Originally Posted by Syan48306
So what? That's just a naming scheme. Are you buying a nvidia card so you can get the x70 or x80 name? Or are you buying a card for its performance? If they release a "GTX 700" that beats the Titan, are you going to complain oh they can't do that because thats X00 and the naming isn't right?
How many parts do they have? No really, who's to say they're not already tapped out? What do you think are running the Titans? What about the 780's? Those are defective GK110's and even more defective GK110 chips. They're already doing that.
Plenty of people if they price it at $400 dollars. Besides, who says the GK104 can't do 15% faster? I can easily crank my card GTX690 cores up to 1225mhz and I'm sure you can push it further with a bump in voltage. The GK104 can easily make up that 15% with better yields or more aggressive clocking.[/quote]
Looks like you did not fully understand some parts of my post:
1) I am not talking about naming at all; just following with the most recent graphics releases: 400, 500,600 series. If this occurs which unlikely IMO than all attention will seat on gtx 780 and the rest are to be forgotten... Would be pointless considering gk 110 chips are all over Nvidia`s shelf.
2) I am referring here to a GTX 770, why not launch it with gk 110 part(gk 104 makes no sense)
3) From a consumer perspective: YES. From a business perspective: NO
Release a GTX 770 with even higher GTX 680 clocks(reaching max limits) and even then not every gtx 680 cranks up 15%...
3a) Too hot, no more room for overclocking, high temps, shorter life span; lots of noise and more... Reviews will tell this to a customer, no one will buy. Why? GTx 680/670 owners can (maybe) crack it up on their own or unwilling to do it cause of the temp and the rest of customers skip cause of the same reasons. Where is a profit of this?