Nvidia Volta gaming GPUs are not in the 'foreseeable future'

[Cal Jeffrey]

Earlier this year, at the GPU Technology Conference, Nvidia unveiled the Tesla V100, a GPU built on its seventh-generation Volta architecture. It's the most powerful graphics processor the company has ever produced capable of 7.5 TFLOP/s of double precision floating-point (FP64) and 15 TFLOP/s of single precision (FP32) performance.

Currently, the Tesla V100 is being used in supercomputers and companies working in AI, but gamers have been wondering when they will start seeing Volta gaming GPUs. Some have been speculating that we’d start seeing the first Volta cards coming out later this year. However, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang quashed these rumors during an earnings call last week saying that Volta will not be replacing Pascal in gaming anytime soon.

“Volta for gaming, we haven't announced anything. And all I can say is that our pipeline is filled with some exciting new toys for the gamers, and we have some really exciting new technology to offer them in the pipeline. But for the holiday season for the foreseeable future, I think Pascal is just unbeatable. It's just the best thing out there. And everybody who's looking forward to playing Call of Duty or Destiny 2, if they don't already have one, should run out and get themselves a Pascal.”

Nvidia is not in a big rush to replace cards with the Pascal architecture. The GeForce GTX line is selling strong, and the 1080 Ti is still considered a monster for graphical performance. Prematurely releasing Volta cards would cut into profits and diminish the life cycle of current generation cards. There is a balance that has to be maintained between offering the customers what they want and can afford while maximizing the profits from current products.

“For the foreseeable future, I think Pascal is just unbeatable.”

Furthermore, the primary reason that Nvidia is not ready to offer Volta gaming cards is that they are currently too expensive to manufacture. Volta GPUs cost close to $1000 to produce.

“The price of Volta is driven by the fact that, of course, the manufacturing cost is quite extraordinary,” said Huang. "These are expensive things to go and design."

Even after a marginal markup, the cards would only be affordable to a small percentage of the market. It simply wouldn't be profitable to mass produce a consumer grade model.

The current generation of GPUs is a cash cow for the company. The GTX 1080 Ti is still bringing in $700+ a pop and the GTX 1080 is selling for $500+. There is no reason for Nvidia to try to compete with itself. Maybe after a price drop or two, we might start hearing rumors of a gaming Volta release.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/70584-nvidia-volta-gaming-gpus-not-foreseeable-future.html

 

[Demur]

Well, he isn't wrong. Between the 1070, 1080 and 1080ti, nVidia's product range (at least at the high end) is really good right now, and they're still overkill for most setups.

I'm waiting for Intel and AMD to pull their thumb out on the gaming CPU side of things. The i7-7700k being so far ahead at the top of the pack is unfortunate for anyone who also deals with workloads where 6 or 8 cores would represent a significant performance increase, but to get that you either need to eat the gaming performance and go with a Ryzen 7 (which is perfectly sensible, just not ideal) or pay an absolutely outrageous amount for a Skylake-X 6/8 core with worse single-threaded performance than the i7 7700k. Now THAT'S a place where I want to see faster development.

 

[Flebbert]

Well, he isn't wrong. Between the 1070, 1080 and 1080ti, nVidia's product range (at least at the high end) is really good right now, and they're still overkill for most setups.

I'm waiting for Intel and AMD to pull their thumb out on the gaming CPU side of things. The i7-7700k being so far ahead at the top of the pack is unfortunate for anyone who also deals with workloads where 6 or 8 cores would represent a significant performance increase, but to get that you either need to eat the gaming performance and go with a Ryzen 7 (which is perfectly sensible, just not ideal) or pay an absolutely outrageous amount for a Skylake-X 6/8 core with worse single-threaded performance than the i7 7700k. Now THAT'S a place where I want to see faster development.

Agree the Vega release has been a disappointment but why the drive-by on the Ryzen chips.

The 7700K is still the top in gaming but stating that if you go a Ryzen you "hate to eat the gaming performance" is incorrect.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/

Hell I was playing PUBG the other day (1600x at 4.1Ghz + 1080TI) while encoding videos with handbrake at the same time.

FYI not an AMD fanboy (wouldn't buy an AMD GPU) but the Ryzen stuff I love, such a versatile CPU and such a good price.

 

[CaptainTom]

Well, he isn't wrong. Between the 1070, 1080 and 1080ti, nVidia's product range (at least at the high end) is really good right now, and they're still overkill for most setups.

