It began with a bet.
Brian Kelleher, our top hardware engineer, bet our CEO, Jen-Hsun Huang, we could get more than 10 teraflops of computing performance from a single chip. Jen-Hsun thought that was crazy.
Well, we did it. The result is crazy. And, as of today, Jen-Hsun now owes Brian a dollar.
The new NVIDIA TITAN X, introduced today, based on our new Pascal GPU architecture, is the biggest GPU ever built. It has a record-breaking 3,584 CUDA cores.
We said our GTX 1080 delivers an irresponsible amount of performance. It was a bit reckless. But this is even more reckless.
So forget words. Here are its numbers:
11 TFLOPS FP32
44 TOPS INT8 (new deep learning inferencing instruction)
12B transistors
3,584 CUDA cores at 1.53GHz (versus 3,072 cores at 1.08GHz in previous TITAN X)
Up to 60% faster performance than previous TITAN X
High performance engineering for maximum overclocking
12 GB of GDDR5X memory (480 GB/s)
Did we go too far? Your call. Just dont call us crazy, or you might owe Brian a dollar, too.
TITAN X will be available Aug. 2 for $1,200 direct from nvidia.com in North America and Europe, and select system builders. It is coming soon to Asia.
Sounds about right.So the 1080ti should slot in about $800 - $900 then?
So the 1080ti should slot in about $800 - $900 then?
Wheres that 16gb of hbm2?
You didn't think they would give you their precious for only $1,200 did you?
Wait for the Titan X Black, with HBM2, $1999. Because why not, Intel can charge $1750 for their CPU..
It's really not AMD's fault. According to the recent Steam survey there are more users of 1070 than all the Fury based GPUs combined.Btw, I'll say it before some folks here do the obvious.
This is AMD's fault.
If only they weren't so weak and targeted mainstream first and got late with Vega. These prices are due to AMD's incapability to be competitive.
It's really not AMD's fault. According to the recent Steam survey there are more users of 1070 than all the Fury based GPUs combined.
People just don't buy AMD's high end GPUs. It makes no sense for AMD to prioritize the high end until they gain market share. It's as much our fault as it is AMD's. Companies build products for the market that's there.
Releasing enthusiast cards first hasn't been in AMD's favor for a long time. Even when they had the fastest card on the market (5870) they couldn't break 50% of market.Several users have noted though that this may work against AMD and further reinforce Nvidia's halo effect.
I highly doubt any of this actually happened (not the performance part of course the whole bet story).It began with a bet.
Brian Kelleher, our top hardware engineer, bet our CEO, Jen-Hsun Huang, we could get more than 10 teraflops of computing performance from a single chip. Jen-Hsun thought that was crazy.
Well, we did it. The result is crazy. And, as of today, Jen-Hsun now owes Brian a dollar.
Btw, I'll say it before some folks here do the obvious.
This is AMD's fault.
If only they weren't so weak and targeted mainstream first and got late with Vega. These prices are due to AMD's incapability to be competitive.
Btw, I'll say it before some folks here do the obvious.
This is AMD's fault.
If only they weren't so weak and targeted mainstream first and got late with Vega. These prices are due to AMD's incapability to be competitive.
It's not even the fully enabled GP102 chip, it's only 40% more cores than GTX 1080. Which means the 10xx series will be fairly short lived like the GTX 600 series was, and Pascal will get a rebadge / refresh with faster vram and different core clocks.
It's not a race to recover the bottom. It's a race to win the OEM notebook business and increase the TAM as they put it.. and it's a sound strategy. 15% of the top market they never had anyways.. Probably less than 3% of it.. to break their back for it makes no sense.In a race to recover the bottom, AMD gave up the middle, the top, and the ceiling.
You're right about them margins. Now they are throwing a parade for AMD making a few pennies more. NV is going to be making a few dollars more on the back of AMD and all of us.
It's been a devastating year at my job, I got enough OT just this month to buy three of these cards without sneezing. But @ $1200 per, woof!
Welps it is what it is. Though the name is fitting since this is the GTX 10 series.
It's not a race to recover the bottom. It's a race to win the OEM notebook business and increase the TAM as they put it.. and it's a sound strategy. 15% of the top market they never had anyways.. Probably less than 3% of it.. to break their back for it makes no sense.
What I've been suspecting since AMD is not showing up to the party in the same tier. By the time AMD gets cards out to compete with GTX 1080, it will be rebadged GTX 1170, cost $300-400 (MSRP, FE's +$100), and GTX 1180 will be a cut down GP102 (current Titan X) with Full GP102 still hiding until needed.
It's 28nm all over again just with worse showing on AMD side and jacked up prices on NV side.
Well that's to be seen.. I happen to think that rx480 rx470 and rx460 will sell like hotcakes. And all the mobile polaris chips for laptops..Something tells me they won't even recover that market. Maybe gain some, but definitely not what they had back in the glory days of HD 5k/6k.
If Zen doesn't bring the speed, no way in hell AMD gets back anything in the laptop/notebook market. Since I don't think AMD nor Intel allow Intel CPU + AMD dGPU.
It's not a race to recover the bottom. It's a race to win the OEM notebook business and increase the TAM as they put it.. and it's a sound strategy. 15% of the top market they never had anyways.. Probably less than 3% of it.. to break their back for it makes no sense.
It seals the deal for me; I'll either get a used GTX 980 or a 4gb RX480 now and hold off until the refreshes hit or Volta/Navi comes out. The prospect of GP104 with 12ghz G5X sounds interesting.... but the prices would need to be radically adjusted from what they are now. And who knows, maybe Polaris truly was the stop gap and Vega will be the actual leap forward we were hoping AMD would deliver. (probably not, but here's to hoping).
They are not severely less efficient. That graph doesn't account for more VRAM rx480 sports or the additional compute not used in majority of DX11 titles.The strategy fails when AMD's products are severely less efficient and going into notebooks.
You're a more positive man than I am. AMD was selling us the awesome of Polaris 10 about 7 months before it launched. Not a single word for Vega.
Prices are getting stupid. Intel is running away with them and Nvidia saw the chance.
Welps, twas fun while it lasted. Haha.