|
Don Lapre posted:AMD Should have put 4gb HBM on a lower end card to get price down and then put 8gb gddr5 on the fury x since the extra bandwidth of hbm really isn't needed right now. I think they were trying to cut design costs to the bone. It seems like Fiji's got some weird rear end bottlenecks from bring scaled up weirdly, although that might be partly the interposer size limit I saw mention of. They just really needed to launch with unlocked voltage at the top end enthusiast segment or launch with a balls to the wall BIOS as the second switch setting to take it up to factory OC territory if it's all reference all the time.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
xthetenth posted:I think they were trying to cut design costs to the bone. It seems like Fiji's got some weird rear end bottlenecks from bring scaled up weirdly, although that might be partly the interposer size limit I saw mention of. If they dont unlock voltage than the choice of an expensive water cooler is weird as hell unless there is a technical reason it cant get over a certain temp.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Don't think anyone around these parts is looking for a GTX 980, but mine's on SA-Mart: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3727862
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:If they dont unlock voltage than the choice of an expensive water cooler is weird as hell unless there is a technical reason it cant get over a certain temp. Seems there might be, the current CCC tools won't let you raise the temperature limit over 75c. Reference AMD cards usually hard limit at 95c don't they?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Space Racist posted:So, for someone gaming at 1080p for at least the next couple years who wants to crank all the settings and still hit (or get near) 60 fps - is the GTX 980 the sweet spot, ignoring price/performance for the moment? The 970 seems like it isn't quite there, while the 980 Ti seems like it gives diminishing returns at 1080p (although, I wonder if that headroom would be useful in a few years as devs keep adding bling to games). I have a TV that I game on as well, so unlike the "omg pixels from space" contigent I'll try to give you info relevant to what you're asking: I currently have a geforce 780ti that I use for driving my TV. I overclock the gpu to 1280 and it's not enough to max out games at 1080p. The witcher 3 can't hold 60 even at non-ultra settings, and the fact that DSR / downsampling exists means you can't use the extra horsepower you don't have. GTA5 also doesn't hold 60 at 1080p, and that involves a few options turned down. Hell you can't even do >150% scaling in Euro Truck in the expansion @1080p and hold 60, boo. I'd avoid the 970 and choose between the 980 / 980ti. My personal preference would be to blow the extra bucks on the ti for downsampling and features down the road. So if I were in your position I'd get the 980ti. You can trade that horsepower for underclocks / less heat / less fan noise in games that are not constrained, or you can overclock it and cruise through games that let you turn up the features. I thoroughly disagree with the thread consensus that 1080p is super easy to drive and that a 970 lets you run ultra everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
repiv posted:Seems there might be, the current CCC tools won't let you raise the temperature limit over 75c. Reference AMD cards usually hard limit at 95c don't they? 7XXX-series was recommended to max out in the low 80's whereas reference 290's can get closer to 95C (and throttle like hell doing it).
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
It's probably a stupid question but why don't Nvidia make a special flagship card with a gpu die 3x the size? If it's the heat it'll make, sell it as AIO/custom loop water cooled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:It's probably a stupid question but why don't Nvidia make a special flagship card with a gpu die 3x the size? If it's the heat it'll make, sell it as AIO/custom loop water cooled. This card is the Titan X/ 980 Ti. There's a very limited market for huge, expensive GPUs, and it costs a ton of money to create a new die. Edit: Just checked the die size. At 601mm^2, the 980 Ti is almost twice as big as Intel's $999 flagship X99 CPU, the 5960k. It's already bigger than any GPU in history. I just don't see how they could make a bigger one, as the bigger the die is the more likely yield problems are. Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:It's probably a stupid question but why don't Nvidia make a special flagship card with a gpu die 3x the size?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Yeah, if you look at steam stats, the more expensive cards tend to not be well represented. Most people who buy GPUs get something in the $200-$300 range. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/ Of the discrete GPUs, the three most common are the 760, 970, and the 660. If you are compare along GPU lines, the more expensive ones usually tend to appear less. Giant high end GPUs need to have higher profit margins to make up for the lack of sales. The 980ti probably would be more expensive if AMD didn't exist. It was a preemptive thrust to try and hobble value from the Fury cards. Seems it did a good job too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:GM200 is already 8 billion transistors. What more do you want?! Triple slot single gpu card that uses a second dummy psi-e to not snap the motherboard in half.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
