Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

110 kepler

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Nvidia
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 20, 2012 5:19:55 PM

So far i remember, the Nvidia 670 and the 680 should have the kepler 110 but they have the kepler 104.
So does someone knows when the gonna use the Kepler 110 on the videocards?
Because now i thinking to wait to replace my old 5850 until they gona use the kepler110.
I hope some of you can help me.

More about : 110 kepler

a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2012 5:36:26 PM

The GK110 is the architecture for the workstation cards. Nvidia Quadro something or other. It wont be available for the consumer as a video card from what I understand.
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2012 5:37:17 PM

next generation most likely but not really as well. the gk110 is pretty much the most complex consumer chip out there with 7.1 billion transistors. it isnt cheap. their tesla k20 (using gk110 chip) will cost around 2000-3000 a piece
Related resources
August 20, 2012 5:48:48 PM

They decided that rather than producing an awesome GPU, they would just sit around and screw customers by selling their $300 chip as a $500 one because they couldn't get their manufacturing act together.

There is no news about GK110 beyond the workstation cards.
a c 176 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 6:06:41 PM

Considering how well GK104 performs, does it matter? The only thing GK110 would have on it is the non crippled FP64bit abilities. Totally useless for gaming. If you want to upgrade your 5850 I would do so now. Or in a few weeks time to see if/how the GTX660TI shakes things up. No real reason to wait for GK110.

The only reason I care about GK100 is it shows how bad things are for Nvidia at the moment. GK100 was scraped altogether. GK110 was pushed back. GK104 became the new "big card" instead of the staying as the midrange. Nvidia has been having a lot of issues with the manufacturing and the problems with GK100/110 should be showing them they need to change things up. Instead they blame TSMC and keep plowing ahead. But for an end user this all means nothing.
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2012 6:07:34 PM

BigMack70 said:
They decided that rather than producing an awesome GPU, they would just sit around and screw customers by selling their $300 chip as a $500 one because they couldn't get their manufacturing act together.

There is no news about GK110 beyond the workstation cards.


+1

I agree with you 100%. I highly doubt I will be purchasing anything from Nvidia again. I don't like that they would strip out a majority of the number crunching ability of the card just so they can make more $$ from corporations and screw the normal customer. I used to purchase their cards religiously for number crunching for Seti and other projects, now I will not. I am not going to pay $2000+ for a video card just to waste more money in electricity/heat to work on a free project. It looks like my GTX 480's will have to last.
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2012 6:10:25 PM

nvidia can always make their cards adapted for gaming like their gf100 and gf110. yeah. there is no real reason to wait since hardware revamps itself every year. if you need a upgrade, do it
a c 147 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 6:13:27 PM

vrumor said:
The GK110 is the architecture for the workstation cards. Nvidia Quadro something or other. It wont be available for the consumer as a video card from what I understand.


GK110 still uses Kepler architecture the same used in GK104. the difference is GK110 will be geared more towards GPGPU application just like GF100/110 did. so will it be used on geforce products? that's remain to be seen. at the very least there is no words from nvidia themselves that GK110 will be made for professional market only. the only concern was the demand might be high on the professional space that the capacity provided by TSMC will not be enough to meet the demand on time hence the rumor about the whole available chip will be reserved for Quadro or Tesla which also leads to the speculation about nvidia will not make GK110 based Geforce because of the tight supply

TheBigTroll said:
next generation most likely but not really as well. the gk110 is pretty much the most complex consumer chip out there with 7.1 billion transistors. it isnt cheap. their tesla k20 (using gk110 chip) will cost around 2000-3000 a piece


cheap or not i'm sure they won't pop a 2k-3k price on geforce part.
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2012 6:17:14 PM

they wont. they are most likely to get rid of those that half of their units not working but still it would be more powerful than a gk104
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 83 Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 6:17:50 PM

If you are only using the card for gaming, I wouldn't be all that worried about the GK110. It actually might help a tad in a rare few gaming situations, like Metro 2033, which uses Directcompute and likely why AMD does better on it, but for the most part, gamers don't need those GPGPU stuff. In some cases, PhysX servers that purpose.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 6:18:57 PM

ahnilated said:
+1

I agree with you 100%. I highly doubt I will be purchasing anything from Nvidia again. I don't like that they would strip out a majority of the number crunching ability of the card just so they can make more $$ from corporations and screw the normal customer. I used to purchase their cards religiously for number crunching for Seti and other projects, now I will not. I am not going to pay $2000+ for a video card just to waste more money in electricity/heat to work on a free project. It looks like my GTX 480's will have to last.


