Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [WCCF] Nvidia's Volta could launch as early as 2H 2017 ON 16nm node
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[WCCF] Nvidia's Volta could launch as early as 2H 2017 ON 16nm node - Page 19

post #181 of 272
I've read a few doom vulkan tests and the results are all over the place, but there's a general pattern

-Fury X gets a huge kick from Vukan
-980Ti reference and 980Ti custom cooled are like two totally different cards
-1080 still beats everything in every benchmark
-1080 gains more % performance from Vulkan than 1070 and 1060 do, so I suppose Pascal cards get most out of their performance improvement from removing the cpu bottleneck
post #182 of 272
Nvidia gpus does gain alot when you are playing on crappy cpu, ( like old i3/fx4xxx/6xxx/8xxx) but most sites don't test like that.
post #183 of 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by EightDee8D View Post

Nvidia gpus does gain alot when you are playing on crappy cpu, ( like old i3/fx4xxx/6xxx/8xxx) but most sites don't test like that.
lol what ?
should I go buy a fx4 then ? lachen.gif
post #184 of 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post

didn't know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post



beaten by a custom 980ti again.

980 Ti @ 1405/7200 matches a 1080 @ 1801/10000, so probably looking at another CPU bottleneck. Did they test 4K? Otherwise something's really funny with the results.
Edited by magnek - 7/30/16 at 1:33pm
post #185 of 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post

lol what ?
should I go buy a fx4 then ? lachen.gif
no, why should you ? i was saying they do gain when there's a cpu bottleneck. but some people are saying they don't gain anything which is simply not true. smile.gif
post #186 of 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dargonplay View Post

Now I recommend a Fury X over a 980Ti because DirectX 12 is frantically knocking at the door while Vulkan is spamming the ringbell.
The only problem with that is that i can get a 980ti for €400, but i can't get a Fury X for less than €650.

And there's another problem: when the Fury X starts being properly utilized, as you postulate, 4 GB of VRAM might not be enough.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 6700k 4.5 GHz 1.3v Asus Z170i MSI 980Ti 1490/7760 MHz G.skill DDR4 8 GB x2 3733 MHz 15-15-15-35-1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 1 TB Crucial M4 256 GB NH-C14S Windows 10 Student 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
TBD Cooler Master Quick Fire TK Corsair SF600 Fractal Core 500 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Zowie EC2-A Zowie G TF-X Fiio E17 v1 Sennheiser HD 598 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 6700k 4.5 GHz 1.3v Asus Z170i MSI 980Ti 1490/7760 MHz G.skill DDR4 8 GB x2 3733 MHz 15-15-15-35-1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 1 TB Crucial M4 256 GB NH-C14S Windows 10 Student 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
TBD Cooler Master Quick Fire TK Corsair SF600 Fractal Core 500 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Zowie EC2-A Zowie G TF-X Fiio E17 v1 Sennheiser HD 598 
  hide details  
Reply
post #187 of 272
I wouldnt recommend a 980Ti over a Fury X now either


Id recommend a 1070 thumb.gif
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
Reply
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
Reply
post #188 of 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post



beaten by a custom 980ti again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post

didn't know that.


Alright, let me clarify a few things.

The Fury X does gain that much performance when using Vulkan and Async with TSSAA X8, the reason why Doom Benchmarks have been going all over the place is because despite the Fury X technical prowess it sadly still got 4GB of VRAM, HBM or not Doom requires 6GB of VRAM to work properly with Nightmare settings.

Now with Ultra settings the Fury X should gain the most performance at 1440p and I'd venture to say that less than 5% of people using these cards use a 1080p monitor, most will be using a 1440p monitor, at 1440p the benchmark you showed will have the Fury X closer to the GTX 1080, at least it should be around 5% give or take from the GTX 1080.

Also, as others have pointed out a 1450MHz 980Ti is already at a GTX 1080 level of performance, and 1450MHz 980Tis are as common as 1250+MHz Fury Xs while the benchmark you linked have the Fuy X at stock settings, so there's something to think about.

There's no denying of the Fury X real potential that was all wasted thanks to dated APIs.



I don't mind about the Fury X being so much better than my GTX 1070 G1 when used properly, which is why I still have it installed on my main RIG. thumb.gif
Edited by Dargonplay - 7/30/16 at 2:10pm
post #189 of 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dargonplay View Post


Alright, let me clarify a few things.

The Fury X does gain that much performance when using Vulkan and Async with TSSAA X8, the reason why Doom Benchmarks have been going all over the place is because despite the Fury X technical prowess it sadly still got 4GB of VRAM, HBM or not Doom requires 6GB of VRAM to work properly with Nightmare settings.

