Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Comparing possible Kepler info with other cards

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 87 U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 6:18:09 PM

Hey guys I just came across some info on softpedia that claims to be Kepler info and I quote:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nvidia-Kepler-GPU-Specs-...

"The specifications of Nvidia’s upcoming next-generation GPUs, code named Kepler, were allegedly revealed by a recent report to hit the Web, together with their prices and approximate release dates.

This info came into the possession of the Lenzfire Website from unnamed sources, and describes in great detail the GK100-series graphics cores that Nvidia prepares to launch in the next two quarters of this year.

According to this report, the first GPU to arrive will be the GK110, which will be utilized by both the GeForce GTX 680 and GTX 670.

Nvidia Kepler aka GTX 600 series performance and prices
Enlarge picture
Despite being manufactured using TSMC’s 28nm process, the GK110 will be a particularly large chip, since it will measure no less than 550mm², 30mm² more than the current GF110 GPU, fabricated utilizing the foundry’s 40nm process technology.

As far as performance is concerned, the high-end GeForce GTX 680 is said to be up to 45% faster than AMD Radeon HD 7970, while costing $100 more ($649 for the GTX 680 vs. $549 for the HD 7970).

The slightly slower GTX 570 based on the same GK110 core is also said to be faster than AMD’s Radeon HD 7970, by approximately 20%.

Nvidia Kepler aka GTX 600 series specifications
Enlarge picture
Both of these parts will be released by Nvidia in April. Later during that month, the Santa Clara-based chip maker will launch the GTX 660 graphics card, which according to Lenzfire, delivers about the same performance as the current GTX 580, but at a $319 price point (243 EUR).

The two other graphics cards that Nvidia plans to release in the second quarter of this year are the Kepler-based GTX 650 and the GTX 640, while in Q3 of 2012 the chips maker will fill most of the gaps remaining in its 600-series lineup with the GTX 660 Ti and GTX 6540 Ti.

The third quarter of this year will also reportedly mark the introduction of the dual-GPU GTX 690, which is said to carry a whopping $999 (761 EUR) price tag. So far, the info provided by Lenzfire wasn’t confirmed by Nvidia, so take it with the usual grain of salt."


Like the article says, I take this with a grain of salt, but I can't shake the feeling that regardless of the truthfulness of this info that Nvidia really has something cooking for AMD. Its like the feeling I had about how much of a failure Bulldozer would be before it came out regardless of AMD's and other people's claims. We see Nvidia using much larger dies than AMD uses so it's natural for AMD to be out-performed, but this is ridiculous. If the part about the GTX 660 being comparable to the GTX 580 in performance and being priced around $320 is to be believed then we would need to be ready to come to terms with the possibility of AMD currently being out-gunned in both value and performance. The 7970 might be around 20% faster than the GTX 660 in this case, but I'd buy the 660 just because of it's incredible value. It would have similar value to the 6800/6950 cards and the GTX 560/560 TI without sacrificing performance to be priced that low.

Looking at the current cards, if power usage is similar to the cards they replace (model number wise) then the GTX 690 may still perform like the 7990 should so it would be a similar situation to what we have now with Radeon 6000 vs GTX 500, just even worse for AMD. These cards would be absolute beasts, handling 1440p 3D or full eyefinity sized resolutions with only one GPU if Nvidia allows a GPU to handle three or more displays at once.

Why AMD, why don't you use large enough dies to get products that can directly compete with Nvidia's best? Why did you think it was acceptable to price the 7900 cards where you have them now? Why do you claim to be the best in graphics when we all know that you're only the best because of the short time between launching the 7900 cards and Nvidia launching Kepler? Why do so many people fail to see this, they just see what they want to see and refuse to believe anything that doesn't fit into their little world, like over-zealous Apple fans? I preferred AMD, but with their poor competitive stance and poor pricing it's getting harder to justify not going to Nvidia. At least with the Radeon 6000s vs GTX 500s the difference isn't too great and prices are good in the main stream gaming area on both sides. I haven't had a Nvidia card I paid for in a while, but if there's any truth to the GTX 660, that might change if AMD doesn't lower their prices by a huge margin.

I feel that the supposed prices for the cards claimed to be released are decent for their claimed performance. They are only so high because they are so much faster than anything we have... If the 660 is as fast as the 580 which is almost as fast as the 7950 and it would only cost ~$320 then value has gone up since the last generation and substantially at that. I'm surprised that it was Nvidia that may make the first move on value, usually we watch AMD play this part cine they tend to not have the best stuff.

Does anyone have anything they'd like to say about this, anything to discuss?
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 8:01:56 PM

Looks like AMD still wins in terms of price/performance ratio. Plus heat and power draw. No doubt Nvidia is going to have a more powerful cards but AMD still has mid-range and low end locked up--you know, the cards where people care about price and power consumption. And that's where the bulk of sales are.

