[VR-Zone] How the GeForce GTX 690 is a Prime Example of NVIDIA Reshaped? - Page 4

Interesting how you didn't quote the second part of my post.

Nvidia being surprised how well 28nm scales with clockspeed this soon is one thing, having a "ooops, we built a midrange card that even outperforms our previous flagship at stock clocks. And we have absolutely never done this before, so we have no experience with doing this sort of miracle." is another.

Yes, but you were comparing two different generations. Next generation mid-range cards traditionally have been around the performance of prior generation flagships.

I don't think you'll ever see AMD have performance competitive with a 500mm²+ Nvidia GPU of the same generation. Nvidia would have to have a helluva flop for that to happen. Also, AMD doesn't build large dies, so they're not going to combat Nvidia by simply adding more resources.

No, not only clock bump, we get other enhancements with almost every new generation of cards, the 8970 will be around 50% faster then 7970, higher clocks 1100~ and other architecture enhancements.


True, thats why i said other architecture enhacements will come into play.
Edited by psyside - 5/8/12 at 8:56am

The 7970's die is not much larger then the 680s friend. If your banking on Nvidia doing it as a lot of people seem to be there is no reason the other guys can't.

As I said however I don't think either one of them will.

regardless of price the GTX 690 is the best card ever made

Yeah, of course it will perform better, there's a reason they fit more blocks
But from a performance per block standpoint, it will suck compared to the GTX680.


An anaolgy:

If the military were to design a gun that's the most lightweight they can make, they could probably make a gun that you can wear as a ring. But the firepower would render it unusable in real combat.

If they were to design the most powerful gun they could, it could very well blow up the entire planet, but it would have no use in combat because it'd be ginormous and eat a crapton of power (leaving humanity annihilation aside ).


I mean, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Edited by Artikbot - 5/8/12 at 8:57am

I love how people use the GPGPU argument.

GPGPU performance is useless to all but about 5% of the desktop market. Why make a GPU awesome at GPGPU for a market in which it will rarely be used. You might as well nerf the GPGPU performance, increase raster performance drastically and give the people what they want, gaming performance.

Its exactly what Nvidia did and you know what, good on 'em. Finally they are using their brains and realise that they are almost a monopoly in the workstation side of things (Nvidia pwn AMD in workstation cards), Tesla is giant cash cow and now, by concentrating on raster performance with their GeForce cards they are essentially catering products to all 3 markets (desktop, workstation, supercomputer). In essence, this will force AMD to go down a similar pathway. It will force AMD's hand and make them develop new FirePro (Or w/e their called) workstation GPU's and then reduce the GPGPU performance of the Radeon cards to increase raster performance enough to compete with the GeForce cards.

Either way you slice it, Nvidia end up winning. Workstation cards powerful enough to compete with some of the beasts Nvidia have on offer will take AMD multiple generations to develop, by which point, they would have lost considerable market share in the desktop range due to Nvidia continuing down the route of 3 individual products for 3 individual markets.

So this is really just Nvidia strengthening their position. They will start to narrow the margin in regards to desktop GPU market share and their QuadroFX and Tesla cards wont be going downhill any time soon. So very smart move by Nvidia, whether some of the fanboi's on here would like to agree with it or not. There is no denying that ultimately, Nvidia are on a pathway to success. Especially when you factor in that in reality, it will be a battle between Nvidia, Intel and ARM in the low-power ultra-portable market over the next 3-5 years.

In reality all Nvidia did was give the people buying GeForce cards (gamers) more performance at the loss of computer power. In the end, computer power means nothing to gaming and as I mentioned before, I would be very surprised if any more than 5% of the desktop market even used software where they would notice a difference in GPGPU performance (actually notice a difference, not have a benchmark tell you photoshop loaded 5ms faster), so Nvidia are doing a good thing by consumers

GPGPU will likely be heavily utilized in next generation games. Ambient Occlusion uses compute for example. To say it's useless is ridiculous. If PC gaming weren't as hamstrung by console development as it is we'd likely be seeing much wider applications of it now.

Also and I feel like I have to mention this in every thread Nvidia and AMD don't release sales numbers for their cards so why don't we stop acting like we have any idea.