Its not Nvidia's fault that people were stupid enough to pay the asking price for the 7970 now is it ?
What would you do ? AMD put out a card that has basically no perf increase due to arch or shrink yet charge an arm and a leg for it and you as Nvidia are sitting there with a GPU chip that out performs it.
Sell it for mid range prices or undercut and outperform the opposition at the oppositions own price point ?

Mactronix :) 
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 6:23:36 PM

There is no need for GK110 in the consumer market place at the moment.
Much like Intel Nvidia find themselves in a position where AMD are not competitive with them and so they are keeping the better hardware in the professional segment and at the same time being able to charge top dollar for them.

As some have said its possible GK110 may make it through eventually in some form or other, for now though its a case of why sell a GPU for consumer gaming money ? even at the top end it dosent come close to the return they get on professional cards.

Mactronix :) 
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 83 Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 6:29:03 PM

mactronix said:
There is no need for GK110 in the consumer market place at the moment.
Much like Intel Nvidia find themselves in a position where AMD are not competitive with them and so they are keeping the better hardware in the professional segment and at the same time being able to charge top dollar for them.

As some have said its possible GK110 may make it through eventually in some form or other, for now though its a case of why sell a GPU for consumer gaming money ? even at the top end it dosent come close to the return they get on professional cards.

Mactronix :) 


There is also a good chance that the extras that come with the GK110 won't even translate to improved gaming performance. Not many games use GPGPU.
August 20, 2012 7:02:34 PM

If Nvidia actually had got their act together and released GK110 and crushed the competition into the ground like it was rumored they were going to do, would any of you Nvidia apologists be making the argument that "there's no place for GK110 in the market"?

Didn't think so. :non: 

There's no way that Nvidia fanboys can get around this: Nvidia had a chance to do something EPIC, and instead they did something that was just good enough. I am NOT defending AMD or saying AMD is better (they're the ones who put themselves in a position where they *could* have been smashed by Nvidia, after all) - I am only saying that Nvidia is busy giving consumers the shaft with the GTX 6xx series.
a c 147 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 7:41:59 PM

pleasing the fanboy will not make them profit. they saw 7970 performance and figure it out they could sell their supposed $300 GK104 as a $500 part so they can maximize their profit margin. the story will only be different if AMD holds 70% of the discrete gpu market.
August 20, 2012 7:51:01 PM

I'm not saying it's a bad business decision (although they lost my business because of it) - I'm saying that they're screwing their customers and sending them away with a smile on their face after doing it. Most people don't even realize they're being screwed out of what Nvidia could have given them.

I don't mind the "it was the smart business move" argument, no matter how sleazy I think it is, but I can't stand when nvidia fanboys/apologists try to act like Nvidia gave customers got a good deal here.
a c 176 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 7:54:22 PM

Going from what I said earlier, you're talking about a part that doesn't exist yet. GK100 failed. Completely. Never happened. GK110 isn't out yet. There are probably a few in labs being tested, but they aren't out. Did you really want Nvidia to sit and wait for GK110? 6+mos to go by and not sell any new cards? I think they got lucky that the 7970 only hit the performance they did or then Nvidia would be in real trouble.
a c 147 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 8:02:02 PM

^ agreed. personally i believe that if the 7970 were 40%-80% faster than GTX580 nvidia will release the GK100 as a geforce part regardless it being broke or not
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 8:24:18 PM

4745454b said:
Going from what I said earlier, you're talking about a part that doesn't exist yet. GK100 failed. Completely. Never happened. GK110 isn't out yet. There are probably a few in labs being tested, but they aren't out. Did you really want Nvidia to sit and wait for GK110? 6+mos to go by and not sell any new cards? I think they got lucky that the 7970 only hit the performance they did or then Nvidia would be in real trouble.


I have not really been following this that close. Can you share some links regarding the GK110 please.

Mactronix :) 
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 8:24:48 PM

BigMack70 said:
I'm not saying it's a bad business decision (although they lost my business because of it) - I'm saying that they're screwing their customers and sending them away with a smile on their face after doing it. Most people don't even realize they're being screwed out of what Nvidia could have given them.

I don't mind the "it was the smart business move" argument, no matter how sleazy I think it is, but I can't stand when nvidia fanboys/apologists try to act like Nvidia gave customers got a good deal here.



Sorry, I just plain don't understand your view point here.
Maker A builds a sub par part and charges way too much money for it.
Maker B builds a part that outperforms it and sells it for cheaper.

