MrImSoGood
Going all the way back to the 280, every x80 card has had a significant increase in CUDA cores over the previous x80 except for the 980 which has less then the 780

Why x80 versus x70 or x60, x50, x40, etcetera?  I mean, no offense, but your observation seems very random and disconnected.
 
It would be like me saying that in general, the first x (number) in a series increases for each new series where the 9 series is newer than the 7 series which is newer than the 6 series and so on except for the TITAN which doesn't follow the same number series.  So, do you have any strange theories as to why T in TITAN does not fit properly between the number 7 and 9?
 
Naming a product or "limiting" its specifications is very complex depending on the market, competition, technological breakthroughs, technological setbacks, and so forth.

ty_ger07

MrImSoGood
Going all the way back to the 280, every x80 card has had a significant increase in CUDA cores over the previous x80 except for the 980 which has less then the 780

Why x80 versus x70 or x60, x50, x40, etcetera?  I mean, no offense, but your observation seems very random and disconnected.
 
It would be like me saying that in general, the first x (number) in a series increases for each new series where the 9 series is newer than the 7 series which is newer than the 6 series and so on except for the TITAN which doesn't follow the same number series.  So, do you have any strange theories as to why T in TITAN does not fit properly between the number 7 and 9?
 
Naming a product or "limiting" its specifications is very complex depending on the market, competition, technological breakthroughs, technological setbacks, and so forth.

What the hell are you talking about?

ty_ger07

MrImSoGood
Going all the way back to the 280, every x80 card has had a significant increase in CUDA cores over the previous x80 except for the 980 which has less then the 780

Why x80 versus x70 or x60, x50, x40, etcetera?  I mean, no offense, but your observation seems very random and disconnected.
 
It would be like me saying that in general, the first x (number) in a series increases for each new series where the 9 series is newer than the 7 series which is newer than the 6 series and so on except for the TITAN which doesn't follow the same number series.  So, do you have any strange theories as to why T in TITAN does not fit properly between the number 7 and 9?
 
Naming a product or "limiting" its specifications is very complex depending on the market, competition, technological breakthroughs, technological setbacks, and so forth.

What? Isn't 7T9 a number? 

MrImSoGood

HeavyHemi

MrImSoGood
Going all the way back to the 280, every x80 card has had a significant increase in CUDA cores over the previous x80 except for the 980 which has less then the 780

Well, the GTX 580 wasn't much of an increase over the GTX 480.

But it was a increase, just not as significant as the others

I can only go by what you posted. There were two with significant increases, one with a slight increase and one with a moderate decrease. Lastly to your main point, I'm quite certain you're not the only one to notice the different core counts for different models.

MrImSoGood

ty_ger07

MrImSoGood
Going all the way back to the 280, every x80 card has had a significant increase in CUDA cores over the previous x80 except for the 980 which has less then the 780

Why x80 versus x70 or x60, x50, x40, etcetera?  I mean, no offense, but your observation seems very random and disconnected.
 
It would be like me saying that in general, the first x (number) in a series increases for each new series where the 9 series is newer than the 7 series which is newer than the 6 series and so on except for the TITAN which doesn't follow the same number series.  So, do you have any strange theories as to why T in TITAN does not fit properly between the number 7 and 9?
 
Naming a product or "limiting" its specifications is very complex depending on the market, competition, technological breakthroughs, technological setbacks, and so forth.

What the hell are you talking about?

I was wondering the same thing about your original post.
 
What I am talking about is your disconnected interpretation of causality.  The model number does not contain the specifications of the card.  Therefore, the model number means absolutely nothing on its own.  Your opening observation makes no sense because it assumes that each generation of cards in a market segment should have some progression of specifications.
 
This was an analogy of flawed logic:
If I assumed that all cards are in alphabetic order based on release date, 'TITAN' would prove my logic flawed because it is not in alphabetic order between '780' and '980'.
In the same way, the numbers '780' and '980' do not determine how many CUDA cores the cards should have.
 
The specifications of the cards are directly related to things such as competition, technological breakthroughs, technological setbacks, and so forth.  The model number of the card means absolutely nothing on its own other than a form of product identification.
 
Therefore, your opening observation is quite unremarkable.

MrImSoGood

ty_ger07

MrImSoGood

ty_ger07

MrImSoGood
Going all the way back to the 280, every x80 card has had a significant increase in CUDA cores over the previous x80 except for the 980 which has less then the 780

Why x80 versus x70 or x60, x50, x40, etcetera?  I mean, no offense, but your observation seems very random and disconnected.

It would be like me saying that in general, the first x (number) in a series increases for each new series where the 9 series is newer than the 7 series which is newer than the 6 series and so on except for the TITAN which doesn't follow the same number series.  So, do you have any strange theories as to why T in TITAN does not fit properly between the number 7 and 9?

Naming a product or "limiting" its specifications is very complex depending on the market, competition, technological breakthroughs, technological setbacks, and so forth.

What the hell are you talking about?

I was wondering the same thing about your original post.
 
What I am talking about is your disconnected interpretation of causality.  The model number does not contain the specifications of the card.  Therefore, the model number means nothing and you should not try to read into it.
 
'TITAN' is not in alphabetic order between '780' and '980'.
In the same way, the numbers '780' and '980' do not determine how many CUDA cores the cards should have.
 
What I typed above about the TITAN was an analogy of your flawed logic.  The specifications of the cards are directly related to things such as competition, technological breakthroughs, technological setbacks, and so forth.  The model number of the card means absolutely nothing other than a form of identification.

And again I ask what the hell are you talking about?
Did you even bother read what I wrote?
And what crack about flawed logic?
I was talking about x80 cards only and how the 980 break the chain of x80s increasing of cuda cores, and here you go talking about titans and other crap

And again I say:
Why do you think that a chain was broken?  There was no chain in the first place.   The "chain" was a figment of your imagination which never existed.
 
Do you not understand what I typed?  Maybe you don't understand the words "analogy" or "causality".
 
What if I created a thread and asked if anyone had noticed that the sky was blue?  What sort of answers do you think I would receive?  Probably answers similar to the answer I provided to you.

No, I am not trolling.  I was trying to open up your world to the possibility that a model number means nothing on its own and that you should not try to create expectations or draw conclusions based on the model number of past, present, or future video cards.

mistermister
Are we comparing flagship, end of run cards like the 780Ti versus a vanilla new architecture 1st generation card?

Was something I posted inaccurate?

OP, I get what you're saying. The 900 series uses its cores more efficiently, thus requiring less of them. And yes, a bunch of us already noticed. And, yes, those were weird posts^...

FrAnTiC555666
Guys you cant compare x80 and 980 by the number of CUDA cores because 980 uses different architecture and technology.And yes they are less because they are expected to be more "efficient" wich I am not so sure they are.In synthetic benchmarks they (980's) outperform 780 but in real world gaming they are not so good and have a lot of issues(not only EVGA cards all brands, you can check out the NVIDIA forum) wich I truly hope that it's a driver issue and not a fundamental hardware mistake.

Forgive me for being blunt, but what "real world" are you talking about? I'm getting an average of 40% boost in framerate going from 2x780 Classifieds to 2x980 Classifieds. They even outperform Titans (admittedly, this from what I've read).

900 series cores are about 40% better performance wise