"The GTX 680 was supposed to be the GTX 660"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joseph F

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2010
3,522
2
0
People, please stop saying this. This is completely unfounded, and almost seems like trolling, at times.
nVidia simply switched to a small-die tactic, like AMD's. If you have evidence that proves otherwise, please speak up.
(And by "evidence", I don't mean "But, but, but, teh die size!!!")
 
Last edited:

SolMiester

Diamond Member
Dec 19, 2004
5,330
17
76
People, please stop saying this. This is completely unfounded, and almost seems like trolling, at times.
nVidia simply switched to a small-die tactic, like AMD's. If you have evidence that proves otherwise, please speak up.
(And by "evidence", I don't mean "But, but, but, teh die size!!!")

You have evidence of this tactic?....as GK110 is not a small die!
 

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,734
514
126
www.facebook.com
People, please stop saying this. This is completely unfounded, and almost seems like trolling, at times.
nVidia simply switched to a small-die tactic, like AMD's. If you have evidence that proves otherwise, please speak up.
(And by "evidence", I don't mean "But, but, but, teh die size!!!")

Nvidia did not switch to a small die strategy. GK110 has been announced. It is kepler's flagship die, in both size and performance. It is around the same size as GF110. GK104 is kepler's second biggest die. GF110 was fermi's flagship die. GF114 was fermi's second biggest die...

If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...
 
Last edited:

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
what an idiotic thread to start. OP, you cant possibly be that clueless on GK104.
 

Dark Shroud

Golden Member
Mar 26, 2010
1,576
1
0
Nvidia did not switch to a small die strategy. GK110 has been announced. It is kepler's flagship die, in both size and performance. It is around the same size as GF110. GK104 is kepler's second biggest die. GF110 was fermi's flagship die. GF114 was fermi's second biggest die...

If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...

Except its only been announced for Tesla cards.
 

Atreidin

Senior member
Mar 31, 2011
464
27
86
It is a stupid argument anyway. Even if it was true, what would it change? Would Nvidia suddenly have faster stuff? Is it an excuse for Nvidia not being as dominant as they want?

It looks to me like Nvidia just decided to cut off transistors for compute since people buying gaming cards don't care as much about that feature. It gives them lower costs, higher profits.

Then their cultists decided to use that "missing" space as an excuse for why the card isn't "high-end", giving them solace in some coming messiah-card, delivering them to some promised land of douche-baggery.
 

chimaxi83

Diamond Member
May 18, 2003
5,457
63
101
There is some evidence to show that GK104 really was meant to be mid range, but the only people that bring this up anymore are trolling NV fanbois who like spending their time here browsing while banned (BWB, feel free to use it ;)).

My mid range GK104 is performing quite well though, thank you.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
They've announced GK110 for Tesla and launched GK104 as the flagship GTX 680. Given NV's naming convention it seems plausible that GK100 had been planned, but was scrapped for whatever reason. GK104 was probably originally supposed to be their GTX 660, but it also makes a fine GTX 680 that is very competitive with the 7970 so the point is moot IMO.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
anyone with a clue knows gk104 was not originally intended to be their flagship card. the irony of the op calling someone else a troll while starting a thread like this is hilarious.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
It can't possible go wrong, since it started wrong it is just wrong, it can continue to be wrong but it can't go where it started. :D

No matter where you go, there you are.



I bought my GTX 680 based on its price, performance, power use and noise. Whether it was originally going to be a 660, 670, or 666 doesn't matter to me and I don't see much point in starting a new thread asking us to leave Britney alone.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Yeah it doesn't matter. If it was a gtx 650 and performed like it does I would still buy it. Call it a mid range card if you want. My mid range 670 performs similar to a high end 7970
 

Homeles

Platinum Member
Dec 9, 2011
2,580
0
0
People, please stop saying this. This is completely unfounded, and almost seems like trolling, at times.
nVidia simply switched to a small-die tactic, like AMD's. If you have evidence that proves otherwise, please speak up.
(And by "evidence", I don't mean "But, but, but, teh die size!!!")
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So, there. OP's argument is defeated.

I'm not stupid enough to pay $500 for a 300mm² die. Are you?
 

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2009
2,544
9
81
Do you really think that in the planning stages nvidia would allow the possibility of AMD beating their flagship card and decide that increasing memory bandwidth is pointless? Not to mention abandoning compute performance altogether.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
It is what it is! Road maps and planning may indeed change and really irrelevant because the GTX 680 is around 499 MSRP.

My constructive nit-pick was price/performance based on this is a substantial and significant node and arch change -- these are indeed rare. Based on comparisons with history this was not substantial and significant price/performance and felt more incremental and evolutionary.
 

Atreidin

Senior member
Mar 31, 2011
464
27
86
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So, there. OP's argument is defeated.

I'm not stupid enough to pay $500 for a 300mm² die. Are you?

I wasn't aware that these things sold in units of area. It should be so much simpler now to design everything! They can fire so many engineers, thus lowering cost even more! Genius!

I'd like 10 square centimeters of GPU, hold the mayo.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,818
1,553
136
It's impossible to know. Really depends whether or not there was supposed to be a GK100. In any case, this thread is the perfect fanboy detector :p
 

ShadowOfMyself

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2006
4,227
2
0
The point is that this is irrelevant... Its the fastest card Nvidia has, regardless of what it is called, so its their high end

Because by the die size/power logic, every previous AMD card since the 3870 has been a midrange card :D

Funny to see NV fanboys spinning stuff all the time though... By the time GK110 is here, so will the 8970, so whats your point?
 

NIGELG

Senior member
Nov 4, 2009
852
31
91
People, please stop saying this. This is completely unfounded, and almost seems like trolling, at times.
nVidia simply switched to a small-die tactic, like AMD's. If you have evidence that proves otherwise, please speak up.
(And by "evidence", I don't mean "But, but, but, teh die size!!!")
But you just said it.
 

Homeles

Platinum Member
Dec 9, 2011
2,580
0
0
I wasn't aware that these things sold in units of area. It should be so much simpler now to design everything! They can fire so many engineers, thus lowering cost even more! Genius!

I'd like 10 square centimeters of GPU, hold the mayo.
A wafer is only so big, genius.

The point is that this is irrelevant... Its the fastest card Nvidia has, regardless of what it is called, so its their high end

Because by the die size/power logic, every previous AMD card since the 3870 has been a midrange card :D

Funny to see NV fanboys spinning stuff all the time though... By the time GK110 is here, so will the 8970, so whats your point?
"Mid range card" is completely dependent on what cards are available in the market segments above and below it.

The top parts from HD 3000 through HD 7000 have all been mid sized dies, as far as GPUs go.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.