Yet you sat its Maker B that is in the wrong ? :pt1cable:  Sorry that logic just fly.


Mactronix :) 
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2012 8:26:08 PM

TheBigTroll said:
next generation most likely but not really as well. the gk110 is pretty much the most complex consumer chip out there with 7.1 billion transistors. it isnt cheap. their tesla k20 (using gk110 chip) will cost around 2000-3000 a piece



Complex doesnt mean superior, their Tesla cards cost thousands and a 7970 costs around 400 and provides more compute power.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 8:31:18 PM

redeemer said:
Complex doesnt mean superior, their Tesla cards cost thousands and a 7970 costs around 400 and provides more compute power.


Really ? I seriously doubt that.

Mactronix :) 
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2012 8:32:19 PM

4745454b said:
Going from what I said earlier, you're talking about a part that doesn't exist yet. GK100 failed. Completely. Never happened. GK110 isn't out yet. There are probably a few in labs being tested, but they aren't out. Did you really want Nvidia to sit and wait for GK110? 6+mos to go by and not sell any new cards? I think they got lucky that the 7970 only hit the performance they did or then Nvidia would be in real trouble.



These big graphic companies kind of approximately know where the competitors performance is going to be in regards to new architectures. You can build the most powerful chip you want but if its design are going to give you manufacturing problems than its considered failed like you said(GK100). AMD new exactly what they were doing with Tahiti and managed to get a whole line of 28nm parts out with hast, where Nvidia it took them a whole year.
August 20, 2012 8:37:47 PM

mactronix said:
Sorry, I just plain don't understand your view point here.
Maker A builds a sub par part and charges way too much money for it.
Maker B builds a part that outperforms it and sells it for cheaper.

Yet you sat its Maker B that is in the wrong ? :pt1cable:  Sorry that logic just fly.


Mactronix :) 


That's because you're only looking at the product and press releases and not the design of the chips.

Maker A builds a high end part that isn't too impressive (due to allowing a monkey to determine stock clock speeds) and charges too much for it
Maker B promises awesome high end part that will smash maker A.
Maker B screws up and their high end part is a failure which they cannot produce
Maker B then, in a stroke of genius, realizes they can just (almost) double the asking price of their midrange part since it performs about the same as Maker A's high end part.

Consumers are then left with a less-than-ideal high end product from Maker A and a midrange product from Maker B with a high end sticker and price tag on it.

Like I said, I'm not saying AMD is necessarily doing better... the 7970 is something like 15% faster than the GTX 580 and it was released a year later. However, because it could be overclocked by about 30% on both the memory and core, an end user can turn the 7970 into a fairly decent product. Nvidia just changed the sticker and price on a card that should have been available at $300 as originally intended.

In my view, AMD's flaw in this case is the lesser of the two evils.
a c 147 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 8:43:14 PM

redeemer said:
Complex doesnt mean superior, their Tesla cards cost thousands and a 7970 costs around 400 and provides more compute power.


honestly you have to learn to distinguish between normal consumer card and pro consumer card.

mactronix said:
I have not really been following this that close. Can you share some links regarding the GK110 please.

Mactronix :) 


i'm not really sure about the matter as well. if i'm not mistaken the rumor about GK100 being scrapped was originated from SA even before nvidia acknowledge the existence of GK110. not long after that rumor about GK110 starts to surface and in May nvidia did confirm the big K will be called as GK110. with the big K coded as GK110 some believe the rumor about GK100 being scrapped from nvidia product line was true.
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2012 8:48:47 PM

renz496 said:
honestly you have to learn to distinguish between normal consumer card and pro consumer card.



i'm not really sure about the matter as well. if i'm not mistaken the rumor about GK100 being scrapped was originated from SA even before nvidia acknowledge the existence of GK110. not long after that rumor about GK110 starts to surface and in May nvidia did confirm the big K will be called as GK110. with the big K coded as GK110 some believe the rumor about GK100 being scrapped from nvidia product line was true.



Honestly I think you should have read the entire thread, we are talking about the gk100 trickling down to consumers. Have no idea what youre talking about.

No one is sure about the inital intent of the Gk100, TSMC had problems according to Nvidia yet everyone else had no 28nm issues.


Hope you learned something
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 8:51:47 PM

I guess if you are talking about the existing cards then fair enough. Although its really only DP where the AMD card is ahead.
I was daft enough to assume that as we were all talking about GK110 then that what you were talking about.
my bad entirely how can you do any other than guess at theoretical's about a card that dosent exist yet.

Obviously a card based on a GPU that is not designed to excel at DP will loose to one that is.