Now with Ultra settings the Fury X should gain the most performance at 1440p and I'd venture to say that less than 5% of people using these cards use a 1080p monitor, most will be using a 1440p monitor, at 1440p the benchmark you showed will have the Fury X closer to the GTX 1080, at least it should be around 5% give or take from the GTX 1080.

Also, as others have pointed out a 1450MHz 980Ti is already at a GTX 1080 level of performance, and 1450MHz 980Tis are as common as 1250+MHz Fury Xs while the benchmark you linked have the Fuy X at stock settings, so there's something to think about.

There's no denying of the Fury X real potential that was all wasted thanks to dated APIs.



I have a GTX 1070 G1 and I don't mind about the Fury X being so much better than my card when used properly. thumb.gif

No.

My point was a 980 Ti @ 1405/7200 shouldn't come anywhere near a 1080 running 1801/10000. So either they did something really wrong, or that particular benchmark is still CPU bottlenecked even at 1440p. That's all.
post #190 of 272
Tell me, what do you think "Volta" brings to the tables? Do you guys even remember what the original announcement for Volta was? Back in 2014, when Volta was announced, it was supposed to get "stacked DRAM". Basically, HBM. Then a year later, we got Pascal slotted in between maxwell and volta, with the features "unified memory" and "3d memory". So, what exactly does Volta bring new to the table?

My personal belief is that Volta effectively doesn't bring that much "new" to the table. What I mean by that is we already got HBM on Pascal, albeit only on GP100, it still counts. We got NV Link on professional boards and all of the other enhancements. The original volta concept has already come to market. So what's the new Volta? Just trickling down the features to consumers. Effectively, all of the R&D is done, and Volta probably doesn't bring much NEW to the table. That's why there's a potential thet Volta is already "DONE" because it effectively, it's already been proven.

Nvidia struggled with 16nm but the Volta features were independent of 16nm. They made pascal 16nm while volta was architectural improvements. Now that we're on 16nm. Volta's schedule is independent of Pascal. Just like how Intel fumbled Broadwell, Skylake still came on time/early even though they dragged out the launch window. I think enhancements for Volta is done, they're just waiting for a release window.


OLD ROADMAP


NEW ROADMAP




Quote:
Originally Posted by magnek View Post

Totally OT, but would anybody like to take a stab at what nVidia would name the architecture following Volta?

Tesla: Serbian-American engineer
Fermi: Italian physicist
Kepler: German mathematician/astronomer
Maxwell: Scottish mathematician/physicist
Pascal: French mathematician
Volta: Italian physicist

Now if we ignore Tesla, it would appear that Volta completes one round of the naming cycle, because we're back to using an Italian physicist to name things. Therefore the next uarch should logically be named after yet another German mathematician/astronomer type person. My top pick would be Gauss, since he was a German mathematician/physicist, which is pretty damn close. Plus Gauss just sounds baus, and you can then legit name your dies with the prefix GG. That's like a quadruple win right there.

So it would appear there's a very good chance whatever comes after Volta will be named Gauss. smile.gif

They may reuse Einstein. Originally, the successor to Maxwell was Einstein, then it was changed to Volta.
Edited by Syan48306 - 7/30/16 at 2:25pm
Hydra TH10A
(15 items)
 
Nova Vault
(5 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x Rampage V Extreme 3-Way SLI GTX 980 Ti Hydro Copper 16 GB Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
480GB Intel 730 SSD Raid 0 x4 Custom Loop 4x 480 Alphacool Radiators Aquacomputer Aqualis 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer B326HK Razer Black Widow 2014 Corsair AX1500i  Case Labs TH10A 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Naga 2014 Megasoma 2 Creative ZxR 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Xeon D-1541 Supermicro X10SDV-TLN4F 128GB Crucial DDR4 2133 ECC 10x WD Red 4TB  
Case
Caselabs Nova  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
2.9 Ghz Radeon Pro 560 4GB 16 GB 1TB SSD 
OSMonitor
OS 10.11 15 Inch Retina 2880x1800 
  hide details  
Reply
Hydra TH10A
(15 items)
 
Nova Vault
(5 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x Rampage V Extreme 3-Way SLI GTX 980 Ti Hydro Copper 16 GB Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
480GB Intel 730 SSD Raid 0 x4 Custom Loop 4x 480 Alphacool Radiators Aquacomputer Aqualis 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer B326HK Razer Black Widow 2014 Corsair AX1500i  Case Labs TH10A 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Naga 2014 Megasoma 2 Creative ZxR 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Xeon D-1541 Supermicro X10SDV-TLN4F 128GB Crucial DDR4 2133 ECC 10x WD Red 4TB  
Case
Caselabs Nova  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
2.9 Ghz Radeon Pro 560 4GB 16 GB 1TB SSD 
OSMonitor
OS 10.11 15 Inch Retina 2880x1800 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [WCCF] Nvidia's Volta could launch as early as 2H 2017 ON 16nm node