Rageypoo

Before people were showing off their 580's and 480's going "ZOMG THIS IS SO UBER KEWL" and now no one has said a word since launch, I think the green team fans are a bit pissed off, as they should be, with having a 560 replacement as an enthusiast release. 

quadlatte

Brad_Hawthorne

If NVIDIA rebranded a GT620 as GTX680 you'd still see a rabid throng of fans. It goes with the territory. Overall the GK104 is a good solid chip. The die size and the 256-bit ram bus clearly makes it a mid-range GPU though. We're buying a $300 card for $500 because AMD couldn't bring something significantly faster to the table with the 7970.

why do people say that? does this card not beat there last top model? does it not beat the top AMD card? i mean every one is making assumptions based off some so called source. 

Brad_Hawthorne

quadlatte

Brad_Hawthorne

If NVIDIA rebranded a GT620 as GTX680 you'd still see a rabid throng of fans. It goes with the territory. Overall the GK104 is a good solid chip. The die size and the 256-bit ram bus clearly makes it a mid-range GPU though. We're buying a $300 card for $500 because AMD couldn't bring something significantly faster to the table with the 7970.

why do people say that? does this card not beat there last top model? does it not beat the top AMD card? i mean every one is making assumptions based off some so called source. 

It's not an assumption. It's the die size that has been consistent for the top model the last half decade and the ram bus width. Those are not consistant with a top of the line NVIDIA model GPU. I am using no external source for that reasoning.

quadlatte

Brad_Hawthorne

quadlatte

Brad_Hawthorne

quadlatte

Brad_Hawthorne

If NVIDIA rebranded a GT620 as GTX680 you'd still see a rabid throng of fans. It goes with the territory. Overall the GK104 is a good solid chip. The die size and the 256-bit ram bus clearly makes it a mid-range GPU though. We're buying a $300 card for $500 because AMD couldn't bring something significantly faster to the table with the 7970.

why do people say that? does this card not beat there last top model? does it not beat the top AMD card? i mean every one is making assumptions based off some so called source. 

It's not an assumption. It's the die size that has been consistent for the top model the last half decade and the ram bus width. Those are not consistant with a top of the line NVIDIA model GPU. I am using no external source for that reasoning.

with faster memory and a smaller fab maybe all that is changing, last go around everyone complained about the die size and heat and power consumption, they pretty much fixed all that with a faster card for the same price and people are still not happy. 

History shows that NVIDIA does a 450-550 mm^2 die constantly for it's flagship. It's also consistently 384/512-bit memory bus. Neither is the case right now. The facts speak for themselves regardless of fab process 90-28 nm.

8800GTX (G80) - 480 mm^2 die size, 384-bit memory bus, 90 nm process
GTX280 (GT200) - 576 mm^2 die size, 512-bit memory bus, 65 nm process
GTX285 (GT200b) - 470 mm^2 die size, 512-bit memory bus, 55 nm process
GTX480 (GF100) - 529 mm^2 die size, 384-bit memory bus, 40 nm process
GTX580 (GF110) - 520 mm^2 die size, 384-bit memory bus, 40 nm process
GTX680 (GK104) - 294 mm^2 die size, 256-bit memory bus, 28 nm process <- This is a clear anomaly
GTX780 (GK110) - 550 mm^2 die size, 384-bit memory bus, 28 nm process

The price for this card is also clearly an anomaly. $$$/mm^2 we're all paying $500 for a $300-350 card.

i just dont remember reading anything from nvidia that this was originally going to be a 660 or 670, i mean was the 450 faster than the 280 or was the 560 faster than the 480. i think maybe both companies realize they can not keep producing GPU that need a small nuclear power plant and a full on water chiller system to run and nvidia seemed to be the worst offender of this. i mean they put out a card that is faster, cooler, quieter and uses less power and it falls in line with other top releases as far as performance gain goes for the same price as last gen top card.  

kram36

sotiri

Wait, what?
People think the price of a GPU should be based on die size?
It makes sense, to me anyway, that it should be based on performance and it seems to beat a 7970 for $50 less. So what's the problem?
Otherwise, should we expect to pay less for a Ferrari because it's smaller than a minivan?

Bingo!

Brad_Hawthorne

kram36

sotiri

Wait, what?
People think the price of a GPU should be based on die size?
It makes sense, to me anyway, that it should be based on performance and it seems to beat a 7970 for $50 less. So what's the problem?
Otherwise, should we expect to pay less for a Ferrari because it's smaller than a minivan?

Bingo!

Fanatics will ignore factual evidence in favor of their own emotional attachment to a concept or idea.

quadlatte

Brad_Hawthorne

kram36

sotiri

Wait, what?
People think the price of a GPU should be based on die size?
It makes sense, to me anyway, that it should be based on performance and it seems to beat a 7970 for $50 less. So what's the problem?
Otherwise, should we expect to pay less for a Ferrari because it's smaller than a minivan?

Bingo!

Fanatics will ignore factual evidence in favor of their own emotional attachment to a concept or idea.

the factual evidence is it is faster and cheaper than the competition. i still dont under stand why some think it should be a $300 card, what because of die size???

sotiri

Yes, I love Ferrari! I wish I could afford one, but I would be a fool to criticize someone willing to pay for the best of the best. Oh wait, I think you were trying to slam me as a Nvidia Fanboy. Well, I hate to disappoint, but I'm 43 years old. I don't have any bias to one brand or another. I've used them all. For me, it's just a simple matter of economics.

quadlatte
+1 but i would love it if they me one for $300