Mactronix :) 
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2012 9:04:31 PM

mactronix said:
I guess if you are talking about the existing cards then fair enough. Although its really only DP where the AMD card is ahead.
I was daft enough to assume that as we were all talking about GK110 then that what you were talking about.
my bad entirely how can you do any other than guess at theoretical's about a card that dosent exist yet.

Obviously a card based on a GPU that is not designed to excel at DP will loose to one that is.

Mactronix :) 



Normally Nvidia had the edge when it came to DP, GCN architecture is monsterous. Of course two completely different segments, but yeah I meant it theortically.
a c 147 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 9:16:52 PM

redeemer said:
Honestly I think you should have read the entire thread, we are talking about the gk100 trickling down to consumers. Have no idea what youre talking about.

No one is sure about the inital intent of the Gk100, TSMC had problems according to Nvidia yet everyone else had no 28nm issues.


Hope you learned something


i was with the thread from the beginning. i was referring to the tesla and 7970 that you mention above. the tesla was cost thousands because the card was sold to the pro market as oppose to 7970. it doesn't matter if tesla 2075 have less compute performance than 7970 because two was sold to different type of consumer. its true you can get 7970 for around 400 and it has better compute performance tesla but then again why did amd sell the latest Fire Pro W9000 at 4k mark?
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 9:24:42 PM

BigMack70 said:
That's because you're only looking at the product and press releases and not the design of the chips.

Maker A builds a high end part that isn't too impressive (due to allowing a monkey to determine stock clock speeds) and charges too much for it
Maker B promises awesome high end part that will smash maker A.
Maker B screws up and their high end part is a failure which they cannot produce
Maker B then, in a stroke of genius, realizes they can just (almost) double the asking price of their midrange part since it performs about the same as Maker A's high end part.

Consumers are then left with a less-than-ideal high end product from Maker A and a midrange product from Maker B with a high end sticker and price tag on it.

Like I said, I'm not saying AMD is necessarily doing better... the 7970 is something like 15% faster than the GTX 580 and it was released a year later. However, because it could be overclocked by about 30% on both the memory and core, an end user can turn the 7970 into a fairly decent product. Nvidia just changed the sticker and price on a card that should have been available at $300 as originally intended.

In my view, AMD's flaw in this case is the lesser of the two evils.


I understand your view point its just that.... Well if Nvidia had moved first and priced the card where it is being a midrange GPU I could understand it more.
I was really pissed with AMD so I guess we are at different ends of the same issue. Sure it would have been nice if Nvidia had kept to pricing. Realistically though they could do nothing else than they did.
I have been ATi/AMD for years but after the way they have been bumping the price/perf curve, giving the consumer less and less increased perf for the increase in price I have had enough and as Nvidia had lost you so AMD have lost me.
I am in the UK and here Nvidia is the better price perf deal to me. PhysX used to be a gimmick but as games are no longer as taxing as before and the cards from 560Ti upwards are quite capable of gaming with PhysX @ 1920 X 1080, well it just seems that Nvidia offer more that I want at a better price these days.

Mactronix :hello: 
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 83 Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 9:30:12 PM

mactronix said:
I understand your view point its just that.... Well if Nvidia had moved first and priced the card where it is being a midrange GPU I could understand it more.
I was really pissed with AMD so I guess we are at different ends of the same issue. Sure it would have been nice if Nvidia had kept to pricing. Realistically though they could do nothing else than they did.
I have been ATi/AMD for years but after the way they have been bumping the price/perf curve, giving the consumer less and less increased perf for the increase in price I have had enough and as Nvidia had lost you so AMD have lost me.
I am in the UK and here Nvidia is the better price perf deal to me. PhysX used to be a gimmick but as games are no longer as taxing as before and the cards from 560Ti upwards are quite capable of gaming with PhysX @ 1920 X 1080, well it just seems that Nvidia offer more that I want at a better price these days.

Mactronix :hello: 


I'm not really pissed at either, they both did what they were able to due to the market at the time of release. As each side lowers prices, the other adjusts accordingly.

As far as the PhysX deal goes, I haven't been having any better luck with PhysX now as I did before. There still are very few that offer hardware accelerated PhysX, and the ones I've used (Batman AC), requires too much power in other areas to hardly use it. Of course I'm using 3D Vision, but a single 680 still can't do it without, and get good FPS.
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2012 9:31:29 PM

renz496 said:
i was with the thread from the beginning. i was referring to the tesla and 7970 that you mention above. the tesla was cost thousands because the card was sold to the pro market as oppose to 7970. it doesn't matter if tesla 2075 have less compute performance than 7970 because two was sold to different type of consumer. its true you can get 7970 for around 400 and it has better compute performance tesla but then again why did amd sell the latest Fire Pro W9000 at 4k mark?



