Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [BitsandChips] Nvidia Pascal lineup and launch dates
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[BitsandChips] Nvidia Pascal lineup and launch dates - Page 33

post #321 of 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNMock View Post

Because there is a massive gouging on enthusiast GPU's already? Or do you think the extra 6gb of GDDR5 cost the $400 dollar per unit increase seen going from Titan-X to 980ti? $600 is low enough to sell a GPU at and still make a good profit on it, that is known.

I don't think it's too much to ask, that as an early adopter, already paying a $400 dollar early access fee, with a bonus of a few extra GB of VRAM that they not crank it up even further for "inflation"

I'm not complaining about the current price point (which is still a massive mark up), I knew what I was doing to begin with and that if I held out a few months I would have gotten the same thing basically for about half the price. I just don't think they should mark it up even more.
This argument cracks me up every time I hear it.
post #322 of 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNMock View Post

Because there is a massive gouging on enthusiast GPU's already? Or do you think the extra 6gb of GDDR5 cost the $400 dollar per unit increase seen going from Titan-X to 980ti? $600 is low enough to sell a GPU at and still make a good profit on it, that is known.

I don't think it's too much to ask, that as an early adopter, already paying a $400 dollar early access fee, with a bonus of a few extra GB of VRAM that they not crank it up even further for "inflation"

I'm not complaining about the current price point (which is still a massive mark up), I knew what I was doing to begin with and that if I held out a few months I would have gotten the same thing basically for about half the price. I just don't think they should mark it up even more.
good for you,good for you.
post #323 of 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

All GCN cards are temp sensitive. For example, my 290X can be stable 40C but not stable at 50C which is very low temp to begin with. After that its about 62C.

ok, you're saying stability but i am talking core speed. my first 980TI classy was able to get 39mhz higher (3 boost bins) when the temp was below 54c @ same voltage, drivers and benches.

but yeah, didn't hawaii not throttle once custom cooling cards hit the market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlugSeven View Post

If it's not a thermal dissipation issue , then why not just raise the temp threshold a little?
like i am saying; cooler chips get higher core speeds. raising the temp threshold doesn't mean its going to translate to the silicone/arch. the threshold for maxwell is 92c BUT it will voltage throttle long before.

of course there is a thermal density change with a shrink but i don't think anyone has yet seen a speculated TDP on pascal.
loon 3.2
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3770K Asus P8Z77-V Pro EVGA 980TI SC+ 16Gb PNY ddr3 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
PNY 1311 240Gb 1 TB Seagate 3 TB WD Blue DVD DVDRW+/- 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
EKWB P280 kit EK-VGA supremacy Win X LG 24MC57HQ-P 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Zero [blues] EVGA SuperNova 750 G2 Stryker M [hammered and drilled] corsair M65 
AudioAudio
SB Recon3D Klipsch ProMedia 2.1  
  hide details  
Reply
loon 3.2
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3770K Asus P8Z77-V Pro EVGA 980TI SC+ 16Gb PNY ddr3 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
PNY 1311 240Gb 1 TB Seagate 3 TB WD Blue DVD DVDRW+/- 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
EKWB P280 kit EK-VGA supremacy Win X LG 24MC57HQ-P 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Zero [blues] EVGA SuperNova 750 G2 Stryker M [hammered and drilled] corsair M65 
AudioAudio
SB Recon3D Klipsch ProMedia 2.1  
  hide details  
Reply
post #324 of 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjdubb View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

One thing I'm not clear on is why graphics cards seem to be the only commodity in the world where prices are never expected to rise despite inflation.

Greedy user/customer base, the games we need them for have the same problem.

Partially because net fab costs go down with each node shrink up till 28nm? Although I will concede that 20nm is the first time we might see cost per transistor actually start going UP instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by criminal View Post

Some price increase is expected, but the almost 100% increase we got from Nvidia when the Titan line dropped has always been when my issue started.

For others, it could have been further back with the 8800 Ultra.

According to the CPI inflation calculator, from 2006 to 2015 there has been a 17.6% inflation. Now do a comparison of the costs between an 8800 GTX (G80, nVidia's first big die) in 2006, the GTX 280/285 in 2008/2009 (GT200), GTX 480 and 580 in 2010/2011 (GF100 and GF110), and finally the GTX 780 Ti in 2013 (GK110). So obviously the 8800 GTX is the outlier here (as would be the 8800 Ultra had I included it), but then GT200 reset the price point and Fermi followed suit. Kepler simply went back to the pricing model of the good ol' 8 series days I suppose you could say.
Edited by magnek - 2/15/16 at 2:29pm
post #325 of 457
You can't even get the full fat chip anymore if you aren't ready to pay 1000$ for it. (For Nvidia Maxwell that is).

Only the Titan X is the full fat of GM200.


In a more reasonable world it would like the following :


GTX 970 is named GTX 960 and priced 249$
GTX 980 is named GTX 970 and priced 349$
GTX 980 Ti is named GTX 980 and priced 499$
Titan X is named 980 Ti and priced 599$/649$.

That would still mean that prices went up for GPUs and that is to be expected, because of inflation, we earn more money etc., but Nvidia basically gave us worse cards for higher prices instead of just doing one or the other.