I'm waiting for Intel and AMD to pull their thumb out on the gaming CPU side of things. The i7-7700k being so far ahead at the top of the pack is unfortunate for anyone who also deals with workloads where 6 or 8 cores would represent a significant performance increase, but to get that you either need to eat the gaming performance and go with a Ryzen 7 (which is perfectly sensible, just not ideal) or pay an absolutely outrageous amount for a Skylake-X 6/8 core with worse single-threaded performance than the i7 7700k. Now THAT'S a place where I want to see faster development.

Yeah that 5% lead in 1080p gaming really is an insane lead /s lol

 

[Evernessince]

Well, he isn't wrong. Between the 1070, 1080 and 1080ti, nVidia's product range (at least at the high end) is really good right now, and they're still overkill for most setups.

I'm waiting for Intel and AMD to pull their thumb out on the gaming CPU side of things. The i7-7700k being so far ahead at the top of the pack is unfortunate for anyone who also deals with workloads where 6 or 8 cores would represent a significant performance increase, but to get that you either need to eat the gaming performance and go with a Ryzen 7 (which is perfectly sensible, just not ideal) or pay an absolutely outrageous amount for a Skylake-X 6/8 core with worse single-threaded performance than the i7 7700k. Now THAT'S a place where I want to see faster development.

The 7700k isn't ahead by much FYI. You are paying more for the 7700k up front than a Ryzen 1700 and the 1700 already comes with a great cooler you can overclock with. You'll have to pay big bucks for a good cooler because the 7700k runs hot and really should be overclocked. Not to mention, you are getting half the cores and will have to upgrade your motherboard should you want to drop Intel's latest CPUs in. You don't buy a 7700k, you rent it because you'll be buying a new CPU next year as that 5% speed difference will melt away as games either use more cores or are optimized for Ryzen. If the gains Ryzen has seen so far through optimization continue, the 7700k won't even be able to beat Ryzen in gaming performance either eventually.

 

[DaveBG]

Too bad, the first company to release a single GPU capable of sustaining min 60FPS on any game on 4K with max details gets my money!

 

[ZackL04]

Too bad, the first company to release a single GPU capable of sustaining min 60FPS on any game on 4K with max details gets my money!

Your going to be waiting a gen or two after Volta IMO

 

[p51d007]

From what I understand, a LOT of the high end graphic cards are being snapped up by bit-coin server farms.
If that is true, then the actual price should come down if that "market" collapses?

 

[Puiu]

From what I understand, a LOT of the high end graphic cards are being snapped up by bit-coin server farms.
If that is true, then the actual price should come down if that "market" collapses?

bitcoin is not mined using GPUs. ETH is.

 

[Puiu]

Too bad, the first company to release a single GPU capable of sustaining min 60FPS on any game on 4K with max details gets my money!

don't use MSAA (try one of the cheaper to run solutions) and lower settings from Ultra to High and you'll see huge performance gains.
The Ultra settings kill performance for improvements that require screenshots and zooms to notice

 

[BigMack70]

As long as AMD can't compete, this is what we're going to be stuck with. A real shame for consumers that Vega couldn't even get close to challenging the 1080 Ti.

 

[OcelotRex]

The 7700k isn't ahead by much FYI. You are paying more for the 7700k up front than a Ryzen 1700 and the 1700 already comes with a great cooler you can overclock with. You'll have to pay big bucks for a good cooler because the 7700k runs hot and really should be overclocked. Not to mention, you are getting half the cores and will have to upgrade your motherboard should you want to drop Intel's latest CPUs in.

If I am reading this graph correctly, in single threaded performance the 7700k and 1700 are nearly the same price at launch and the 7700k performs 16-20% better:

Here's a link to the graph - sorry image won't post.

You don't buy a 7700k, you rent it because you'll be buying a new CPU next year as that 5% speed difference will melt away as games either use more cores or are optimized for Ryzen. If the gains Ryzen has seen so far through optimization continue, the 7700k won't even be able to beat Ryzen in gaming performance either eventually.

This has been the AMD mantra since FX - as soon as more games utilize more cores...

The most optimistic AMD fan can hope in 3-5 years more than half of games will be able to take advantage of those Ryzen cores. By then we'll be 2-3 generations down the road.

 

[BigMack70]

Too bad, the first company to release a single GPU capable of sustaining min 60FPS on any game on 4K with max details gets my money!

