[Hardocp]GeForce GTX 1080: Most Bizarre Secret Paper Launch Ever

[Bacon1]

How about you wait for the actual promised launch date (May 27th) before calling it a paper launch? Otherwise we can say Polaris 10 was paper launched in March, they demonstrated working silicon and unveiled aspects of the architecture long before NVIDIA talked about gaming Pascal.

You heard it here folks. AMD beat Nvidia to launch months ago!

Except, back here in reality, AMD hasn't launched at all. We don't have specs, we don't have prices, we don't have reviews. They merely showed off the card. Or are you going to now say they launched it back in Jan @ CES when they showed it playing Battlefront?

Nvidia gave prices, gave out review copies but you can't buy it. That is the definition of a paper launch.

A paper launch is the situation in which a product is compared or tested against other products of the same kind, despite the fact that it is not available to the public at the time. Generally, the term is applied to the computer and gaming industry, but is not limited to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_launch

So you can either continue trying to say that AMD launched 6 months earlier than Nvidia, or accept that it is a Paper launch.

 

[MrTeal]

Yeah and both 290x and 390x have been known to have horrible stock coolers... And seems like there is the same story with founders ed 1080.. All these stock coolers choke under heavy load.

And their W/mm2 numbers are pretty close aswell, coincidence ?

275 W / 438 mm2 = ~0.627 W per mm2 (stock 390x)
344 W / 438 mm2 = ~0.785 W per mm2 (aftermarket MSI R9 390X Gaming 8 GB)

180 W / 314 mm² = ~0.573 W per mm² (stock 1080)
230 W / 314 mm² = ~0.732 W per mm² (max overclock 1080)

The 390X didn't really have any reference cooler, that's why the launch went so much better. The numbers are a coincidence. They stock coolers have issues, but it's the cooler that affects it much more than the power density through the interface. It's a blower problem.

 

[Det0x]

The 390X didn't really have any reference cooler, that's why the launch went so much better. The numbers are a coincidence. They stock coolers have issues, but it's the cooler that affects it much more than the power density through the interface. It's a blower problem.

Yes it actually seems like anything above ~0.6 watt/mm2 with a "stock vapor-chamber blower", and the card starts to throttle.

As seen both with 290x and 1080.

Atleast AMD didn't have the audacity to slap on a 100$ premium for their crappy stock cooler hehe

 

[frozentundra123456]

You heard it here folks. AMD beat Nvidia to launch months ago!

Except, back here in reality, AMD hasn't launched at all. We don't have specs, we don't have prices, we don't have reviews. They merely showed off the card. Or are you going to now say they launched it back in Jan @ CES when they showed it playing Battlefront?

Nvidia gave prices, gave out review copies but you can't buy it. That is the definition of a paper launch.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_launch

So you can either continue trying to say that AMD launched 6 months earlier than Nvidia, or accept that it is a Paper launch.

Seems like people are just looking for another reason to rip nVidia. So, it is technically a "paper launch". If they have a good supply of product on the market in a month or so, I dont see it as a big deal. What does it hurt to have specs, prices, and some tests (that admittedly should be take with plenty of skepticism). Now if you still cant buy the product 4 or 6 months from now, that is a different story. But they were upfront that the product will not be available till later.

 

[MrTeal]

Yes it actually seems like anything above ~0.6 watt/mm2 with a "stock vapor-chamber blower", and the card starts to throttle.

As seen both with 290x and 1080.

Atleast AMD didn't have the audacity to slap on a 100$ premium for their crappy stock cooler hehe

The 6970 used a vapour chamber blower and according to TPU's numbers averaged 157W from a 389mm² die (0.4 using your metric), and it still hit 89C under load.
The 5970 and its vapour chamber blower averaged 178W from a total die area of 668mm² (only 0.267), and its dies would run at 85C and was notorious for throttling.

 

[Sweepr]

So you can either continue trying to say that AMD launched 6 months earlier than Nvidia, or accept that it is a Paper launch.

I don't see anyone here complaining that they demonstrated working cards months ago and still...

We don't have specs, we don't have prices, we don't have reviews.

Considering we also have zero leaks about the cards so far, are you willing to bet that AMD is going to do different if they unveil the cards at Computex, a 'hard launch' instead of (your definition of) 'paper launch' - if you can't buy one in early June?

 

[sontin]

But we have a AMD site about Polaris: http://www.amd.com/en-gb/innovations/software-technologies/radeon-polaris

There is even a little "notify me" button. There is literally no difference what nVidia did 2 weeks ago.

 

[antihelten]

There is literally no difference what nVidia did 2 weeks ago.

You mean other than the fact that the Polaris site neither announces nor makes any mention of any specific consumer product (something which can hardly be claimed for Nvidia's event).

 

[Abwx]

You heard it here folks. AMD beat Nvidia to launch months ago!

Except, back here in reality, AMD hasn't launched at all. We don't have specs, we don't have prices, we don't have reviews. They merely showed off the card. Or are you going to now say they launched it back in Jan @ CES when they showed it playing Battlefront?

Nvidia gave prices, gave out review copies but you can't buy it. That is the definition of a paper launch.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_launch

So you can either continue trying to say that AMD launched 6 months earlier than Nvidia, or accept that it is a Paper launch.

Polaris is a mobile chip and this require certainly more validations than a DT card wich can be exchanged easily if there s a problem, not so much in a laptop, isnt it, so that s just an apple to potatoes comparison here, i wont even insist on the fact that they didnt launch anything..

 

[Det0x]

The 6970 used a vapour chamber blower and according to TPU's numbers averaged 157W from a 389mm² die (0.4 using your metric), and it still hit 89C under load.
The 5970 and its vapour chamber blower averaged 178W from a total die area of 668mm² (only 0.267), and its dies would run at 85C and was notorious for throttling.

AMD Radeon HD 6970 @ https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/258/radeon-hd-6970

250 W / 389 mm² = 0.642 W per mm² (stock TDP) (Over the 0.6 limit )

5970 is a dual gpu card, and as such is not included in "my metric" :.

*edit*

The more we go back and forth about this, it actually seems to be a approximation of what is really happening.. A "stock vapor-chamber blower" have a hardtime handling anything over 0.6w/mm2 it seems.
PS these old cards didn't have as advanced clockspeed-throttling as we have today... So they were bound to run hotter since they could not reduce the heat output the same way.

 

[MrTeal]

AMD Radeon HD 6970 @ https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/258/radeon-hd-6970

250 W / 389 mm² = 0.642 W per mm² (stock TDP) (Over the 0.6 limit )

5970 is a dual gpu card, and as such is not included in "my metric" :.

*edit*

The more we go back and forth about this, it actually seems to be a approximation of what is really happening.. A "stock vapor-chamber blower" have a hardtime handling over 0.6w/mm2 it seems.
PS these old cards didn't have as advanced clockspeed-throttling as we have today...

Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to specifically say previously that you're using TPU's actual average power draw in gaming to get your numbers, and then when the 157W average that TPU measured for the 6970 was lower than your expectation you switched back to the higher TDP?

Far and away the largest factor in the cooling system performance is going to be the heatsink and fan combination itself. The size of the die has very little to do with it, and you're really pushing a false causation. The thermal interface between the die and cooler will cause the die to be a few degrees hotter than the base of the cooler. Double the area at the same power dissipation and you'll halve that number, but you're still only talking about a few degrees.

 

[DaveSimmons]

You heard it here folks. AMD beat Nvidia to launch months ago!

Except, back here in reality, AMD hasn't launched at all. We don't have specs, we don't have prices, we don't have reviews. They merely showed off the card. Or are you going to now say they launched it back in Jan @ CES when they showed it playing Battlefront?

Nvidia gave prices, gave out review copies but you can't buy it. That is the definition of a paper launch.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_launch

So you can either continue trying to say that AMD launched 6 months earlier than Nvidia, or accept that it is a Paper launch.

At the top of that wiki page: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. "


This is the one cited reference for the wiki definition:

http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2004/07/4039-2/

Read it, it does not apply to this situation at all, at least as long as cards are available in quantity as promised on May 27.

 

[maddie]

AMD Radeon HD 6970 @ https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/258/radeon-hd-6970

250 W / 389 mm² = 0.642 W per mm² (stock TDP) (Over the 0.6 limit )

5970 is a dual gpu card, and as such is not included in "my metric" :.

*edit*

The more we go back and forth about this, it actually seems to be a approximation of what is really happening.. A "stock vapor-chamber blower" have a hardtime handling anything over 0.6w/mm2 it seems.
PS these old cards didn't have as advanced clockspeed-throttling as we have today... So they were bound to run hotter since they could not reduce the heat output the same way.

Probably the main reason is that in blowers, the distance air has to travel past the fins, is longer than in an open one. From ambient to exhaust is maybe 5-10 times the length of an open air, and the ability to transfer heat near the exhaust is much lower that at the fan end, if total fin area is equal. In other words, average [delta T] for the blower is lower than for the open air, given equal heat transfer area.

 

[Bacon1]

I don't see anyone here complaining that they demonstrated working cards months ago and still...



Considering we also have zero leaks about the cards so far, are you willing to bet that AMD is going to do different if they unveil the cards at Computex, a 'hard launch' instead of (your definition of) 'paper launch' - if you can't buy one in early June?

Are their reviews for Polaris? Pricing? No? Then its not launched yet, let alone paper launched.

Paper launch in itself isn't bad. Stop trying to claim its not a paper launch, when it is. You don't need to defend Nvidia.

But we have a AMD site about Polaris: http://www.amd.com/en-gb/innovations/software-technologies/radeon-polaris

There is even a little "notify me" button. There is literally no difference what nVidia did 2 weeks ago.

Except Nvidia gave out cards for reviews to review, but there are no cards to buy. Which is... the definition of a paper launch.

Did AMD give out Polaris cards for review? I seem to have missed those.

Stop trying to re-write history.

At the top of that wiki page: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. "


This is the one cited reference for the wiki definition:

http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2004/07/4039-2/

Read it, it does not apply to this situation at all, at least as long as cards are available in quantity as promised on May 27.

