NVIDIA Pascal Thread

[tential]

Exactly, we don't need to lower power consumption, it's already very low and gamers (GP104 target) do not pay for lower power consumption, they pay for performance.

I don't think this is necessarily true at all. In fact I think many of you are making a massive error in assessing this situation and thus don't understand why the gtx 970 is the midrange king.

People use oem psus or small psus. I see people with sub 500 watt psus come in here all the time.

By having very low power consumption it means that potentially a person with an 500 watt psu could walk away with even two higher end gpus.

It just allows amd and Nvidia to sell higher priced parts to a larger market.

 

[Timmah!]

I don't think this is necessarily true at all. In fact I think many of you are making a massive error in assessing this situation and thus don't understand why the gtx 970 is the midrange king.

People use oem psus or small psus. I see people with sub 500 watt psus come in here all the time.

By having very low power consumption it means that potentially a person with an 500 watt psu could walk away with even two higher end gpus.

It just allows amd and Nvidia to sell higher priced parts to a larger market.

People cant walk away with 2 higher end gpu´s, if they have 500W oem PSU, because 100W GPU is not high end, even if its as fast as previous gen´s high end.

Its given there are people who care for power consumption too, cause they have small PSU or small case. But i am pretty sure these people are not the reason why GTX970 is the king. Its because majority cant afford 980Ti, 960s are bit crap and AMD sucks at marketing (thus people choose 970 over their cards, even when those offer better perf/price ratio).

 

[ShintaiDK]

People cant walk away with 2 higher end gpu´s, if they have 500W oem PSU, because 100W GPU is not high end, even if its as fast as previous gen´s high end.

Its given there are people who care for power consumption too, cause they have small PSU or small case. But i am pretty sure these people are not the reason why GTX970 is the king. Its because majority cant afford 980Ti, 960s are bit crap and AMD sucks at marketing (thus people choose 970 over their cards, even when those offer better perf/price ratio).

If you dont think performance/watt is the key and low power consumption. Then you are living in a bubble. Note what the focus for AMDs entire Polaris marketing is. Its low power consumption and high performance/watt.

 

[raghu78]

If you dont think performance/watt is the key and low power consumption. Then you are living in a bubble. Note what the focus for AMDs entire Polaris marketing is. Its low power consumption and high performance/watt.

perf/watt is the key because finally you are limited by how much perf you can pack into a 300w GPU (including OC) for the flagship. Maxwell was amazing because it had fantastic perf/watt and amazing OC headroom and perf scaling with OC. Polaris/Vega and Pascal will both be judged by the same perf/watt and OC headroom that Maxwell excelled in.

 

[tential]

If you dont think performance/watt is the key and low power consumption. Then you are living in a bubble. Note what the focus for AMDs entire Polaris marketing is. Its low power consumption and high performance/watt.

Enthusiasts are always a little behind in the times.
It's these same people that are confused why intel isn't focusing on making higher TDP CPUs (Although I won't be surprised if AMD attempts to fill that niche).

 

[Timmah!]

If you dont think performance/watt is the key and low power consumption. Then you are living in a bubble. Note what the focus for AMDs entire Polaris marketing is. Its low power consumption and high performance/watt.

All i am saying is, that high performance/watt is important, only because better ratio means more performance. At all the price levels. Low power consumption by itself means nothing. You might as well use Intel built in GPU and have low consumption, if thats what you care about.

BTW whats marketing of the company focuses on, is highly irrelevant. They would say whatever is convenient to them. If they could produce 600 mm2 chip with 2x more performance than anything Nvidia could offer, u can bet they would not hesitate to market like crazy, even if it was extremely power hungry...all the low power consumption talk would go out of the window instantly. Vice versa if we were talking about Nvidia.

 

[Dribble]

All i am saying is, that high performance/watt is important, only because better ratio means more performance. At all the price levels. Low power consumption by itself means nothing. You might as well use Intel built in GPU and have low consumption, if thats what you care about.

BTW whats marketing of the company focuses on, is highly irrelevant. They would say whatever is convenient to them. If they could produce 600 mm2 chip with 2x more performance than anything Nvidia could offer, u can bet they would not hesitate to market like crazy, even if it was extremely power hungry...all the low power consumption talk would go out of the window instantly. Vice versa if we were talking about Nvidia.

Only at the top end of enthusiast desktop gaming does wattage not matter, for the rest (i.e. most of it) including all of the mobile market, the lower end desktop market and the and hpc/server market performance/watt is very important -> vital.

Even for high end desktop you still have a max wattage (say 250W) so the better performance/watt the more performance you have. It's just that the team with the worse architecture can get away with silly high wattages to keep them competitive in a way that simply won't work in the other markets.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Enthusiasts are always a little behind in the times.
It's these same people that are confused why intel isn't focusing on making higher TDP CPUs (Although I won't be surprised if AMD attempts to fill that niche).

+1 :thumbsup:

 

[mysticjbyrd]

If you dont think performance/watt is the key and low power consumption. Then you are living in a bubble. Note what the focus for AMDs entire Polaris marketing is. Its low power consumption and high performance/watt.

Why is this an issue? The next generation will be ridiculously efficient regardless.

If we compare total system power consumption, there really isn't much difference now.

Enthusiasts are always a little behind in the times.
It's these same people that are confused why intel isn't focusing on making higher TDP CPUs (Although I won't be surprised if AMD attempts to fill that niche).

Isn't just about everyone here an enthusiast?