Again read the thread, the claim was that "Quote GK110 would be a monster if it materialized as a gaming card with 7.1 billion transistors its the most complex card". Complexity and transistor count really doesnt mean much, its the overall efficiency of the architecture, that is what I meant when I mentioned the 7970. A workstation card has different firmware, drivers, more rigorous testing and generally better build quality. The Gk100 and GK104 are from the Kepler so they have many things in common. I compared the two in a theoretical sense btw.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 9:41:49 PM

bystander said:
I'm not really pissed at either, they both did what they were able to due to the market at the time of release. As each side lowers prices, the other adjusts accordingly.

As far as the PhysX deal goes, I haven't been having any better luck with PhysX now as I did before. There still are very few that offer hardware accelerated PhysX, and the ones I've used (Batman AC), requires too much power in other areas to hardly use it. Of course I'm using 3D Vision, but a single 680 still can't do it without, and get good FPS.



I have a single 1920 X 1080 and I don't fall down dead and the sky dosent fall on my head like so many seem to think will happen the second all the graphical sliders are not 100% over to the right :D 

Mactronix :) 
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 83 Î Nvidia
August 20, 2012 9:48:22 PM

mactronix said:
I have a single 1920 X 1080 and I don't fall down dead and the sky dosent fall on my head like so many seem to think will happen the second all the graphical sliders are not 100% over to the right :D 

Mactronix :) 


Batman AC, requires several drops in settings, not just PhysX. To get good smooth settings, I dropped from DX11 to DX9, and PhysX is still a bit shaky on use. It's currently at it's lowest setting. Keep in mind, this is 3D Vision with 680 SLI, but I was reading around for what settings are usually used on a single 680, and without 3D Vision on a single 680, many suggest Dx9 (turns off tessellation and a few other settings in the process) and to turn off PhysX.

Older games with PhysX may be another matter. I used it with Batman AA easily. Metro 2033 is still too demanding to be worth it, since I can't tell a difference with or with it off. Nothing else I own use accelerated PhysX.
August 21, 2012 12:32:27 AM

I got really mad because I wanted a new Nvidia card so badly... I genuinely do think they produce a better user experience overall than AMD, and I felt I owed them another purchase after an absolutely perfect experience with their 8800GTS 320.

I don't have a grudge against them - I had been waiting for a couple years to buy one of their new cards and then when the time finally came for me to upgrade, they made my mouth water via rumors of their GK110 card being as much as 40-50% faster than the 7970 with the GK104 being a $300 chip somewhere perhaps close to the 7970. But then, GK110 disappeared amid stories of yield problems and GK104 shows up paper launched at $500 in Mar-Apr and barely beating a stock-clocked 7970. Pissed me off.

As long as their future series of cards don't make me mad, I plan to sell my 7970s for the first Nvidia card that can score around X5500 in 3dmark11.

I think I'm over my complete venom against GPU-Boost. I don't think I'll ever like it or find it helpful, but I'm guessing it's pretty much a gimmick that's here to stay :( 
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2012 12:35:21 AM

i bought a 670 but whatever. as long as i can get fragging now
August 21, 2012 12:51:42 AM

There is this qoute in this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/10/nvidia_q2_2012_...
,concerning the Geforce cards that are based on Kepler(not sure if the reference is to GK110 or GK104).

"In a conference call with Wall Street to go over the numbers, Nvidia co-founder and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang said that the Kepler GPUs had the highest attach rate to Intel notebooks that the company has ever enjoyed and that Ivy Bridge-based notebooks are ramping strongly. And now, Nvidia is starting the rollout of GeForce cards for consumers and gamers and Quadro cards for workstations.

Huang, who started Nvidia because he is one of the 50 million to 100 million gamers in the world, said that the gamer market "is just dying for Kepler" and that the Kepler GPUs would start coming out in desktop graphics cards that ranged in price from $99 and $249, and this is considerably lower in price than the Kepler cards that Nvidia has been able to ship to date to enthusiasts at a street price of around $400."
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 21, 2012 8:13:09 AM

Thanks for the info.

So it seems that the GK110 is finally going to b ea reality with a launch date, and Cray have earmarked most of the chips for themselves. Obviously still to be confirmed as concrete but that sounds pretty good to me.

Mactronix :) 
!