GTX 680 seems to be very reminiscent of 7900GTX (being released right around this time of year, 2 months after X1900XTX), a smaller chip and not as power-hungry, also at a similar price-point.
But that's the hypocritical path most fanboys take. Rather than appreciate the technology, they only extol whatever "their team" has, and try to trash the rest. It'll be interesting calling people out on their hypocrisy :thumbsup:AMD and Nvidia list their TDP very differently. I would be surprised if the 180w being thrown around is factual and not just nonsense. I distinctly remember Nvidia blowing past their listed ratings on power draw on multiple releases.
Interesting to see the reversal of roles --- Last two generations, Nvidia fans didn't care that AMD was lower power, better performance for watt... Now, it's suddenly important again.
AMD and Nvidia list their TDP very differently. I would be surprised if the 180w being thrown around is factual and not just nonsense. I distinctly remember Nvidia blowing past their listed ratings on power draw on multiple releases.
Interesting to see the reversal of roles --- Last two generations, Nvidia fans didn't care that AMD was lower power, better performance for watt... Now, it's suddenly important again.
.Interesting to see the reversal of roles --- Last two generations, Nvidia fans didn't care that AMD was lower power, better performance for watt... Now, it's suddenly important again.
Interesting to see the reversal of roles --- Last two generations, Nvidia fans didn't care that AMD was lower power, better performance for watt... Now, it's suddenly important again.
LMAO Jionix. That's not it at all. It's important for a different reason. To watch everyone who DID make such a big deal out of things like power consumption, efficiency, die size, price/performance suddenly not think it's important. THAT is what might be interesting. To watch the wind leave the sails so to speak. It would be very very gratifying if all these rumors of such are accurate.
LMAO Jionix. That's not it at all. It's important for a different reason. To watch everyone who DID make such a big deal out of things like power consumption, efficiency, die size, price/performance suddenly not think it's important. THAT is what might be interesting. To watch the wind leave the sails so to speak. It would be very very gratifying if all these rumors of such are accurate.
Who made a big deal about it? I don't think many people here care.
Who made a big deal about it? I don't think many people here care. Enthusiasts with monster PCs don't care about efficiency, only a select few care about it. OTOH OEMs care about efficiency, and hats off to nvidia for opening kepler to a bigger audience. PC builders simply will not use a power guzzling dust buster (aka gtx 480), so kepler will be an attractive option for them. Thats an area that AMD has traditionally always won, they have had far more PC builder contracts than nvidia...but that could possibly change since GK104 by all accounts is an efficient chip.
Price/performance remains to be seen, but I highly doubt the 40% figures being touted by some here will be true. Given GK104 specs I'd say they're about even to 7970 depending on application.....and obviously the GK104 will have a similar cost to the 7970.
Yeah I don't remember seeing much arguing about efficiency myself. Loving the hypocrisy of saying it is the people who argued for its value who are ironic when it comes from the people who argued against it making the point.
Tahiti is 352mm2, so 10% larger.Bolded the agreement, as there's still too much in the air. For example, die size numbers have ranged from 360mm^2 all the way down to 294mm^2, however these pictures show definitely that the die measures 18.55mm x 17.18mm, or 318.689mm^2. I remember 320mm^2 being thrown around previously, so one of the leaks was correct. Tahiti was 365mm^2, so 14.5% larger.
The GTX 680 lacks full-speed FP64 support. It just a big brother for Pitcairn. 50% bigger and ?% faster.If the GTX 680 and the 7970 end up trading blows (which seems likely), that's not a bad disadvantage for making a competitive GPGPU chip, IMO.
Yeah I don't remember seeing much arguing about efficiency myself. Loving the hypocrisy of saying it is the people who argued for its value who are ironic when it comes from the people who argued against it making the point.
I think the 680 has to better than equal to a stock 7970. It would be shameful if the 680 is only 25% faster than a 580. I am thinking it is 10% faster than a 7970, 35% to 40% faster than a 580 and has less OC headroom than the 7970 because of being clocked to perform faster than a stock 7970 in benches.
Who made a big deal about it?
It was the staple argument for 5xxx over 4xx.
In fact it's been argued several times these past few weeks.
Pro tip: "the 680 will be slower than the 7970 because it has a smaller die and nvidia needs much larger die space for the same performance."
Well, yeah, that is what usually happens when one card is chasing an already-released card: the chasing company has to do whatever it can, including sacrificing what would have been overclocking headroom, to match or slightly beat the rival card, in order to get favorable review comparisons. Like the 5850 vs the 285, or the 6850 vs the GTX 460.
Who made a big deal about it? I don't think many people here care.
Yeah I don't remember seeing much arguing about efficiency myself.
Efficiency is important but may take a back seat to performance, features, gaming experience potential and to me, the most important metric of them all: Performance/value.
But, what if a GPU architecture delivers on all fronts though - no gaming sacrifices and yet efficient, too?
I can't begin to tell you how much I'm loving this conversation.
Dream come true, for reelz.
"Uh, I don't recall anyone ever touting how important Die Size, efficiency, price/performance, heat output, power consumption or anything like that. And your honor, my hand does not fit in this glove!"
:biggrin:
GTX 480 draws about 40 more watts than the 7970, let's get back to reality.
The reality of the situation is this is worse than that even... This is a GTX 480 that draws more power, and is slower than the 5870. Can you imagine that?
Because that is what the 7970 is shaping up to be compared to the 680, slower and draws more power.
5xxx wasn't a GPGPU card, and it wasn't even a very good DX11 card. The only reason it looked halfway decent in 2010 is because there weren't any DX11 titles like we have today.
Hence we get back to this root of this discussion. The metrics people were trying to use to discredit 4xx and 5xx cards in favor of AMD cards have been reversed, and it's now the AMD card baring those burdens, while not having the benefit of actually being faster.
You can shift goalposts until you're blue in the face. Good luck finding me arguing about the importance of perf/mm2 perf/watt, power consumption etc. because you won't..
Trying to extend not enjoying a card that is way too loud and throws off way too much heat to encompassing the whole efficiency metric is just broken.
I guess in your world when you game you set up a hair drier behind your head so you can be blasted with noise and heat for increased immersion. lol
HeatX only from nvidia, on/off videos coming soon!
But that's the hypocritical path most fanboys take. Rather than appreciate the technology, they only extol whatever "their team" has, and try to trash the rest. It'll be interesting calling people out on their hypocrisy :thumbsup: