This is all absolutely seat of the pants, but based on the demo RTG showed of Polaris playing Battlefront at the same settings and framerate as a 950 while consuming 86W at the wall vs 140W, it's likely P10 is at least twice as efficient as a 950 in certain situations. A stock 280X is about 30% faster than a stock 950, and a stock 950 pulls about 70% more power than a 750Ti.
I don't see a strong reason at this point why nVidia would have worse perf/watt than AMD in the next gen, so I wouldn't see it being big stretch for around 280X performance within a 75W envelope, especially in 2017 games.
What I'm really curious about is the CPU. Because with all the fixed consumption of other components in that 86W, there's plenty of room for it to be at least twice as efficient, and it could be a good bit more depending on CPU. Personally I'm betting on something like a mobile chip.
The system specs were listed, it was a 4790k.
This has been pointed out many times and is a common observation now ever since the 600 series screwed everything to hell. I don't know why you are pretending like this isn't the case. You seem to be interested in nit picking my post and pointing out little flaws when none of that crap takes away from the main point that was being made.
Interesting. It looks like they did drop the power limit. I wonder how low that put the wattage.
Also am I way off the mark or does that look like voltage that would normally be considered an undervolt?
Probably because you are just making stuff up. The 680 was the first 600 series card Nvidia released. No faster single GPU 600 series card was ever released. The original Titan was the first 700 series card Nvidia released. Nothing completely surpassed it (though the 780Ti got close) until the Titan Black was released a year later. Which means that the 900 series is the only series where Nvidia released a mid level card before the flagship. There has been no trend established here like you are tying to claim. And it also needs to be noted that the release date for the flagship Titan X was not pushed back to make that schedule possible. Nvidia moved up the 980 release to late 2014. So you're complaining that with the current series Nvidia accelerated the release schedule for the mid level cards. That's a rather peculiar complaint.
Probably because you are just making stuff up. The 680 was the first 600 series card Nvidia released. No faster single GPU 600 series card was ever released. The original Titan was the first 700 series card Nvidia released. Nothing completely surpassed it (though the 780Ti got close) until the Titan Black was released a year later. Which means that the 900 series is the only series where Nvidia released a mid level card before the flagship. There has been no trend established here like you are tying to claim. And it also needs to be noted that the release date for the flagship Titan X was not pushed back to make that schedule possible. Nvidia moved up the 980 release to late 2014. So you're complaining that with the current series Nvidia accelerated the release schedule for the mid level cards. That's a rather peculiar complaint.
Probably because you are just making stuff up. The 680 was the first 600 series card Nvidia released. No faster single GPU 600 series card was ever released. The original Titan was the first 700 series card Nvidia released. Nothing completely surpassed it (though the 780Ti got close) until the Titan Black was released a year later. Which means that the 900 series is the only series where Nvidia released a mid level card before the flagship. There has been no trend established here like you are tying to claim. And it also needs to be noted that the release date for the flagship Titan X was not pushed back to make that schedule possible. Nvidia moved up the 980 release to late 2014. So you're complaining that with the current series Nvidia accelerated the release schedule for the mid level cards. That's a rather peculiar complaint.
I'd be shocked if they released the full capabilities of the Pascal architecture up front. They stopped doing that a long time ago because it made too much sense and was too good for the consumer in terms of price/perf.
They started this with the 680 when they realized their "mid range" was performing every bit as well as AMD's high end and could charge a high end price. What started this trend can just as easily end it. If AMD comes out of the gate with a product that only NVidia's high end offerings can compete with, nVidia will have no choice but to release their high end offerings ASAP.
Since we are all theorizing on why GK104 was released as a 680, here is another angle...
Low yields on such a large die due it 28nm being a new process, along with the 18,688 GK100 GPUs that went to Oak Ridge. Note that article was written ~6 months after the release of the 680, and about ~6months before the release of the original GeForce Titan. Maybe 18k+ GPUs isn't that much, I have no idea. But it seems like a lot to me, meaning all the viable GPUs that could have gone towards consumer GK110 were used up at Oak Ridge.
At the time I was running an underpowered PSU. I've since replaced it, but overall lower power = more reliability and less trouble.
What kind of messed up logic is that. lol
Pascal based Titan? I will be very much surprised if it comes in second quarter.Looks like 4Q 2016 but who knows. The only products that would be out by June seem like the GP100 Titan and maybe some portion of Polaris.
Is there an event that Nvidia are likely to announce Pascal release schedule? If so when is it?
The next big NVidia event is GTC: http://www.gputechconf.com/
Do you think it's likely they will announce a release schedule at the event? Anyone's guess?