What is Nvidia's counter to the HD 6xxx series GPU's?

What is Nvidia's counter to ATI's Southern and Northern Island HD 6xxx series graphics cards? Is a GTX 5xx series in the works? Fermi was sort of a flop, the GTX 480's are known to reach 100*C in cases with poor airflow, consume more than 300W of power, and was barely faster than the HD 5870. Although it does handle tesselation 75% better than the ATI cards.

I wonder if the GTX 580 will beat out the HD 6870 by more than a fair deal.

No one knows.

But don't be surprised if they simply rebrand some old cards and call them new.

Will Kepler and Maxwell max out Crysis? What about Four flagship Maxwell chips in SLI? Will that finally conquer Crysis?

Another one of these threads. To be honest, Nvidia doesnt have much to answer against 6xxx. Kepler will arrive later in 2011, along with Southern Islands, 7xxx. Besides a fully unlocked GF104, dual GF106 part, and maybe some rebranding and tweaking, Nvidia doesnt have much from what i see, atleast for now. You do have to realize, Fermi went pretty bad, and came late 6 months, and it still coming! A year after the release of 5xxx and Fermi is still coming, so its undisputable they are behind on time right now.

Well its a die shrink, id expect around 75% performance increase, atleast. But even Kepler didnt seem terribly impressive on that chart...

In the chart it shows Kepler with 3x the "CUDA Performance Per Watt" than fermi. Well for one, the fact they added in "Per Watt" should tell you something. They just wanted to make fermi look bad, and this look good, which is likely. If it beat it by 3x the performance, they wouldnt of had to add the watt part in. Secondly, its CUDA performance. Something that they can manipulate the most, and something that cant be compared to AMD. CUDA performance has nothing to do with real performance, so once again, i doubt they would put that if they had 3x, or even 2x the performance. Lastly, it shows Fermi in 2009. No. Fermi came out 2010, mid 2010 at that. If they have that on the chart, then they must be refering to another date, which pushes Kepler back a decent bit. So even if it is "3x the CUDA Performance Per Watt", which its a Nvidia chart, all company charts showing performance are exagerated, AMD could show the X4 955 beating the i7 930 if they wanted; its not that impressive. 3x the performance per watt, thats getting slightly better, but the fact they have to add per watt in scares me, as it might just be to make fermi look worse.

It doesnt really matter how you look at it, Fermi was a pretty big failiure until the GTX 460 came along, and even that wasnt enough. Fermi was released 6 months late, and its still being released, 12 months after. It was priced too high, ran too hot, and used too much energy, and didnt even give that big a of performance increase. Take the GTX 480 for example. Beats the 5870 by around 15%. Comparing the cheapest 480, and the cheapest 5870, (not including MIR), the cheapest 480 is $450, the cheapest 5870 is $350. So it costs 30% more, and gives 15% more performance, runs 10-15 degrees hotter, and uses over 100 watts more at load. That sound like a good deal? Not to me it doesnt! The 470 was a bad deal, but when it dropped to $300, it gets about the same price/perf as a $350 5870. So your telling me, fermi wasnt a failiure? I think even Nvidia admitted Fermi was a failiure.

Currently, theyre toying with 11nm as the cutoff point
It may come down to using a different material after this, as silicon may become too expensive to work with, or even impossible beyond this point
Theories are 7-10 years, and we will need something different

Maybe GTX 485 or GTX 495.

If nVidia has their tweaks done right, and the maturity of the 40nm process is good enough, they could go full Fermi with somewhat decent clocks

If we look at the past, its easy to see they too will need a 2 chip card once again, tho, theyve once again lost in the perf/density to their last gen, tho cleaning up with the 460 has helped in this regard
So, a fairly cleaned out full Fermi with decent clocks yes, a duo? Not so much

There was also some discrepancy as to what GPU's those actually were as well, 465's, 470's or even 480's and if it were to come to production you would have thought that would have been something said or seen by now.

