that price.. lol

ill stick to my 7950

KEPLER 2XX IS COMIN………..I TOLD YOU

it won’t, the games aren’t optimized enough

Does this remind anyone of the GTX 280 vs the G92? Where the GTX 280 was in fact just larger version G92 chip with the same arichtecture and manufaturing process, but on a larger piece of silicon. Unlike the GTX 580 which was a refined version of the Fermi arichtecture in the GTX 480. Rather the GTX 780 and possibly the GTX 770, will be the GK110 which is just a larger verison GK104 in the GTX 680/670/660ti without any real architectural improvements in the Kepler design, which could provide more performance per CUDA core. Consequently, we are unlikely see to a new midrange chip like a GK114. More likely they will release a rebranded GK104 possibly as their GTX 760ti/760/750 to cover their midrange offerings. This would be like just G92 chip which served as the 8800GT/GTS, 9800GT/GTX, and GTS250 as the midrange offering to the GTX 280/260. Folks assumed the GTX 280 would be super pricey and power hungry because of the size of its wafer and its 512-bit memory bus, seeming to double everything that was in the G92. Now the GK110 is here with nearly double everything in the GK104, but not quite enough to put it at GTX 690 performance levels. It just seems to me that you could just get more bang for your buck getting a GTX 690 which can be had for around $850 on ebay. Hopefully the end result of a GTX 780 would be a drop in prices of exisitng GK104 parts making the prospect of doubling up easier for SLI with your GTX 680/670 cards. OF course, I look forward to seeing reviews on the GTX 780 Tiitan whenever it comes out, to see if it can exceed my expectactions.

In many ways, GTX780Ti feels like what the ‘real’ GTX680 should have been. Remember that GTX280 had about a 20% lead over 4870, GTX480 had a 15-20% lead over the 5870, GTX580 had a 15-20% lead over the 6970, but now GTX680 is actually 7-11% slower than HD7970GE. Somehow NV went from leading by 15-20% on the high-end to losing this generation. I can’t imagine NV giving up the performance crown for single GPUs unless they had to or it was financially more advantageous to do so than the PR and related sales generated by a class leading high-end single GPU. 28nm wafer constrains likely contributed to NV delaying its sub $300 desktop GPUs by 6 months (GTX660Ti and below). As a result, it doesn’t seem far fetched that NV pushed back GK110 by 1 year due to wafer constraints, high 28nm wafer costs, and yield issues associated with manufacturing a 550mm2 GK110 chip. Remember 7800GTX 512MB? It was a monster upgrade over 7800GTX 256MB and that card cost $700:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1861/3

I also know what you mean regarding G92 –> GTX280. What I do recall about GTX280 is that it launched at $649 and GTX285 came out about 7 months later for $399, and then 9 months after GTX280 came out, HD4890 launched for $259 with similar performance:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2745

I feel like Nvidia will milk GTX780Ti at a very high price due to no direct competition from AMD’s HD8970, and then by Q1/early Q2 2014 we’ll see Maxwell on 20nm deliver that level of performance for just $499. Every time NV released an uber high-end $650-830 priced card (7800GTX 512MB, 8800 Ultra, GTX280), the price depreciation on that level of performance was dramatic. I could swallow $649 GTX780Ti but $899 is crazy talk considering Maxwell / Volcanic Islands are 20nm GPUs expected in 2014 and should level this chip. It almost seems like GTX780Ti might be a limited run card like 7800 GTX 512MB was. Thoughts?

In that test are old nV drivers
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/VTX3D/Radeon_HD_7870_XT_Black/5.html

and again Ghz Edion is 5% faster than GTX680 in world populary res 1080p also in same test with old nvidia drivers!
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/VTX3D/Radeon_HD_7870_XT_Black/images/perfrel_1920.gif

So with new nV drivers GTX680 wil be even faster than Ghz Edition!

Second point.

According
to techpowerup and again in that same test GTX690 is faster than GTX680
77% and at the and GTX780 Ti will be probably faster than GTX 680 about
62% !So your mathematics is wrong!

Realistically 15-20% more gaming performance of the outgoing GTX 680? I will pass!

Are you sure?In FC3 nVidia is faster

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,6.html

And what about Alan Wake,Crysis, especially Sniper Elite V2,Metro 2033,F1 2012 all favor amd,even

Stalker : Call of Pripyat etc.

Greater gap?Where?Yeah,you talking about amd I understand now :)

December 4, 2012. Since then FC3 got a patch. HD7970GE > GTX680 in Far Cry 3 in IQ:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/12/17/far_cry_3_video_card_performance_iq_review/4

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Far-Cry-3-PC-217540/Tests/Far-Cry-3-Test-Grafikkarten-CPU-Benchmarks-1036726/

Plus, HDAO IQ/performance in FC3 is completely borked on the 680, rendering incorrectly last time I checked.

The TPU test averages are fair since they include games that run faster on NV cards too (Borderlands 2, Dragon Age II, Total War Shogun 2, etc.).