 

[Headfoot]

From a design perspective Perf/watt is highly important. From a consumer perspective, I could not care less about perf/watt (except for mining workloads...). I care about absolute perf and perf/$. Overclocking itself is totally opposed from perf/watt

 

[moonbogg]

Power consumption concerns are silly. You can buy a slow GPU and hooray for power savings. Then you accidentally leave the light on in the basement (your room) and BOOM, there goes the savings. Might as well have got a real GPU.

 

[Headfoot]

Yeah, exactly.

I do understand targeting it from a chip designers perspective though, as perf/watt helps you optimize around thermal bottlenecks implicitly and best addresses the mobile market which is the larger market. If I was the designer, I would want to focus the most design $ on the larger laptop/mobile marketspace where perf/watt matters a lot more even to consumers. HPC has real power concerns as well. That leaves the power insensitive desktop market standing nearly alone. We essentially get outvoted in the market by bigger spenders.

But that doesn't change that I don't care at all about power use as a desktop gamer, and that trying to optimize power consumption in a desktop gaming PC is absurd compared to the dozens of other places you could become more efficient in life. Like, if you really cared about efficiency, I hope you're taking the bus and not driving places and paying extra to only take direct flights...

 

[Cloudfire777]

Power consumption concerns are silly. You can buy a slow GPU and hooray for power savings. Then you accidentally leave the light on in the basement (your room) and BOOM, there goes the savings. Might as well have got a real GPU.

You and everyone in this closed off forum with the same 5-6 individuals commenting between each other are completely missing the point.

Its not about saving power and reducing the power bill. Its about showing off architectures that can do better than previous cards and competition with the same amount of energy consumed and can therefor market their architecture as superior.

The masses buy in to this marketing and that is why Nvidia sold a ton of 900 cards despite the performance was only marginally better than 600-700 series

 

[Kris194]

Two questions. How GTX x70 is mid-range by any meaning? It's high-end GPU just like x80. GTX x80Ti/Titan are GPUs for enthusiasts and x60 is mid-range. And second, if power consumption is so important then why Nvidia sold tons of GTX 470 GPUs?

Cloudfire777, marginally? GTX 970 is about 35% faster than GTX 770 in many games.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Two questions. How GTX x70 is mid-range by any meaning? It's high-end GPU just like x80. GTX x80Ti/Titan are GPUs for enthusiasts and x60 is mid-range.

The same reason a whale billionaire will blow a million dollars at a casino, and think nothing of it. Enthusiast have a different scale than average joes.

second, if power consumption is so important then why Nvidia sold tons of GTX 470 GPUs?

It seems no one cares about power consumption, until amd gets brought up, and then suddenly that extra 20 watts of power is very important.

 

[AtenRa]

GPU 1 = 100fps at 80W

perf/w = 100/80 = 1,25



GPU 2 = 250fps at 200W

perf/w = 250/200 = 1,25

 

[airfathaaaaa]

the only reason 960 existed was to showcase how nvidia was gimping 780ti

also yeah nvidia sold many 480 which they were literally used to kick start a fusion process on the sun does this mean anything?

 

[TeknoBug]

What's the expected pricetag?

 

[96Firebird]

also yeah nvidia sold many 480 which they were literally used to kick start a fusion process on the sun does this mean anything?

I don't think you know how to use the word "literally"... D:

 

[airfathaaaaa]

I don't think you know how to use the word "literally"... D:

if you had enough of them around the generated heat would have done it :sneaky:

 

[mysticjbyrd]

What's the expected pricetag?

The same amount as the last generation initially retailed for probably.

 

[3DVagabond]

Exactly, we don't need to lower power consumption, it's already very low and gamers (GP104 target) do not pay for lower power consumption, they pay for performance.

Well, that was all GM104 brought to the table. Better perf/W. nVidia made a killing with it. If nobody cares about it anymore maybe it's because nVidia doesn't feel like they will have the upper hand and their online shills aren't pushing it? I guess time will tell. I know "Slower but Smoother" and "Cool & Quiet" have fallen out of Vogue.

 

[Headfoot]

I don't think you know how to use the word "literally"... D:

"literally" is like "I could care less" it seems these days. I understand what people are trying to say but if I was not a native speaker of english i'd be really confused

 

[moonbogg]

"literally" is like "I could care less" it seems these days. I understand what people are trying to say but if I was not a native speaker of english i'd be really confused

Well ohhhhh kay here we go. I will correct it for you this time. When people say what you typed, they make a mistake. Its supposed to be "I couldn't care less". This indicates that you have so few sh&ts on offer, that you couldn't possibly care any less than you already do. As far as caring goes, you are at the bottom. You care as little as anyone could care. When you are at this point, you can then correctly say, "I couldn't care less".
If you do care about something, even a tiny bit, you can then correctly say, "I could care less" because that rightly indicates that you already care at least a little bit, therefore, you are able to care even less than you already do.

Boggrekt

 

[3DVagabond]

Well ohhhhh kay here we go. I will correct it for you this time. When people say what you typed, they make a mistake. Its supposed to be "I couldn't care less". This indicates that you have so few sh&ts on offer, that you couldn't possibly care any less than you already do. As far as caring goes, you are at the bottom. You care as little as anyone could care. When you are at this point, you can then correctly say, "I couldn't care less".
If you do care about something, even a tiny bit, you can then correctly say, "I could care less" because that rightly indicates that you already care at least a little bit, therefore, you are able to care even less than you already do.

Boggrekt

Well, you got 1/2 his point. Understanding that can you see why it might be confusing for someone who's a non native speaker of English?