Nvidia May Be Revealing the GTX 1080 Next Week
- Thread starter ffronw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You're so funny...What were we talking about again? I know one thing for sure that we weren't talking about Nvidia vs ATI. And DX12 benchmarks is just all for show until actual DX12 compatible GPUs are out. Just because DX12 support DX11 cards doesn't mean you'll get results that reflect the capability of the card nor will you get the full features of DX12 ,it's all very ambiguous.Charcharo said:
Oh by the way, A quote from that article of yours
Thank you for supporting my argument.
I'm not really following the clusterfuck in this comment thread but my 2gb 770 has been surprisingly powerful for what it is. Runs a lot of things much better than I feel like it should given the system requirements.
So Nvidia only revealed the Tesla P100, a professional supercomputer card. No sign of any Geforce gaming cards yet. People are saying that Nvidia and AMD will probably paper launch their new gaming cards at Computex 2016 in May.
GP104 = GTX 1070 & 1080, GP106 = GTX 1060 & 1050
Polaris 10 = R9 490x, 490, 480x, 480, Polaris 11 = R9 370x, 370, Laptop GPUs
AMD's Fury successor, Vega 10, and Nvidia's Titan/980Ti successor, GP100, won't be released until Q1 2017 at the earliest.
GP104 = GTX 1070 & 1080, GP106 = GTX 1060 & 1050
Polaris 10 = R9 490x, 490, 480x, 480, Polaris 11 = R9 370x, 370, Laptop GPUs
AMD's Fury successor, Vega 10, and Nvidia's Titan/980Ti successor, GP100, won't be released until Q1 2017 at the earliest.
I wonder how close to announcement the new cards will actually be released. Really itching to upgrade but it just seems like this gen is perpetually "almost here".Higgs303 said:
It's a little weird to have a video card labeled 1080 when 1080 is also a standard video output. I'm sure this card will be able to handle higher resolutions too so it's weird to have a name belying inferior video output.
This is true, and I'm rather surprised if these images are real simply because I'd have expected them to do something else for that reason alone.Lightknight said:
That said, when it comes to the naming scheme of a gpu vendor, I don't think they really have anything to worry about. Enthusiasts know the naming scheme and what it means, and/or know the specs of the cards. These people won't be misled.
On the other end of the spectrum Average consumers are just going by whatever it recommended to them, maybe benchmarks and pricepoints. GPUs are far enough outside common knowledge that I highly doubt many people will look at "Geforce GTX 1080" and think "1080? That sucks!" Rather, it'll be a complete blank and they'll be going by whatever the local nerd suggests.
Yeah, just weird.Jadak said:
I'm not sure about that. I'm betting this will catch at least a few people who know just enough about video output to be dangerous. Don't know if it will be enough to warrant skipping the number though. My concern would be with late adopters thinking that the card is from the time where 1080 output was normal.
Which is why I just cursed myself for ordering a new PC yesterday.008Zulu said:
Then again, you always have that with computer hardware. Its turnover rate is just too damn high.
I've been running a 570 just fine for a while. Smooth, 50+ framerate in pretty much everything. The blessing and curse of cross development, although the curse seems to be far more prevalent.
Games are just not pushing the technological envelope anymore. Back when the Radeon 9800 came out or when Crysis was released, you could justify the expense for the sake of a new experience. But no one is doing that these days.
I mean, shit, we have multi-core processors, GIGAbytes of RAM, and solid state hard drives, and we still have games that look & play like Half-Life 2 with higher resolution textures (yet somehow manage to suck down every resource they can).
Call me when there's news, because it's been 2004 going on twelve years.
Games are just not pushing the technological envelope anymore. Back when the Radeon 9800 came out or when Crysis was released, you could justify the expense for the sake of a new experience. But no one is doing that these days.
I mean, shit, we have multi-core processors, GIGAbytes of RAM, and solid state hard drives, and we still have games that look & play like Half-Life 2 with higher resolution textures (yet somehow manage to suck down every resource they can).
Call me when there's news, because it's been 2004 going on twelve years.
From http://wccftech.com/:
However, the previous leak for the 2304 GCN core Polaris 10 - R9 490 - showed the card outperforming the GTX Titan Black and the GTX 980, despite a reported 800mhz clock speed. Since 14nm FinFET pushes frequencies way beyond what we've seen with 28nm we're likely looking at 1200Mhz+ clock speeds out of production Polaris chips. Based on the performance we're seeing at 800mhz, that puts the cut down Polaris 10 chip that we've seen, a likely R9 490 candidate, in excess of 15% ahead of the R9 Fury X and GTX 980 Ti.
So if the R9 490 series has at least 15% more performance than the current flagship models, likely the GTX 1080/1070 will perform similarly. If these estimates are correct then the next gen flagship models set for Q1 2017, Vega 10 and GP100, will definitely be 4k/60FPS capable cards (will likely be f**king expensive too due to the high cost of HBM2 VRAM).
Nvidia has been very quiet about Pascal recently. No demonstrations and no official word on specifications or capabilities. Many people believe that the Pascal series, like the current Maxwell cards, will lack asynchronous compute capability in DX12 games. AMD has hit Nvidia pretty hard in all DX12 titles that have been released (Hitman, Ashes of the Singularity, Quantum Break). If Pascal cannot keep up with Polaris due to a lack of async compute, Nvidia will have to eat the costs of using brute force performance to close the gap (ie. lowering prices on higher tier cards).
However, the previous leak for the 2304 GCN core Polaris 10 - R9 490 - showed the card outperforming the GTX Titan Black and the GTX 980, despite a reported 800mhz clock speed. Since 14nm FinFET pushes frequencies way beyond what we've seen with 28nm we're likely looking at 1200Mhz+ clock speeds out of production Polaris chips. Based on the performance we're seeing at 800mhz, that puts the cut down Polaris 10 chip that we've seen, a likely R9 490 candidate, in excess of 15% ahead of the R9 Fury X and GTX 980 Ti.
So if the R9 490 series has at least 15% more performance than the current flagship models, likely the GTX 1080/1070 will perform similarly. If these estimates are correct then the next gen flagship models set for Q1 2017, Vega 10 and GP100, will definitely be 4k/60FPS capable cards (will likely be f**king expensive too due to the high cost of HBM2 VRAM).
Nvidia has been very quiet about Pascal recently. No demonstrations and no official word on specifications or capabilities. Many people believe that the Pascal series, like the current Maxwell cards, will lack asynchronous compute capability in DX12 games. AMD has hit Nvidia pretty hard in all DX12 titles that have been released (Hitman, Ashes of the Singularity, Quantum Break). If Pascal cannot keep up with Polaris due to a lack of async compute, Nvidia will have to eat the costs of using brute force performance to close the gap (ie. lowering prices on higher tier cards).