Epic demos Kepler GPU, could be faster than three GeForce GTX 580s

[St1ckM4n]

I laugh at the silly kids who spend a fortune on computer hardware...so quickly outdated lol

Technically, yes, outdated. In the real world though, people can still use high-end hardware from many generations past with no problems.

 

[Guest]

Dividedbyzero:

1) Using techpowerup to show advancements of GPUs from 1 generation to another is not accurate. You are comparing performance increases using older games using launch dates. Try newer games. For example, HD5870 was barely 40% faster than HD4870 at launch. In modern games, it's easily 75-100% faster. GTX480 is at least 50% faster than GTX285 and more in modern games.

I am not even going to revisit all the previous reviews going back to GeForce 3. I know for a fact that GeForce 6800 Ultra was more than 2x faster than FX5950 and that 7800GTX 512mb was 2x faster than 6800Ultra, while 8800GTX was more than 2x faster overall than 7900GTX. GTX280 was also at least 50-75% faster than 8800GTX. But you used 9800GTX+ (that's a refresh, so the comparison is a failed one).

Check any modern website: Toms Hardware, Techreport, Xbitlabs, Anandtech, Computerbase, Techspot. You are so off the mark, it's not even funny. TPU uses lower resolutions which skews the results since no enthusiast games on a $500 GPU at anything below 1920x1080. By adding relative resolutions to arrive at an average, you aren't stressing the high-end GPUs enough.

It's laughable to think NVidia brings 30-40% performance increases from one high-end to the next. GTX480 vs. GTX280 in Batman AC or Metro 2033 or Witcher 2. Go test it. See what happens.

Here 5 minutes of googling "Graphics evolution" got me here:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2011/bericht-grafikkarten-evolution/3/#abschnitt_leistung_mit_aaaf

GTX480 is at least 51% faster than GTX280
8800GTX is > 2x faster than 7900GTX.

It looks like there is no point in arguing with you. So I'll just leave it at that.

2) Why are you talking about mobile GK106/107 parts. We are discussing desktop parts. Nvidia isn't ready to launch GK106/107 desktop parts in volumes until at least April or May.

That's 2/2 for me.

Crazy fanboy.

 

[dividebyzero]

blah blah...while 8800GTX was more than 2x faster overall than 7900GTX

already covered, if you'd bothered to read.

You could possibly argue for a 7900GTX/GTO to G80 in some circumstances...but kind of goes against your "big die" hobbyhorse ( G71 being 196mm²)

Standard anonymous poster strategy- jump onto another little pony as soon as the one you're on gets shot out from under you.
BTW: You should go straight for the ISA graphics to AGP comparisons- some pretty big percentage gains going from those 2D cards.

Why are you talking about mobile GK106/107 parts. We are discussing desktop parts

Nope....

The fact that NV's GK106/107 are also no show just clearly goes to show NV isn't ready to launch Kepler series

Don't see any stipulation for desktop there. All I'm seeing is a whole lot of prevarication.
...the architecture and GPU remains the same in any case- the fact that the GPU resides in an MXM (mobile PCI-E) module as opposed to PCI-E makes no difference.

The rest isn't worth the effort. Pretty stupid comparing 2011 games for cards that have been EOL since long before a lot of the games debuted...unless you think that any company optimizes their new drivers for 3, 4, 5, 6 year old cards.
BTW: Your link references the GTX 280 and 480.

GTX480 is at least 51% faster than GTX280

For the sake of completeness you should be looking at top single GPU card from one generation to the next. G200b (GTX 285) was the "big die" prior to GF100. The higher core/shader/memory clocks translate into 7% higher average framerate (1920x1080)

Anyway, I'm done. Maybe someone else would like to keep you company on your increasingly meandering thought process...

 

[Guest]

For the sake of completeness you should be looking at top single GPU card from one generation to the next. G200b (GTX 285) was the "big die" prior to GF100.

That makes no sense. GTX285 is a refresh of GTX280. Therefore, on a generational timeline it's only fair to compare GTX480 vs. GTX280 (>50% performance increase) and GTX580 (GTX480's refresh) vs. GTX285 (GTX280's refresh).

Looks like when you lose arguments you just resort to insults. Typical childish behaviour.

Meh. Don't care. When the flagship GTX685/GTX780 is > 50% faster than GTX580, enthusiasts will be maxing out games with them, while you'll be testing 2009-2010 games like TPU to skew the average performance increase to prove some point online.

You realize people don't throw out their videocards in 6 months? That's why testing newer games is representative. HD5870 review of TPU is a laughing joke. HD5870 was modern games not to play Quake and Unreal games. Just saying.

 

[mailpup]

Just a reminder to everyone to make your points without personal comments. Thanks.

 

[Guest]

That was a good read, the 2 of you made some good points.
Personally i own 2 285's & haven't seen the need to get a 480/580 since they're not all that much better then what i have.
As long as we are being held back by the consoles with constant ports i don't see why PC gamers should spend rediculous amounts on these 680/780 parts.
As far as i can tell the next time i will need a new card to compete with a xbox 720/ps4 is when the part nebers are like 980/985.That is if rumours of new consoles are true in E3 this summer.
I have done the crazy foolish Upgrade trip since geforce 256 & ati 8500 days.
I am willing to bet those early days 2000-2005 are going to make a comback with the new consoles & card refreshes being every 6 months.

 

[dividebyzero]

That was a good read, the 2 of you made some good points

Thanks- we aim to please.
You'll note that sometimes the signal to noise ratio tends to take a dive in graphics "discussions", so I'm not entirely sure how much benefit is derived.
An example: Our Guests original premise...

3) Performance increase on average of 50-100% vs. previous high-end. GK104 is unlikely to beat GTX580 by an average of 50%

...but by his own argument...

That makes no sense. GTX285 is a refresh of GTX280. Therefore, on a generational timeline it's only fair to compare GTX480 vs. GTX280

...he should be comparing the GTX 680 with the GTX 480 - since the GTX 580 is a....refresh.
I'm not convinced in any case that average frames-per-second is the only metric that "performance" should be judged by. The overriding factors (for gaming cards) should be game playability (single and multi GPU), driver optimization, and for some people, thermal, acoustic, and power usage characteristics (some might argue performance/$, performance/watt...depends on which metric favours their preferred brand at the time if the forums are to be believed)

I am willing to bet those early days 2000-2005 are going to make a comback with the new consoles & card refreshes being every 6 months.

If/when there are refreshes at that rate then the new card series would likely amount to some new box art and some higher numbered digits. The present cycle I think is still likely to be linked to a yearly cycle - at least for a while. Both AMD and Nvidia need to recoup their investment on each series- and neither seem predisposed to accelerate their timelines. TSMC (the foundry for both AMD and Nvidia GPU's) looks to continue 28nm for complex chips through to early 2014 (with production moving from 300mm wafers to 450mm) which means that transistor densities -and the constraints that brings, will limit any significant gains.

As the majority of computer users buy pre-builts from OEM's and neither know, nor care about anything other than "does it work" and "bigger number means better, right?", I'm sure we'll see the usual slightly tweaked -or outright renamed- cards on a fairly regular basis, but architectual changes should hold steady (AMD's next series isn't slated to enter production this year for example)