repiv posted:Seems there might be, the current CCC tools won't let you raise the temperature limit over 75c. Reference AMD cards usually hard limit at 95c don't they? Yes, but that would be an overclock that would take it up around 25 degrees celsius. HBM might be more fragile though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Yes, but that would be an overclock that would take it up around 25 degrees celsius. HBM might be more fragile though. That or the tools don't really know how to handle the newer cards. Give it a few weeks and see what CCC and Afterburner can do with a driver and software update.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:It's probably a stupid question but why don't Nvidia make a special flagship card with a gpu die 3x the size? If it's the heat it'll make, sell it as AIO/custom loop water cooled. IIRC something like 660mm^2 is the largest TSMC can fab, I doubt anyone else is capable of anything much larger than that, definitely not 3x the size. High end GPUs already have more transistors than any other IC commercially available other than FPGAs that cost as much as a car.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Parker Lewis posted:Got a trip report yet? Mine's not being delivered until Tuesday, although I did get my EVGA 980 Ti backplate yesterday! Since it's the Titan X version with different words printed on it: cool and quiet. I'm really curious if any of you 980ti havers with these EVGA Hybrid kits can make your GPUs go higher than 40c. I simply can't get the card any warmer than that no matter what I ask it to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:Since it's the Titan X version with different words printed on it: cool and quiet. I'm really curious if any of you 980ti havers with these EVGA Hybrid kits can make your GPUs go higher than 40c. I simply can't get the card any warmer than that no matter what I ask it to do. My titan X @ 1450 would get into the 70-72c range but thats running fans at like 500rpm
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:
I think the consensus is that its the best card for the dollar in forever and it will run 1080p extremely well. However, the ultra thing is almost always "Ultra... with very low AA". AA rapes cards, especially today. Of course the 980ti would be "ideal" and for once (seriously for the first time ever?) its almost exactly the same dollar/performance ratio as the 970 but a lot of people just dont want to pay $650 for a video card. I will stress that I think a 970 is seriously great for 1080p but no you will not be able to max out every setting. Hell I ran a 970 on 1440p and wasn't upset or anything, although I did dump it for a 980. I will agree that using the phrase "970 can run ultra" is no longer truly valid, although it was pretty valid when it was released.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:Since it's the Titan X version with different words printed on it: cool and quiet. I'm really curious if any of you 980ti havers with these EVGA Hybrid kits can make your GPUs go higher than 40c. I simply can't get the card any warmer than that no matter what I ask it to do. My Titan X hit 42 yesterday when I had it clocked at 1485 and had like 5 instances of the EVGA test running. But it's kinda hot in my house.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
I've been gaming everything up to and including Witcher 3 on a 970 at 1440p and while dog house was right I can't crank up AA or anything like that, I can play on mixed high/ultra for every game I've tried so far and it runs fine. I just feel like even though yeah the 980ti would probably be enough to actually get your "omg 60fps on ultra settings" it's still a waste for 1080p....IMO driving a higher resolution like 1440p+ gives more reward than ultra settings on 1080p. But if you are playing 1080p, and this is just me, but I would spend that $650 on a monitor upgrade way before a 980ti. Now preferably both but I haven't made that happen yet 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
You had one job amd social media person
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
"Hey social media guy, go find the most positive sounding review you can find and start tweeting about it" "But there aren't any sir..." "Just find one sentence that make us look good!" E: I kind of want to know what they did to get their internal benchmarks to get the results they did, or if they just took the actual results and changed the flipped them. 
Bleh Maestro fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
fudged
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
I guess I understand why AMD is pushing the 4k angle, but it is really an irrelevant resolution to most people. The majority of people are still gaming at 1080p. We are seeing some high refresh rate 1440p IPS monitors now, and they are an excellent high end for people with cash. For an expensive flagship card, 1440p makes sense to push. I have an IPS 1440p display, though only a 60 Hz one, and I quite like it. My new 980ti seems like an excellent fit, driving most games at ultra settings around the 60 fps range. According to the steam hardware survey, 4k is 0.06% of gamers. That is an awfully small segment to try and market to. I am sure we will get to the point where it is standard, but I feel like it is a little further away than people are anticipating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Now which is the two, texture fillrate or pixel fillrate, determine how well the card will do with higher resolutions? I want to guess pixel plays the biggest part of being able to run 4k+. If this is true, AMD really should have thrown now ROPs into the fury instead of stream processors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Filthy Monkey posted:I guess I understand why AMD is pushing the 4k angle, but it is really an irrelevant resolution to most people. Not only that, but depending on what review site you wander over to, the Fury X actually looks a lot more competitive with the 980Ti at 1440p--in many cases being equal-or-better. The only thing I can think of is that they know that "4k!" is the new buzzword hotness, and hope that by repeating that often enough, it'll get people to buy the card without actually looking at the benchmarks. Which seems a silly tactic when you're talking the $600+ market where you know everyone is pouring over the benchmarks before they click Buy. I wonder if it'd be better received if they played up the 1080/1440p performance as well as the "cool and quiet" aspect?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Hopefully this helps someone, Tigerdirect has a Refurbished ASUS GeForce GTX 980 STRIX for $265.99 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...MFVtDiLzA8yentA
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
NJD2005 posted:Hopefully this helps someone, Tigerdirect has a Refurbished ASUS GeForce GTX 980 STRIX for $265.99 Sold out mega fast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
I'm not big on refurbed stuff like gpus, motherboards and whatnot but holy cow good price
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
The 4k thing doesn't make much sense in the context of 4GB memory though  someone in marketing probably thought that up before the memory capacity was actually finalized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Jesus that'd be a great price for a 970.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:19
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:Jesus that'd be a great price for a 970.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:The 4k thing doesn't make much sense in the context of 4GB memory though However, that's in the context of the 295 still delivering a ton of frames despite having 4 GB per chip. It would be tanking if 4 GB weren't actually enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Jesus that'd be a great price for a 970. They had a MSI 970 for $166 but that went very quickly as well. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...GqkD_GjDpXR6Daw NJD2005 fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Ozz81 posted:I don't think they released in the wrong order, as there should have been more R/D into not having that 4GB limit on HBM. Ozz81 posted:could AMD theoretically pair its HBM with additional GDDR5 on the board? 4GB VRAM doesn't seem to be a big problem for them though. Looking at the benchmarks, which are all over the place and not as good as they should be, its either a driver issue or they've got some weird bugs in the hardware. That they locked the GPU voltage on top of that has resulted in the pathetic overclocks and I have no idea why they did that. Trying to keep RMA's down perhaps? Lots of little odd things with this launch. japtor posted:No clue on the technical limitations, but wouldn't that necessitate a larger (albeit traditional at this point) board size to fit it? That would kinda cancel out one of the nice benefits of HBM. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
I kept reading a while back how HBM1/HBM2 were smaller so they'd be much cheaper than GDDR5 or even DDR3. Is the high cost currently because it's new tech with low supply or will it cost more for the foreseeable future because it's that much harder to manufacture? As for the 4GB limit on Fury, maybe they're thinking DX12 is just around the corner and people with enough cash for a Fury card will buy a 390X 8GB or something just for memory sharing. At least before games require substantially more than 4GB. Verizian fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
No HBM was never supposed to be cheaper than GDDR5. It was supposed to give you gobs more bandwidth and as a nice bonus save you some power usage. HBM2 is supposed to give you more VRAM and/or speed for the same or similar cost. Some of the cost is because its new but it'll probably always be more expensive than GDDR5 due to the cost of the interposer which is essentially a massive silicon chip that has been etched with a coarser pitch lithography plus additional testing and assembly expenses. edit: They're limited to 4GB of VRAM because that is the max capacity HBM can do right now, they didn't have a choice there. Except to put less VRAM on which would've been a mistake. Really good read on the subject of interposers n' stuff, its a little old now but still relevent: http://semiengineering.com/time-to-revisit-2-5d-and-3d/ tl&dr: interposers are just stupid expensive right now, about 5x the cost of DRAM on a per sq mm of silicon basis + assembly is way more expensive too, in the future that will change but that is years away
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 11:26
|
|
|
A good 750W PSU is enough to overclock a Titan X, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:No HBM was never supposed to be cheaper than GDDR5. It was supposed to give you gobs more bandwidth and as a nice bonus save you some power usage. HBM2 is supposed to give you more VRAM and/or speed for the same or similar cost. I guess the other question is how come nvidia can beat the HBM cards with that much more bandwidth using traditional GDDR5? and does that mean there's going to be a noticeable leap for them when they get HBM2 onto their Pascal next year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
Mutation posted:A good 750W PSU is enough to overclock a Titan X, right? You could overclock two of them at max power target (275w) and overclock your CPU too with power to spare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
DaNzA posted:I guess the other question is how come nvidia can beat the HBM cards with that much more bandwidth using traditional GDDR5? and does that mean there's going to be a noticeable leap for them when they get HBM2 onto their Pascal next year. That much memory bandwidth means memory speed isn't going to be a bottleneck period. However you don't need all of that bandwidth most/all of the time. It looks like Fury's being held back by something else, while the NV cards are better balanced and avoid the bottleneck that's holding Fury back. Either something's wrong with the drivers or something can't keep up with the rest of Fury. Overall though HBM's major speed boost was by letting them put more power to the rest of the card, not by taking memory bandwidth from sufficient to overkill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 13:19
|
|