No we pay more for worse cards. Or we pay twice for the best card thumb.gif
current rig
(4 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsGraphicsKeyboard
2500k R9 290X Tri-X GTX 680 Filco Majestouch 2 Brown Ninja 
  hide details  
Reply
current rig
(4 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsGraphicsKeyboard
2500k R9 290X Tri-X GTX 680 Filco Majestouch 2 Brown Ninja 
  hide details  
Reply
post #326 of 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdstock76 View Post

This argument cracks me up every time I hear it.

Care to expand on that for me? Not sure what's so obtuse about it.
post #327 of 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by zealord View Post

You can't even get the full fat chip anymore if you aren't ready to pay 1000$ for it. (For Nvidia Maxwell that is).

Only the Titan X is the full fat of GM200.


In a more reasonable world it would like the following :


GTX 970 is named GTX 960 and priced 249$
GTX 980 is named GTX 970 and priced 349$
GTX 980 Ti is named GTX 980 and priced 499$
Titan X is named 980 Ti and priced 599$/649$.

That would still mean that prices went up for GPUs and that is to be expected, because of inflation, we earn more money etc., but Nvidia basically gave us worse cards for higher prices instead of just doing one or the other.

No we pay more for worse cards. Or we pay twice for the best card thumb.gif
It's not really our business if it's full fat chip, or half chip, or 1/5th chip.
GTX980 performs better than GTX780, does it not? And GTX780 performs better than GTX680, does it not? So Nvidia can put whatever cut down chip they want as long as it performs accordingly. Days of X80 being full chip are long gone and there is no point in bringing this up again and again. We enthusiasts know the history, but times change.
post #328 of 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

No no, I was talking about atleast one GP104 card being watercooled directly from Nvidia. thumb.gif
Someone found entries of parts of a Pascal GPU that shipped in late December.




It have 2152 pins
It have a 37.5x37.5mm package which is typically what you find on midrange chips like Gx104 chips. According to 3DCenter GP100 comes in a 55x55mm2 package

If you look at the pins, here is a comparison vs previous chips
GK104/GM204: 1745
GK110/GM200: 2397

In addition you can see that this GP104 chip features "Water cooling lid".

That list is for R&D equipment, IE stuff needed to bring up initial silicon. Do you also expect them to ship with TEC units?
μRyzen
(12 items)
 
Mini Box
(4 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R5 1400 MSI B350M Gaming Pro Zotac GTX 670 4GB G.SKILL FORTIS Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
WD Green 3tb Wraith Stealth Windows 10 Debian 8.7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
ViewSonic VX-2257-8 Chinese backlit mechanical Kingwin 850w Chinese laser optical 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5350 Asus AM1I-A EVGA GTX 750 Ti SC 2x4GB DDR 3 1333 
  hide details  
Reply
μRyzen
(12 items)
 
Mini Box
(4 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R5 1400 MSI B350M Gaming Pro Zotac GTX 670 4GB G.SKILL FORTIS Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
WD Green 3tb Wraith Stealth Windows 10 Debian 8.7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
ViewSonic VX-2257-8 Chinese backlit mechanical Kingwin 850w Chinese laser optical 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5350 Asus AM1I-A EVGA GTX 750 Ti SC 2x4GB DDR 3 1333 
  hide details  
Reply
post #329 of 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by zealord View Post

You can't even get the full fat chip anymore if you aren't ready to pay 1000$ for it. (For Nvidia Maxwell that is).

Only the Titan X is the full fat of GM200.


In a more reasonable world it would like the following :


GTX 970 is named GTX 960 and priced 249$
GTX 980 is named GTX 970 and priced 349$
GTX 980 Ti is named GTX 980 and priced 499$
Titan X is named 980 Ti and priced 599$/649$.

That would still mean that prices went up for GPUs and that is to be expected, because of inflation, we earn more money etc., but Nvidia basically gave us worse cards for higher prices instead of just doing one or the other.

No we pay more for worse cards. Or we pay twice for the best card thumb.gif

For one second, I have to match with you. Maybe something in the middle of the 970 and the 960 at 199€, but yeah, that will be fair and still will make possible to Nvidia have a good earnings. The problem is when a company has to get better earnings every quarter and stay with the same income is a failure.
X99
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820k Asus X99A GTX 1080 GSkill Ripjaws V 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
850 EVO 250GB Corsair H110i Arch Linux Dell P2416D 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Rantopad MXX RGB Corsair RM750x Corsair Obsidian 750D Razer DeathAdder 
  hide details  
Reply
X99
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820k Asus X99A GTX 1080 GSkill Ripjaws V 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
850 EVO 250GB Corsair H110i Arch Linux Dell P2416D 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Rantopad MXX RGB Corsair RM750x Corsair Obsidian 750D Razer DeathAdder 
  hide details  
Reply
post #330 of 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glottis View Post

It's not really our business if it's full fat chip, or half chip, or 1/5th chip.
GTX980 performs better than GTX780, does it not? And GTX780 performs better than GTX680, does it not? So Nvidia can put whatever cut down chip they want as long as it performs accordingly. Days of X80 being full chip are long gone and there is no point in bringing this up again and again. We enthusiasts know the history, but times change.

It certainly is when we're the paying customers. x80 being the full chip was always the norm until nVidia started their milking strategy with the Kepler model, and times have changed for the much worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarathKasun View Post

That list is for R&D equipment, IE stuff needed to bring up initial silicon. Do you also expect them to ship with TEC units?

Makes sense, I always wondered why there were TEC units in there. Maybe someone is trying to do some suicide XOC benchmarking runs LOL
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [BitsandChips] Nvidia Pascal lineup and launch dates