Just some things to consider
First, costs
The density perf war is won by ATI, no contest
Second, power, again, won by ATI, and presents problems for both companies going dual
Going smaller has shown, unless alot if cut out of Fermi, its lil bros lose in scaling downwards in perf, unlike ATI, which shows great scaling going downwards/smaller, and even equal perf in DX11

Last but not least is cooling, where once again, ATI wins, and nVidia will surely be battling a cool, quiet scenario as compared to the red camp, which can determine just how much perf they can achieve, not whether they can do it at all

I know what the card says because I posted this way back in June when the story first came out but if you look at the PCB there almost seems to be spaces for another RAM module for each GPU and there was some other pics floating around where the GPU's were not marked up as GF100's.

I think price n perf, all will be happy

http://www.google.com/products?q=S [...] hl=en&aq=f
http://www.google.com/products?q=a [...] hl=en&aq=f
http://www.google.com/products?q=x [...] hl=en&aq=f
This thread should be titled will AMD be able to answer Nvidia. What are the rumors again, oh they are bringing some form of 3d, better dx11 performance, and possibly a card to compete with in the 200 dollar range ?
There is already a next generation card that does all that = The gtx 460

Those are all factory altered cards with 4 gigs, so no. Normal stock AMD cards max at $714.99 at newegg. And wow, so we should have just stopped at the model T? I mean, we already had a car, why improve on it? Thats exactly what your saying. Why should AMD improve on Nvidia, Nvidia already has a card out, and thats BS, we would move no where. Im getting pretty tired of hearing NV fanboys saying AMD is behind and theres already a card that does everything AMD is trying to do with Barts, and that the 460 can OC to 5870 levels. Its getting pretty old, and we all know how much BS it is.

I wasnt here, but i was "around". At that time, i think i was coasting along with a 8800. Then i got a 4890 eventually. So i cant really speak on that, but ive always considered the 295 a pretty bad deal anyway, however i dont think just because Asus makes a card and sells it for XXXX amount means Nvidia is selling it for XXXX, considering they dont have much control over it.

Yeah, last time i checked, AMD had the market share lead, so NV isnt letting AMD do anything. Intel might be letting AMD do things, but NV isnt. NV is losing as far as im concerned, but i guess that just makes me another "AMD Fanboy".

Goodness, people seems to forget that Kepler is limited by the 28nm process more than anything.

Considering how much trouble TSMC went though for 40nm, and how risk-production for 28nm is only starting in Q4, the earliest time Kepler can come out is ~April when everythings goes smoothly. Unless its a simple die-shrink, I doubt it will come before June, In which AMD should be more likely than not be ready for HD7000.

Its a fact that nVidias been extremely generous with the halo product, since theyve held it for a few short months over the last few years

Its a fact nVidia is boasting a card 1 year out already

Its a fact Jenson acts as if the in between tweaks are mere nothings, easily done, as if we will see easily affordable halo on down tweaks coming soon

Its a fact using more silicon, spending more on R&D for huge chips with lower perf/mm is more costly

Its a fact doing this means lower yields, higher costs, and sometimes late to market solutions
Other than that, nVidia is doing a good job, in consideration of all its hurdles/promises thus far, but I question to what end?

Amd is promising 10% more performance with 10% less power.
No pressure.

Well, since this is all speculation, adding over ten% shaders/plus tweaks, if you go by the 4=5 - 1.5% perf, we also dont know the cost/watt of this change, if true.
That makes a 10% perf increase using 10% less power within scope

The difference here tho is, its already being done on silicon, on a mature process, whereas nVidias proposals are reaching into the future on a new process, with new doping, being run on simulators only, provided the SW gels with the HW as well

But it could totally be an AIB product "endorsed" by Nvidia, think Ares, except more wide-market.

Neither does ANY of your math.

Maybe not, apparently Nvidia weren't too happy about the Mars card which is why it never gets listed in the driver .ini file if you go looking.