you are totally making stuff up. this is twice in this thread.
You havent looked back?
" I'd have to go back and check, but I believe they were already selling fully unlocked chips in Teslas/Quadros when Titan arrived"
I already posted about this and the way it was rolled out. You dont even know but you keep on insisting this complete fabricated view of a purposeful slow roll out and there is absolutely nothing as evidence to support it. It is made up, the facts dont line up with it at all.
I have made my case, twice. And yet you continue while admitting that you havent even took the time to look at how the gk110 was actually rolled out.
The first gk110 chip was the tesla K20(x). That enitire oak ridge supercomputer was filled with gimped chips. 2496cuda/2688cores enabled out of a max of 2880. Not only that, the speed was gimped to the lowest gk110 speed of all chips, 706/732mhz.
This k20(x) chip was shipping to the super computer Q4 2012, nvidia had announced both the k20 and the k20x in November of 2012, availability was an issue.
So far, in our timeline, no full gk110 chips launched. The next chip to launch is the first titan. Feb 2013. It was too, a cut down gk110.
It had the same amount of cuda cores as the K20X which is 2688 cores. The original titan ran at 837-876mhz with a TDP of 250watts
Then there was first gtx 780 (march), 3 months after titan- it had less cores than all other chips, k20, k20x, and titan. 2304cuda cores running at 863-900mhz. It had a TDP of 250watts, just like the titan and real world consumption was about on par as well. These signs point to this being a GPU made from stock piles of gk110 chips that couldnt make the cut as K20(x) or titan. This is the only explanation for the power consumption which should be lower if nvidia just gimped it for the heck of it.
The next gk110 to launch was the k6000. 3 months after the 780, 6 months after the titan, and 9 months after the first cut down gk110s came out (k20s), we finally get there. the k6000, it was the full fledged gk100 and was shipping by August 2013. We had heard rumors about this chip for awhile, but it was the end of july (2013) before nvidia finally made it official. This chip had an amassing trait not seen before. Running all 2880cores at over 900mhz.........the tdp was down to 225watts. hmmm.....isnt that interesting. You would think that something must be improving all these months later.........
Then in about a month, was the announcement of the gtx780ti. the first full fledged gk110 geforce card. It was announced in october, about a month after the k6000 and launched in the first week of November. Not only was it the first full fledged geforce gk110, it was also running at a much higher speed than any gk110 before it. 876-928mhz. And even more amassing, for all these cores......running at higher speeds........the power consumption of the 780ti was about the same as the much lowered spec titan that came out 8 months before it.
Finally, we get to the full fledged tesla gk110, it came a few weeks after the 780ti. A full 2880 cores running at a higher speed 810-875mhz with the TDP staying exactly the same 235watts as the slower and cut down k20x of a year before it.
There was no slow roll on purpose. To me, it is a theory just made up for whatever purpose they think it might serve. There are no facts to support it but when you start looking at the actual situation as it played out, the evidence supports quite the opposite.
Nvidia came into kepler straight from fermi. Fermi was a sore spot and nvidia was working hard to improve that power hog image they were ridiculed for. There was absolutely no way nvidia could have launched a full chip 780ti monster at the time they launched the gtx680. It was completely impractical to produce in volume, impractical from a yield perspective, but even if they could, the power consumption would have been worse than the original 480 was.
Count how many months it took to come out with a much improved gtx780ti and it completely aligns with the time frame of a re-spin. The same amount of time it took nvidia to fix the gf100, the same amount of time it took for the original gtx480 to launch when it was delayed 9 months.
This time though, the gk110 wasnt nearly as bad in shape as the gf100 originally was. But it was far from the real possibility of a full gk110 in the beginning of 2013. All signs point the other way. I think this time, the limited wafers really hurt just as much or more. Going with a big die on a new node is a huge huge risk.
Then there is the fact that originally, nvidia was prepping the gk104 to serve as the 670ti. There were even box covers printed, this thing was real. Nvidia had no faith in the gk104 betting Tahiti and i believe their plan was to try to hold off AMD as long as they could, to not have the performance crown for months and months. There is absolutely no way nvidia could have launched a gk110 at all a year earlier when the 680 launched march 2012. Even in november 2012, all nvidia could manage was a few k20s for the oak ridge super computer. This was cut down gk110s that were very very limited in supply.
The original titan, a cut down gk110 that came out a year after the gtx680. It sold out too, there was not capacity even then.
Look, no matter how you slice it. The slow roll theory is bunk. It just didnt happen like that. You cannot rewrite history. Why would nvidia let AMD take the performance crown with the 7970ghz if they could have launched the gk110 all along? AMD held the lead for months and months and nvidia just struggled for parity in some games. None of this makes sense unless you accept that there was real issues getting the gk110 out of the gate.
Serious question: Why do so many people here feel the need to write essays as responses to posts? Is it some kind of perception thing? This entire post could probably have been summed up in half of the length. -.-