Nvidia Pascal to launch in June

[Keyrock]

Looks like the Batmobile

 

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-allegedly-pictured/

Dear Lord, that is ugly as sin.  It's a similar, and just as ugly, design to the one Nvidia used for their Shield console.  Still, it's there to power games, not to be gawked at, so as long as it performs it doesn't really matter what it looks like.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Keyrock

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, I hate crappy futuristic aesthetics on computer stuff...

[teknoman2]

here's what i deduce from what i've read/heard so far.

polaris will be the R7/9-4xx cards and the vega chip later this year will be used for the successor of the Fury X

 

rumor has it that the specs of the card AMD used for a presentation that was running the new Hitman game at 4k-60fps-max settings are 800MHz core and 8GB GDDR5 with passive cooling and is a prototype for the 470 (the final model is supposed to have higher specs)

also from what i know so far, nVidia has problems implementing AC so if they can't find a solution they will have to brute force the performance by making bigger, faster and more expensive chips with higher power requirements.

[Bokishi]

here's what i deduce from what i've read/heard so far.

polaris will be the R7/9-4xx cards and the vega chip later this year will be used for the successor of the Fury X

 

rumor has it that the specs of the card AMD used for a presentation that was running the new Hitman game at 4k-60fps-max settings are 800MHz core and 8GB GDDR5 with passive cooling and is a prototype for the 470 (the final model is supposed to have higher specs)

also from what i know so far, nVidia has problems implementing AC so if they can't find a solution they will have to brute force the performance by making bigger, faster and more expensive chips with higher power requirements.

If this is true, then Pascal sounds like another fx 5800, which was powerful at the time, but hot, noisy, and choked on DX9 games. They lost lots of ground to ATI then Edited April 23, 2016 by Bokishi

[teknoman2]

i read a post in another forum that described the difference between AMD and nVidia. in short, according to him, AMD keeps pushing the technology forward with stuff like mantle, AC etc, but nVidia has the lion's share of the market due to better marketing and their only contribution is black box middleware like physX and gameworks that are more targeted at harming the performance of rival hardware than enhancing the game's visuals

 

EDIT

Edited April 23, 2016 by teknoman2

[Ganrich]

i read a post in another forum that described the difference between AMD and nVidia. in short, according to him, AMD keeps pushing the technology forward with stuff like mantle, AC etc, but nVidia has the lion's share of the market due to better marketing and their only contribution is black box middleware like physX and gameworks that are more targeted at harming the performance of rival hardware than enhancing the game's visuals

 

EDIT

It isn't far from the truth. Nvidia spent a lot of money perfecting their hardware for DX11 and those decisions have caused them to be flat footed in the Mantle/DX12/Vulkan department. Architecture is like anything else, and has strengths and weaknesses. Their architecture is powerful with DX11, but they have been maintaining the perception of quality via gameworks skull duggery. Most gameworks titles run better on amd ( or at least equally well) after a month or so.

 

ANDs woes in CPUs are from being equally forward thinking. Bulldozer sucked because it focused on spreading workload across its many cores, but only 8(?) Years later do we start to see multithreading come about.

 

I think we will see some huge turns for AMD by the end of 2017. I have faith in them in CPUs for the first time since bulldozer. While they have always made great gpus, but their efforts to stop gameworks with an open-source equivalent (GPUOpen) makes them even more appealing.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Ganrich

[Bartimaeus]

AMD would be fantastic for gaming if, you know, games actually supported that many threads. So if that situation improves (the process has been absolute molasses since the introduction of consumer-grade quadcores about a decade ago), then of course their fortunes will turn there - Intel may whoop them for single-thread performance still, but the price-to-performance ratio would greatly swing in AMD's favor. But...like I said, it's been sooo slow for games to actually start taking advantage of quadcores (hardly any games even do still...). Hope that changes soon with DX12...but I won't be holding my breath.

[Bartimaeus]

Pascal looks decently nice. GTX 1070 for MSRP of $380, roughly equal to Titan X's power.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/4i88rj/nvidia_have_announced_the_gtx_1080/d2vy0al

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/4i88rj/nvidia_have_announced_the_gtx_1080/d2vyjdf

[Sarex]

I don't know if I should wait for the 1080Ti or just get the 1080. I'll probably just wait for the 1080Ti before getting anything to get the full picture.

[Humanoid]

The GTX 1070 with a $50 increase in the price over the 970 - stings a little for mid-range but probably reasonable (pending test results). The GTX 1080 on the other hand is $100 more than the card it replaces, which was already ridiculously overpriced in the first place. Even though there's a bigger performance gap between the 1080 and 1070 than there was between the 980 and 970, I don't think the pricing can be justified at all but that's the advantage of being the first mover in the market I guess.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Humanoid

[Gorgon]

Yeah nobody likes the Batmobile very much so far. Waiting for AMD to weigh in in september was it. I wonder how genuine their 'VR' rating numbers are

[Gorgon]

Regarding AMD vs Nvidia it's fair to remember that Nvidia is consistently better at performance per watt whereas AMD is consistently pushing their chips right to the edge resulting in very power hungry cards. 

 

Anyway it's best to have no brand loyalty and just judge each chip lineup on its own merits.

