another one. Right now the selection of quality 4K screens is basically the PQ321 or the Dell using the same panel, the rest are all TN, which I have no interest in using.

I'm sure plenty of people would be happy today. Personally I don't want to dial down the settings or deal with the minimum frame rates.

 

[3DVagabond]

The biggest offender for me was Battlefield 4. To get the game to maintain 60fps mins I had to lower some settings to med & high and use no AA. I can't remember every game that couldn't play well on the best settings, but off the top of my head the ones I'm certain of were Tomb Raider, Metro, Crysis 1 & 2. Plenty of games older games could hold 60fps easily though. I'm sure there are a lot more games on the market that play well at 4K on top tier cards in multi-gpu than don't, but of the newer demanding games, none could hold good minimums for what I like to game at. I don't like anything under 50fps ever.

I wasn't happy with the performance and the monitor was a little over $4200 with taxes so I didn't see the point in keeping it for the future. I figured by the time the GPUs have caught up to where I want them to be I can get a better IPS/IGZO 4K screen than what is available now. Hopefully one that uses SST - another issue was nvidia's drivers having issues running MST 4K - and probably with gsync support if I went Asus again. Though I'm pretty sure I'll get a Dell when I get another one. Right now the selection of quality 4K screens is basically the PQ321 or the Dell using the same panel, the rest are all TN, which I have no interest in using.

I'm sure plenty of people would be happy today. Personally I don't want to dial down the settings or deal with the minimum frame rates.

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't doubting you, I just wanted more details. :thumbsup:

 

[ShintaiDK]

It's worth noting that the steam hardware survey measures install-base and not what people are buying. At least 1% of gamers will be buying 4k monitors before the end of 2014. I bet it will be closer to 2-5% depending on quality of monitors/video cards announced.

I doubt that. 4K seems like a dud. Maybe in 2015 or 2016. You can ether buy a very expensive crappy TN screen, maybe even 30Hz. or pay a gazillion for an IPS. So prices needs to drasticly change first. And then fix of all the MST related issues with the dual scalar. DP1.3 is also needed or HDMI 2.0. Also nonexistant on the screens/cards.

 

[3DVagabond]

I doubt that. 4K seems like a dud. Maybe in 2015 or 2016. You can ether buy a very expensive crappy TN screen, maybe even 30Hz. or pay a gazillion for an IPS. So prices needs to drasticly change first. And then fix of all the MST related issues with the dual scalar. DP1.3 is also needed or HDMI 2.0. Also nonexistant on the screens/cards.

They already have SST, but as far as MST issues that seems to be limited to certain hardware/drivers.

 

[ShintaiDK]

They already have SST, but as far as MST issues that seems to be limited to certain hardware/drivers.

SST means either 30hz on DP1.2 or DP1.3 support for 60hz. And since DP1.3 is nonexistant...

 

[Leadbox]

SST means either 30hz on DP1.2 or DP1.3 support for 60hz. And since DP1.3 is nonexistant...

There're 60hz SST 4K monitors available right now on dp 1.2