3DVagabond
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2009
- 11,951
- 204
- 106
no if you think the next release is about perf/watt
How does that justify this card now?
no if you think the next release is about perf/watt
you will get the same performance, but whit better upkeep cost, and you will run bigger simulationsHow does that justify this card now?
You know they just released a 24GB GM200 Quadro?
http://www.techpowerup.com/221113/nvidia-unveils-the-quadro-m6000-24gb-graphics-card.html
Seems strange to release a new flagship Quadro if 16nm is close to ready.
you will get the same performance, but whit better upkeep cost, and you will run bigger simulations
You know they just released a 24GB GM200 Quadro?
http://www.techpowerup.com/221113/nvidia-unveils-the-quadro-m6000-24gb-graphics-card.html
Seems strange to release a new flagship Quadro if 16nm is close to ready.
yeap you are right, the new card wont give you better performance making my first point moot (thinking about time, well this point is more complex) , but you dont know when the next quadro will launch?, so if you need and upgrade now you buy this. of course this card will not take all the market, but will make you think twice about buying an amd card, if you expect a new quadro on 2017.so why would you buy this card now though if a more efficient Pascal is about to launch? If something better is soon to launch you don't release this.
This time I believe both will use smaller chips, the density difference between 28nm and 14nm is more than 2x, power consumption and leakage is way lower and both AMD and NV will have new architectures.
All those combined will bring ~250mm2 14nm chips very close to last year 28nm 500-600mm2 performance at extremely lower power.
This time I believe both will use smaller chips, the density difference between 28nm and 14nm is more than 2x, power consumption and leakage is way lower and both AMD and NV will have new architectures.
All those combined will bring ~250mm2 14nm chips very close to last year 28nm 500-600mm2 performance at extremely lower power.
Processing unit count between architectures is not meaningful. Maxwell had less than Kepler yet crushed it. There are lots of low hanging IPC fruit in GPUs because many times it makes more sense to build out more units than to make individual units faster. But nVidia took the other route with Maxwell and perhaps AMD is too. What matters is end performance, not paper specs.
That's not even accounting for the fact that you can count processor numbers differently based on what you're counting
i wonder when you will actually provide any link about all of those things you keep saying?I for one would be a buyer for a 8GB 125W card with 980TI/Fury X performance
But unless GP104 delivers its hard to imagine. Polaris needs GDDR5X minimum at this point to even have a chance to reach it.
im sorry some posts ago you clearly stated "it will provide 50-100" not that "it needs"Its quite clear that Polaris with 256bit GDDR5 6Ghz wont do. I already got 256bit with 7Ghz today. You are only fooling yourself. But I can understand why some people are upset. Because the alternative is they have to wait till 2017 or longer.
GP100 needs to deliver 50-100% to compete with KNL. If it doesn't KNL wins and NVidia can kiss most of their Tesla business goodbye. Its already bad enough that KNL can run as a standalone system with no memory limitations.
If Polaris gets GDDR5X we can talk about its performance. If its gets regular GDDR5 as everything currently points to you can forget it.
I dont think NVidia will abandon the Tesla line. And the road to success for that is clear. If they dont deliver that its gone for them. That's as simple as it gets.
With the exception of Fiji, AMD architectures have never really gained much from memory Oc'ing. Bandwidth hasn't been the issue I don't think, using it effectively however.... A lot will obviously depend on how efficiently Polaris uses it's resources.
I for one would be a buyer for a 8GB 125W card with 980TI/Fury X performance
If that was so AMD wouldn't increase the memory speed on 390/390X. And Tahiti wouldn't beat Tonga.
And I am only talking 1080p.
https://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Nano/images/perfrel_1920.gif[/img.][/QUOTE]
Didn't say there was zero gain from more bandwidth and there have also been instances were Tonga beats Tahiti because of better tessellation for example. There certainly is more to the performance difference in those skus than just bandwidth.
Given the 980 still sells north of $450, at what price does this card make sense to you and Nvidia both?
Didn't say there was zero gain from more bandwidth and there have also been instances were Tonga beats Tahiti because of better tessellation for example. There certainly is more to the performance difference in those skus than just bandwidth.
Well considering there is no transistor cost savings with 14/16nm I am not going to fool myself on pricing. So 500-600$ if the Polaris 10(assume GDDR5X) or GP104 can deliver that.
You would pay over $500 for 15%-20% over a 980? Surely these people already own 980's...