And 7900 cards are priced high because they are new and have no competitors...
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 8:08:58 PM

We don't know who wins price/performance ratio until Kepler comes out and gives 7900 cards some competition. I know why 7900 is so expensive, but I can't condone their prices being as high as they are regardless of that.

We also don't know about power draw yet so it's also to early to draw conclusion about that, unless I missed something here.

Yes, AMD may have low and mid end locked up now, but with the new cards our idea of mid-end will also increase, and I think of the 6800/6950 as relatively mid-end at this point, or at least with 7900 and GTX 600 being considered.

And Nvidia's 560 ti being so competitive with the Radeon 6950 in both power usage and performance and price, I'm not sure about the mid-end being locked up much longer. Low end, however, will be owned by AMD/Intel for some time.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 8:14:58 PM

You don't have to condone the prices at all. Almost every 7900 card is sold out on Newegg, so they are selling just fine.

Nvidia almost always uses way more power.

The 6950 is not a mid range card. The 6770 is mid range.

The 560ti is not a mid range card.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 9:20:42 PM

Did you read my whole post? I said that they will be more mid-range when you consider the GTX 600 and Radeon 7000 cards.

I don't care if Nvidia almost always uses more power than AMD, the 560 TI and it's competition, the Radeon 6950, use similar amounts of power and the GTX 600 cards aren't released yet so we really don't know how they will turn out, no matter how much we speculate there.

If the GTX 660 is as fast as the GTX 580 and will sell for $320, GTX 570's current price range (a little below it in fact), then how much will a currently ~$190-$240 card (560 TI and 6950) perform then? How much less will current cards in that price range cost later?

7950/7970 can sell as much as AMD and the card makes want them to. That doesn't make them have any more or less value then they should.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 9:40:06 PM

They are not mid range cards now, and never will be. They'll be discontinued before they reach that point.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 9:52:05 PM

Radeon 4800 cards are mid-range, they've been discontinued, but they still cover ebay pages. They will be mid-range some day, who knows how soon. Compared to the GTX 600 cards they are mid-range.

A card doesn't need to still be being made to be mid-range. Even then, I once again compare them against the upcoming cards. The Radeon 7770 is about as fast as a Radeon 6850, is the 7770 not mid-range? are the GTX 550 and 550 TI not mid-range? Will we consider the 650 and 650 TI mid-range?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 9:59:00 PM

Do you compare the 4800 to the 550ti? No, that's absurd. They don't make it anymore, it doesn't count in this whole AMD vs Nvidia comparison. Ebay sucks anyways, who cares that you can buy a used GPU off there? Still has no effect on AMD vs Nvidia.

You can't compare between different generations of card. Its 6000 vs 500, 7000 vs 600.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 10:23:07 PM

What do you mean I can't compare different generations? That's absurd. It doesn't matter if it's being made now, the Radeon 4800 series of cards performs in line with mid-range cards today and thus can be called mid-range nowadays. Telling me I can't compare two or more cards is ridiculous, I can compare any cards I want too.

If I wanted to compare the Rage 128 to the GTX 590, I could. It wouldn't do anyone much good, but I could do it, as could anyone else.

Why does Ebay suck? Do you have a problem with buying things from other people? I've used Ebay several times and never had a problem. I've had used parts that weren't from Ebay, such as my case, hard drive, the CPU in one of my other machines, and more that were given to me by friends.

You really don't seem to be very reasonable. First you tell me I can't compare video cards just because they aren't from the same generation, then you inexplicably tell me that Ebay sucks and it doesn't matter that you can use it to buy things. By the way, when was this supposed to just be AMD vs Nvidia?

Also, how does that have no effect on it? If I could buy a Radeon 5970 on Ebay for $400 or cheaper and it gives me similar performance to the GTX 580, does that not matter? I think it should since GTX 580s tend to go for more money than that.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 10:58:40 PM

It was AMD vs Nvidia when you said "How can AMD recover." You're the one being unreasonable. I counter your Nvidia fanboyism with some hardcore AMD fanboyism (even though in reality I couldn't care less). I just hate hearing this sensationalist crap of "OMG AMD IS GONNA DIE OMG"
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 11:06:25 PM

Nvidia fanboyism? I haven't had a Nvidia card in years, my only one is my 6800 GT that was given to me by a friend. I've been using Ati/AMD for years and I'm a Nvidia fanboy? I practically lamented the apparently increasing gap between AMD's and Nvidia's best single GPU cards of the next generation.

I never said AMD is gonna die, why would they? You seem to be one of those people whom just hears and sees what they want to. What have I said that even implies I'm a fanboy of either camp? I acknowledged both sides and pointed out that AMD was getting weaker if this leaked info is to be trusted.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 11:14:36 PM

I also agreed that AMD owns Nvidia in the low and mid end, as we consider it with the 6000 and 500 cards. Nvidia either can't compete there or refuses too compete there.

I tend to prefer AMD over Nvidia. I see a threat to my personal preference and if there is sufficient reason to cross over, I will do so. I already need to come to terms with AMD's failure to compete against Intel.
m
0
l
!