Nvidia intros mainstream Kepler-based GeForce GT 640 GPU

[Shawn Knight]

Not all of the news that comes out of Computex has to do with high-end components as evident by Nvidia’s announcement of the Kepler-based GeForce GT 640 DDR3 graphics card. This GK107 part follows in the footsteps of the previously-announced OEM-only GT 640 but this will be a retail desktop component available for anyone to purchase.

The reference design GT 640 features a 28nm Kepler-based chip with a die size of 118mm². Cards will ship with a base GPU clock of 900 MHz, 384 CUDA Cores, an effective memory clock of 1800MHz, 2GB of DDR3 RAM and a 128-bit memory interface. The GT 640 has the same peak power draw of the GeForce GT 440 at 65W.

Zotac told The Tech Report that Nvidia is aiming for sub-$100 cards but as of writing, prices are about $10 higher than that mark. Furthermore we are told that the GT 640 is about 40 percent faster than the GT 440 on average with a 50 percent higher performance per watt rating.

It’s clear that these cards won’t be for the hardcore gamer but if you are a mainstream user that is looking for moderate gaming performance from your desktop or someone that wants to outfit a HTPC with a capable graphics card, this could be right up your alley. Cards from the likes of Evga, Gigabyte and Zotac are already starting to show up in stock at online retailers for around $110.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/48887-nvidia-intros-mainstream-kepler-based-geforce-gt-640-gpu.html

 

[Zeromus]

I remember the 8800 GTX that had streaming 128 cores. Good luck to anyone selling their old hardware.

 

[noel24]

@ Zeromus - Those 384 cores of Kepler are fake, like those "multivector" that ATI put in their cards since HD2XXX series. Divide them by 3 and you will have the performance equivalent of the old ones. That's not exact explanation but worked when I explained to my 12YO nephew why GTX260 with 192SP was better than HD5670 with 400SP.

 

[noel24]

Anyway, I've been thinking: in 2008 I bought an overclocked MSI 8800gt for 128 bucks (on sale - they were replacing it with 9800gt, which most of you probably know, was essentially the same card). 5600points in Vantage & 13k in 3dmrk06. Today I read that for merely $20 less I can buy slightly faster card (440gt is some 30% slower than OCd 8800gt). Where is the progress? Did they hit the Moore's law already, or they simply got greedy along the way?

 

[Zeromus]

Well I always thought it was the fact that the card lacks high memory bandwidth and core and uncore clock compared to cards that have external power.

 

[noel24]

bandwidth is important too, but since gt640 has ddr3 with 128bit controller vs. ddr3 with 256bit on 8800, I doubt Kepler card would have serious advantage over the 5 year old opponent. Of course when 8800 series was released It was much more expensive than today, but on the other hand, back then you could expect the prices to fell after year or two and if on a budget you could buy decent card for ~$100. Today they introduce new card when the old model is nearly sold out, never offering discounts. Not being a avid gamer, I prefer to spend my cash on other things than IT COs and execs Porsches, by buying a new computer every year.

 

[Zeromus]

I believe the performance density of a kepler core far exceeds the 8800s but other factors like what you can push from a 22nm without instability makes it affordable to produce and market. Neither you or me can know for sure what they did down the ALU configuration of each core other than the die maps they give us, but I'm willing to bet kepler has more to show when fabrication technology permits it.

 

[dividebyzero]

Anyway, I've been thinking: in 2008 I bought an overclocked MSI 8800gt for 128 bucks (on sale - they were replacing it with 9800gt, which most of you probably know, was essentially the same card). 5600points in Vantage & 13k in 3dmrk06. Today I read that for merely $20 less I can buy slightly faster card (440gt is some 30% slower than OCd 8800gt). Where is the progress? Did they hit the Moore's law already, or they simply got greedy along the way?

The difference is that a mainstream card in 2008 now buys you entry level performance (or lower mainstream mobile)...and as we all know, entry level is more about lower power consumption than performance. OEM's basically dictate that this level of performance gets by on power delivery from the PCI-E slot (cheaper PSU, less concern about chassis layout and cooling), so you now have the situation where it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison:
GTS 450 = 106w (GF106)...~ $100. And you'd be hard pressed to get a 8800GT to this level of performance (closer to 8800 Ultra or 9800GTX/GTX+/GTS 250)
8800GT/9800GT = 125w (G92) or 105w (G92b)...$200-250 launch price
GT 440 = 65w (GF108) or 59w (OEM, GF106)... ~$70 .Closer to 8800/9800GT performance (probably fairly close to 8800GTS 320/640MB).

The obvious and closest comparison for the 8800/9800GT would be the GT 545 - an OEM product. Single slot (GDDR5 version is dual slot reference), comparable performance, 70w TDP, GDDR3 vRAM, and a sub-$70 pricetag.

Moore's Law concerns transistor density- and is only tangental to the performance conditions of this level of "performance":
754m trans in 324 (G92) or 260mm² (G92b) 2.33 or 2.9 million per mm²
585m trans in 116mm² (GF108) 5 million per mm²
1300m trans in 118mm²(GK107) 11 million per mm²

As you can see, Moore's Law is alive and well at this juncture.

 

[noel24]

You're probaly right. I'm bitchin cos I'm unemployed for the last few years and have to stick with my old rig. But it doesn't change the fact that IT COs got regular people for *****s. How would you call the rebranding thing?

 

[dividebyzero]

How would you call the rebranding thing?

Personally? Don't give a sh hoot. I can see how many people could be "duped" into a pointless upgrade because of it, but then, good purchasing comes from making an informed choice. Rebrands tend to be aimed at the volume market (esp OEM's), and that demographic isn't what I would call overly tech savvy- nor do they wish to be. So long as the box accomplishes what they want, most are going to be happy. I've seen people base their buying on a number of parameters regarding pre-builts, and generally, performance takes a back seat to pricing, colour schemes, added freebee's, how nice the shop screensaver looks on the monitor, and a host of other "intangibles". For the record, and off the top of my head, here's a few of the rebrands I can think of (leaving aside the whole HD 2xxx to HD 3xxx series)
[FONT=Times New Roman]8800GS > 9600GSO > modified > GT 130[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]8800GT > 9800GT (die shrink)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]8800GTS512 > 9800GTX ( slightly higher clock rates)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]9500GT > GT120[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]9800GTX > 9800GTX+ (process shrink, slightly higher clock rate)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]9800GTX+ > GTS 150 > (revised) GTS 250[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]G210 > G310[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]9600GSO512 > GT330 (OEM)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 7670 > HD 6670[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 7570 > HD 6570[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 7470 > HD 6450 (750M)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 7450 > HD 6450 (625M)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 4670M > HD 560V[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 4650M > HD 5165 (slightly higher clock rate)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 4570M > HD 5145 (slightly higher clock rate)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 4500M > HD 540V[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 4300M > HD 530V[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 5550 > HD 6390[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 5750 > HD 6750[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]HD 5770 > HD 6770[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]X300 > X1050[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]X550 > X1050[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]X600 > X1050[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]X800 XL > X800 GTO16[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]X1300 > X1550[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]X1300XT > X1600 Pro > X1650 Pro[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]X1600XT > X1650 Pro (GDDR3 / DDR2)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]X1900XTX > X1950XT[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Radeon 8500 > Radeon 9100[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Radeon VE > Radeon 7000[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Radeon SDR > Radeon 7200[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]GeForce 2 > GeForce 4 MX [/FONT]

 

[Tanstar]

The fact that my GTS 250 is better than anything for $100 or less still is sad though.