If you think TPU’s charts are biased to favor AMD, GameGPU ran tests on December 27, 2012 with 310.70s and Cats 12.11s:

1080P
HD7970 GE = 543 fps total vs. GTX680 = 497 fps total (or HD7970GE leads by 9%)

1600P
HD7970 GE = 331 fps total vs. GTX680 = 301 fps total (or HD7970GE leads by 10%)

http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2012-goda-protiv-sovremennykh-videokart-test-gpu.html

900$ for GTX 780?! It’s gonna be 700$ for GTX 770 and 400$ for GTX 760, isn’t it?! It reminds me the GTX 200-Series and 8800-Series.
No, its time I’d better take the HD 8970 3 GB for 500$ even with 20% less performance but with 400$ lower price. Then I just overclock the HD 8970 and get almost the same or even a bit higher level of performance in most games.

GK104 scales well if you overclock the memory too :) The problem is to get it to overclock high, you need to volt-mod it. If you take something like an Asus Matrix HD7970 Platinum @ 1300mhz+, a GTX680 OC in the hands of most of us will lose.

85 % of GTX690 perf = 0.85 x 2 of 680 perf, so we can hope between 40 and 70 % more perf than GTX680

The thing most people are missing is the fact that this is on a 384 bit BUS with the same 7ghz capable memory that is currently being used on Kepler cards. Take that GPU core to 1ghz and the VRAM to 7ghz and I would bet it matches (or beats) the 690 in high IQ settings at 1920×1200 and higher. The 256 bit Bus choked Kepler and this is going to let the architecture stretches its legs a little bit, it is a shame the price premium for that stretching though.

If this chip can overclock to 1Ghz, it will be a monster. I don’t think anyone is denying that or ignoring this possibility. The K20X 2688 CUDA core part is clocked at 732mhz though with just 5.2Ghz GDDR5 and that has a 235W TDP. It’ll be interesting to see how they can ship a 1Ghz 2688 CUDA core GK110 with 7Ghz GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus and retain the same 235W TDP. I am pretty sure the actual consumer card will be clocked well below 1Ghz. If NV locks out voltage control, that would suck.

a big thing to take into consideration is the fact that sli sucks. This will be just one chip so it wont have to deal with all SLI’s mess

if you kids actually think nvidia has managed to close the VERY clear gap in performance AND price between their products and AMD’s….Sorry to disappoint you.

Nvidia has one strength: Marketing. It works very well for selling cards to little uneducated nitwits.

1. people have expected ATI/AMD cards to by cheaper since AMD bought ATI.
2. Nvidia’s pricing has always been higher for the same period of time.
3. you mean for $350 after whole 700 line released? (should be if even only 10% pref increase)
4. we have been “price gouged” but only because of the relatively cheap prices ATI/AMD has offered for 4000/5000/6000 series

it has been determined that the kepler and GCN are architectural equal in performance for clockspeed.

He has a point for regarding NV’s pricing for the last 7 months. When the faster HD7970Ghz launched, it sold for less $ than 680 and later came with 3 free games. Right now you can get a Sapphire’s 1Ghz HD7970 ~ GTX680 in performance for $370 but the cheapest GTX680 on Newegg is $450. That means you are paying $80 more for the same performance if you go NV. For $450 you can buy 1100mhz HD7970s which are faster than the 680. If you buy a 680, you pay more for similar performance or you can get more performance with AMD at the same price level. More power to NV for being able to charge $80+ premiums. For overclockers, NV has no card similar to GTX460Ti this generation either. $280 HD7950 took over that role and HD7950 @ 1100-1125mhz = GTX680. Yet NV sold way more cards this generation and 660Ti did way better than the 7950 (!). You are saying NV’s marketing isn’t a factor?

I don’t disagree with the points you made. I just think people have this unrealistic expectation that just because the graphics cards are branded AMD that they should automatically costs hundreds of dollars less than NV’s. To me I don’t distinguish AMD’s vs. ATI’s GPUs; it’s more a matter of performance. If AMD’s HD8970 is slower than NV’s $499 card, then of course it should cost less. I guess that’s the other downside of undercutting your competitor – people start to think your brand is a more budget brand.

Regarding die sizes:
8800GTX ($599 launch price) = 484mm2
GTX280 ($649 launch price, 1 month later dropped to $499) = 576mm2
GTX480 ($499 launch price) = 526mm2
GTX580 ($499 launch price) = 520mm2

vs.

GTX680 ($499 launch price) = 294mm2
Titan (rumored $899 launch price) = rumored at 550mm2

NV raised the price per mm2 through the roof starting this generation. That’s my point that AMD got 99% of the blame but NV screwed everyone just as badly, if not worse. On paper a 256-bit GTX680 looks like what GTX660Ti should have been, a $299-349 card.

If you could theoretically make 2x GTX680 as 1 solid die = 588mm2, and assuming same $499×2 = $999. NV is barely giving a $100 discount on a per mm2 basis despite GK104 28nm die being nearly 12 months old by the time Titan launches. This card should be $649, $699 tops. It doesn’t make sense for NV to claim that well because it offers 85% of the performance of a GTX690, then $899 is a reasonable price.

thought they were approx equal? can you tell me which is better by approx how much please!
i swear last i heard/saw GCN led by a margin on error on average at the same clockspeed….

thank you!

A 690 is also SLI.

yes, i said that, but 15% faster means that depending on what games u play (if nvidia favored is what i mean) than the 690 will do much better.

comparing the GK104 and the Tahiti XT at the same clockspeed its approx like comparing Kepler and GCN architect .