Uhhh I did read it. Once again, there are no cards available to buy right now yet reviews are out. Hence... PAPER LAUNCH.

Stop trying to rewrite the definition of the word guys.

Paper launch isn't some evil or doom. Its just what its called when you don't provide inventory for your items when you launch them.

A release of a product, especially a computer component, in extremely limited quantities, making it very difficult for consumers to get their hands on. The purpose of this is generally for a company to be able to say "we have the fastest chip", before they can actually produce large numbers of them.

Thus, the product isn't really "launched" to the market, it's only launched in press releases, hence "paper" launches.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=paper launch

Please find me a quote of Paper Launch that says anything other than product being launched but not available to buy because there is no supply for it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I guess we're disagreeing about this part: launched but not available to buy because there is no supply for it.

Is it "launched" this week when nvidia says the release date / launch date is 5-27?

They tell us when it will be released. If they fail at that, then yes it will be a paper launch then. They are not in any way claiming that cards are available now.

Contrast this with a real paper launch, the GTX 580:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4008/nvidias-geforce-gtx-580

 

[Bacon1]

I guess we're disagreeing about this part: launched but not available to buy because there is no supply for it.

Is it "launched" this week when nvidia says the release date / launch date is 5-27?

They tell us when it will be released. If they fail at that, then yes it will be a paper launch then. They are not in any way claiming that cards are available now.

It is the same, they've given it to reviewers, they've given prices, you can't buy it.

There is no difference between the products not being in stock, and ... not being in stock yet.

It's a paper launch because you can't buy it in stores because there isn't enough produced.

Again, not saying paper launches are inherently evil, but what would you call something that has been reviewed and marketed but not available to buy? I mean they flew in reviewers for a huge launch event.

 

[DaveSimmons]

"Reviewed before release"?

It happens all the time with video games, CPUs, NUCs .. all kinds of media, goods, services. They allow early reviews when they are confident of the product. They embargo until release day when the product is not so good.

So OK, by the definition of "has been reviewed before the announced release date" then this is a paper launch.

But by that definition it is also a common, uninteresting NON-event.

What will be interesting is if the other definition of paper launch, the one used by me, Fisher @ Ars, AT for the GTX 580 comes true: little or no supply after the claimed release date.

 

[Spanners]

I don't see anyone here complaining that they demonstrated working cards months ago and still...



Considering we also have zero leaks about the cards so far, are you willing to bet that AMD is going to do different if they unveil the cards at Computex, a 'hard launch' instead of (your definition of) 'paper launch' - if you can't buy one in early June?

How does any of that further your argument that this (Pascal) isn't a paper launch? Whatever happens or will happen with Polaris makes no difference to that. Saying they paper launched too or "are you willing to bet" they won't paper launch as well doesn't have any effect on what Nvidia has done (which for the record I don't consider some heinous crime or anything remotely close to it).

But we have a AMD site about Polaris: http://www.amd.com/en-gb/innovations/software-technologies/radeon-polaris

There is even a little "notify me" button. There is literally no difference what nVidia did 2 weeks ago.

I'm honestly amazed you could say this with a straight face. That's a preview of an upcoming architecture. Do you really need to be told why isn't "literally" the same as a production launch?

Odd.

 

[Ranulf]

How is this not a paper launch? Is it a big one, no not yet. Its only a 10 day lead time from reviews (May 6th for prices/tech show). Yet, the only card available after ten days will be the reference model of the 1080. The 1070 specs are now known but no reviews, and those cards are due for mid june release? Same for the custom cooler 1080s. So, a minimum of 4 weeks before we get reviews of custom 1080s and 1070s. Six weeks ideally before user tests and reviews.

Now we see if they end up with supply issues.

 

[showb1z]

But by that definition it is also a common, uninteresting NON-event.

This exactly.
Don't know why we have people jumping through hoops making dumb claims about Polaris though.
Might as well say Volta, Navi and Cannonlake are launched because they've shown up on official slides.

 

[zentan]

Seems like people are just looking for another reason to rip nVidia. So, it is technically a "paper launch". If they have a good supply of product on the market in a month or so, I dont see it as a big deal. What does it hurt to have specs, prices, and some tests (that admittedly should be take with plenty of skepticism). Now if you still cant buy the product 4 or 6 months from now, that is a different story. But they were upfront that the product will not be available till later.

+1

 

[Deders]

Yep they always stated it would be end of may, they were just showing us what it can do and getting reviews in early.

If it's not available for a while after the 27th, then we can start saying paper launch.

 

[Keysplayr]

So you can either continue trying to say that AMD launched 6 months earlier than Nvidia, or accept that it is a Paper launch.

And say he does. What does this gain you?

 

[alldayeveryday]

And say he does. What does this gain you?

Does it have to gain him anything?

I think he is just trying to assert that it should be considered a paper launch. I dont know why it matters(whether its nvidia or amd), i certainly dont care.

 

[railven]

Might as well throw my shoe into this:

It's definitely a paper launch.

Not sure why anyone would get peeved by this.