1080 Ti with a big OC is close enough for my money. 90%+ of games maxed at 60fps+ 4k. Only a few require settings tweaks to lock at 60. We're already at the point of almost any game being viable at 4k 60, and I expect we're 3-5 years away from closing the gap from "almost any" to "any" game being playable on single GPU 4k 60. Not worth the wait, IMO.

 

[wiyosaya]

The 7700k isn't ahead by much FYI. You are paying more for the 7700k up front than a Ryzen 1700 and the 1700 already comes with a great cooler you can overclock with. You'll have to pay big bucks for a good cooler because the 7700k runs hot and really should be overclocked. Not to mention, you are getting half the cores and will have to upgrade your motherboard should you want to drop Intel's latest CPUs in.

If I am reading this graph correctly, in single threaded performance the 7700k and 1700 are nearly the same price at launch and the 7700k performs 16-20% better:

Here's a link to the graph - sorry image won't post.

You don't buy a 7700k, you rent it because you'll be buying a new CPU next year as that 5% speed difference will melt away as games either use more cores or are optimized for Ryzen. If the gains Ryzen has seen so far through optimization continue, the 7700k won't even be able to beat Ryzen in gaming performance either eventually.

This has been the AMD mantra since FX - as soon as more games utilize more cores...

The most optimistic AMD fan can hope in 3-5 years more than half of games will be able to take advantage of those Ryzen cores. By then we'll be 2-3 generations down the road.

My bet is that we will see gaming improve with the next gen of AMD CPUs. As I see it, it was a smart move for AMD to target workstation/server workloads to bring in much needed cash. I doubt they have forgotten gamers.

Anyway, that there will be no Volta gaming GPU in the near future is disappointing for me. It means the price of used 900 series cards will remain high.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

I'm all for them sticking with the Pascal architecture for a while. That way your stupidly expensive 1080 Ti you bought yesterday at lunchtime won't become redundant and worthless by dinner time tomorrow night which is usually the case.

 

[wiyosaya]

I'm all for them sticking with the Pascal architecture for a while. That way your stupidly expensive 1080 Ti you bought yesterday at lunchtime won't become redundant and worthless by dinner time tomorrow night which is usually the case.

That's why I'm looking at the used market these days!

 

[Luay]

With the higher demand from the mobile & server industries for VGA memory and their subsequent raise in prices, holding off any new products is one option. The other option is to go to the newer not-in-demand HBM as AMD did. I could be wrong as everything, including newer memory types gets affected.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20170816PD205.html

 

[Avro Arrow]

I suppose that it's fortunate for AMD that hardware has outpaced software to the degree that it has. There's nothing that I can't throw at my R9 Fury so why would I get anything else? Make no mistake though, nVidia WAS teasing a Volta gaming card to try to spoil Vega's release (Vega spoiled its own release). Now that nVidia knows that ATi hasn't developed anything for AMD that they would consider a threat, they suddenly don't have a gaming version of Volta? It looks like nVidia is going to pull an Intel and try to tick-tock us to death. I think that this would be a mistake on their part because once AMD has reaped the profits of EPYC, ATi is going to have a pantload of money to play with for R&D. I think that nVidia may just find themselves against a wall with nowhere to go similar to the way Intel is now.

 

[davejonnes]

Too bad, the first company to release a single GPU capable of sustaining min 60FPS on any game on 4K with max details gets my money!

don't use MSAA (try one of the cheaper to run solutions) and lower settings from Ultra to High and you'll see huge performance gains.
The Ultra settings kill performance for improvements that require screenshots and zooms to notice

I mean, turn off anti-aliasing completely.... you're already running it in 4k, no AA solution necessary really lol.

You lower shadow, and a few post-processing options to High from Ultra. And you can do 4k without a single hitch while having most options on ultra still. Assuming you have a 1080 TI, of course lol.

I've been running pretty much anything on 4k/ultra, depending on the game I'll lower a few things to High.

 

[OcelotRex]

My bet is that we will see gaming improve with the next gen of AMD CPUs. As I see it, it was a smart move for AMD to target workstation/server workloads to bring in much needed cash. I doubt they have forgotten gamers.

Anyway, that there will be no Volta gaming GPU in the near future is disappointing for me. It means the price of used 900 series cards will remain high.

I think it was smart as well - but due to it being the only place in the market they could disrupt. It's important to remember that theirs is a value product, competing on price not performance. I'm hoping AMD keeps innovating but their product launches are not pretty if you think back to their platform issues at launch for Ryzen.