[Bokishi]

There's regular GTX 1080, and Founder's 1080 for $100 more. Hmmmm

[Sarex]

There's regular GTX 1080, and Founder's 1080 for $100 more. Hmmmm

 

Wth is a founder's edition?

 

edit: ah nvm...it's just a "fancy" cooler...

Edited May 7, 2016 by Sarex

[teknoman2]

Regarding AMD vs Nvidia it's fair to remember that Nvidia is consistently better at performance per watt whereas AMD is consistently pushing their chips right to the edge resulting in very power hungry cards. 

 

Anyway it's best to have no brand loyalty and just judge each chip lineup on its own merits.

that was so far because AMD had AC that nothing actually supported so they had to push the chips to keep up with nvidia that had perfected the linear processing. now with dx12 and vulcan that support AC they wont have to push the chips so hard 

[Humanoid]

Regarding AMD vs Nvidia it's fair to remember that Nvidia is consistently better at performance per watt whereas AMD is consistently pushing their chips right to the edge resulting in very power hungry cards. 

 

Anyway it's best to have no brand loyalty and just judge each chip lineup on its own merits.

Wouldn't say consistently, it was only two generations ago we had nV's "Thermi" debacle. Polaris is reputedly a very small chip, dunno about Vega though.

[Bokishi]

 

There's regular GTX 1080, and Founder's 1080 for $100 more. Hmmmm

 

Wth is a founder's edition?

 

edit: ah nvm...it's just a "fancy" cooler...

 

 

Maybe it has bat wings

Edited May 7, 2016 by Bokishi

[teknoman2]

the reveal was done

they said that the 1080 will have twice the power of the 980 at 3 times lower watts at 600$. they also had a demo of the new doom running in vulcan on the 1080: 1080p, max settings 150fps. release date may 27 for the 1080 and mid june for the 1070 (about 50% faster than the 980 at 400$)

which i don't find all that awesome considering the AMD prototype of their 200$ card in GDC was running hitman at 1440p, max settings and 60fps (vsync on).

we have to wait and see

[Humanoid]

Think you misread that, the 980 has a TDP of 165W, the 1080 is listed at 180W. Real life power consumption will be slightly higher because of the way nV calculate the number (typical instead of maximum). It has twice the speed of the 980 *only* in VR applications, the gain in regular titles seems more along the order of 60%.

 

Since the 980Ti is about 30% faster than the 980, maybe a little more, we can extrapolate from this that the 1080 is only about 20% faster than the 980Ti for the same price (actually with the latest round of price cuts, the 980Ti is slightly cheaper). That's distinctly unimpressive, but then the x80 series cards have been a trap for the past two generations. As per those series, buy either the x70 or x80Ti cards when they become available.

[teknoman2]

i worded it wrong... i meant 3 times the power efficiency but i wasn't paying attention while typing.

[Humanoid]

Realistically though, 60% more performance at 5-10% more power consumption would suggest more like 50% gain in efficiency.

 

Obviously there's no hard data on performance, but I'm mostly taking nVidia's own very basic (and no doubt heavily "massaged") slide here:

 

 

 

 

The other thing to bear in mind is that the 980Ti has a lot of room for overclocking, and I reckon a heavily overclocked one could probably match a stock 1080 given the estimated difference of 20%. Much of the 1080's value then will be in how much it overclocks in turn.

 

 

EDIT: Another of their own slides here might be more instructive. Eyeballing that shows an approximate rating of 2.6 for the 980, 3.6 for the 980Ti and 4.4 for the 1080. Normalising the figures to 100%, we get 1.38 for the 980Ti and 1.69 for the 1080. Normalising the 1080 vs the 980Ti we get 1.22 which is pretty close to my earlier estimate.

 

980Ti is down to $550USD now, and the 1080 will roll out later for $600. It barely moves the price/performance stakes at all. The "Founder's Edition" (early access reference design) card for $700 is particularly laughable in this context, it's for suckers only.

 

More speculatively, if we take the same 3.6 value to be the 1070's performance, that's 1.71 relative to the 970 at 2.1. A slightly bigger increase in relative performance to the card it's replacing, but at half the price increase (or two-thirds in relative terms). I reckon that's fair enough, it's around what I'd have guessed prior to the reveal.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Humanoid

[teknoman2]

i was watching a video of the reveal on youtube and i was not really convinced by the guy on stage (though the fanboys in the audience were drooling). he was emphasizing way too much the 2x fps at 3 times power efficiency, like there was nothing else he knew or could say about the card.

still, the marketing trick nvidia uses i old but effective: they make a monster card that very few people can buy and then they use it to create hype for the mainstream cards like the x50 and x60 by saying "we made that beast, all our cards are better and that is why they are more expensive". so people fall in the trap that makes them think that the 960 that is a bit more expensive than the 380 is better than the 380 and nvidia sells more

[Bartimaeus]

snip

 

Things will be much more interesting, I imagine, when AMD releases info on Polaris (which, to my understanding, is supposed to happen late May-early June, but I could be wrong).

[teknoman2]

they didn't really release any solid info, they just dumped some numbers and overhyped the performance. we have to wait until the card is actually on the market to get any reliable info

[falchen]

Right now these just seem like too much overkill for anyone who already has a 9xx card, I got a 970 and that can run Witcher 3 at max, and I'm not eyeing any upcoming games that should require an update just yet. If some is building new or upgrading anyway though then sure grab one of these, no reason not to though.