 

[McMurdeR]

The mining craze and competition for foundry manufacturing has been slowly putting the squeeze on GPU tech.

It's unfortunate, but the industry probably needs a breather. At the very least this move could offer AMD at chance to catch up next year.

 

[GreenNova343]

The 7700k isn't ahead by much FYI. You are paying more for the 7700k up front than a Ryzen 1700 and the 1700 already comes with a great cooler you can overclock with. You'll have to pay big bucks for a good cooler because the 7700k runs hot and really should be overclocked. Not to mention, you are getting half the cores and will have to upgrade your motherboard should you want to drop Intel's latest CPUs in.

If I am reading this graph correctly, in single threaded performance the 7700k and 1700 are nearly the same price at launch and the 7700k performs 16-20% better:

Here's a link to the graph - sorry image won't post.

You don't buy a 7700k, you rent it because you'll be buying a new CPU next year as that 5% speed difference will melt away as games either use more cores or are optimized for Ryzen. If the gains Ryzen has seen so far through optimization continue, the 7700k won't even be able to beat Ryzen in gaming performance either eventually.

This has been the AMD mantra since FX - as soon as more games utilize more cores...

The most optimistic AMD fan can hope in 3-5 years more than half of games will be able to take advantage of those Ryzen cores. By then we'll be 2-3 generations down the road.

Not sure about launch prices, but from what I can tell these are the current price comparison:

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/c.../motherboard/#f=2&c=124,119&sort=price&page=1: absolute cheapest ATX B350 motherboard for Ryzen costs ~$23 USD less than the absolute cheapest ATX Z270 motherboard for i7-7700K (although you might have to compare the features of each board to truly compare them -- I.e. the ASRock AB350 Pro4 doesn't support SLI or CrossFire, but the MSI Z270 Gaming Plus does support CrossFire).

In total, you can plan to shave ~$65 USD off your price with a Ryzen 7 1700. If all you're buying is the CPU, motherboard, & RAM, plus a cooler for the i7, you'll pay about 13% more for the Intel build...which, if the i7-7700K is giving ~15% more performance, then you're pretty much equal in terms of performance-for-price. The primary difference, of course, being that if you're limited on your budget to under $500, then you can get 16GB of DDR4-3000 RAM with the Ryzen build, but the Intel build is limited to 8GB of DDR4-2400 RAM. For some people, that makes the Ryzen 7 1700 an attractive option.

 

[Boilerhog146]

The mining craze and competition for foundry manufacturing has been slowly putting the squeeze on GPU tech.

It's unfortunate, but the industry probably needs a breather. At the very least this move could offer AMD at chance to catch up next year.

Or put them another year behind .which is where they are right now.
AMD just gave Nvidia the greatest opportunity to sell off all the pascal stock .stores still had stock of maxwells when pascal released ,and screwed their own sales .won't have to do that this year .
how do you suppose they might catch up.if volta is already in the wild , in workstations and renderfarms,by the time AMD gets to scratch its nuts.NVidia will say ,oh here's that volta gaming card . and most shelves will already be cleared of pascals then to make room ,not sure what Huang is gonna do with all that cash ..

I wonder how much these few reviews cost AMD to put out in emails ,like this one I got this morning lol,still shaking my head. spreading it on pretty thick..

http://links.em.experience.amd.com/...zI2Nzc3MDcyMTIS1&j=MTEwMTg3MzI5NwS2&mt=1&rt=0

I wonder what CPU ,mother board pricing has to do with volta staying elusive.

 

[ZackL04]

don't use MSAA (try one of the cheaper to run solutions) and lower settings from Ultra to High and you'll see huge performance gains.
The Ultra settings kill performance for improvements that require screenshots and zooms to notice

Agreed, msaa is wayyyy overkill on a 4k screen. I would personally disable fsaa too if gaming on a 27" 4k screen too.

The pixels man!

 

[AntiShill]

Now that nVidia has seen the Vega results, is it any surprise nVidia will have no compelling reason to push out Volta now? nVidia will want to make as much return on the Pascal as they can. This reminds me of when nVidia released the tesla/8800 series back in 2007. Yep there will some real excitement when the rename the thing, just like they did with 8800GT to 9800GT and then 8800Ultra to GTS250. That went on for at least 3 years. Yippeekayay!! Look forward to that. About the only thing you can be optimistic about is that hopefully over time the prices will drop, if and when the crypto mining craze is done with.