# NVIDIA Working on Second GK110-based GeForce Graphics Card for Summer



## btarunr (Mar 18, 2013)

NVIDIA may decisively hold on to the single-GPU performance lead, with its GeForce GTX Titan graphics card, but at roughly $1000, it could attract a very small market. According to a SweClockers report, NVIDIA is looking to woo gamers just ahead of Summer with the second GK110-based GeForce GTX graphics card. Similar in specifications to the fabled Quadro K6000, the new SKU could feature 13 out of 15 streaming multiprocessors on the GK110 silicon, working out to 2,496 CUDA cores, 208 texture memory units, a 320-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface holding 5 GB of memory, and 40 ROPs. Given that there's a deep ravine between the ~$450 GeForce GTX 680 and ~$1000 GTX Titan, NVIDIA could pick a price-point in the middle. The report claims the new SKU could launch some time between July and August, 2013.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Animalpak (Mar 18, 2013)

something that perform better than a 680 but less than a Titan ? Pointless ...


----------



## erocker (Mar 18, 2013)

Wouldn't be much of an upgrade over a 680 or a 7970... What's the incentive to buy something like this?

I'm not liking this mixture of new cards with the current series of cards as it seems to give them an excuse to charge more for them.


----------



## matar (Mar 18, 2013)

$499 I am in. 
I will Buy 3 for 3-Way Sli


----------



## radrok (Mar 18, 2013)

Was hoping for a full SMX'ed GTX Titan


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 18, 2013)

The price will probably be close to the not full baked titan as im expecting a few Cut down Titans now , question of what they're binning like might well be indicated by how many of these hit the market and at what price.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 18, 2013)

Maybe NVIDIA should stop releasing pointless cards and start making cheaper cards with same performance. Pretty much EVERY single card from NVIDIA is overpriced compared to similar performing Radeons. Every time i'm buying new gfx card i look at both and see that all GeForces are too expensive for what they offer. Thats why i'm on Radeons for years now...


----------



## tastegw (Mar 18, 2013)

No thx, bring me maxwell?


----------



## Animalpak (Mar 18, 2013)

However, this is what should have been TITAN and not what we have now with that intergalactic absurd price.

The same mistake they did with Fermi and GTX 400 series ...


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 18, 2013)

Isn't a scaled down Titan an oxymoron 

I can see the new Nvidia naming scheme now
GTX Titan
GTX Diminutive
GTX Half-Pint
GTX Runt
GTX Pygmy


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 18, 2013)

erocker said:


> Wouldn't be much of an upgrade over a 680 or a 7970... What's the incentive to buy something like this?
> 
> I'm not liking this mixture of new cards with the current series of cards as it seems to give them an excuse to charge more for them.



Yep agreed. I wish they would wait on these new cards for next gen to compete directly with next gen AMD cards. 

Only reason I can think of for people to buy these cards right now are professionals who need the compute power, but don't want to spend $4000 for a card to do the same things. Oh and for people who want the sexy looking cooler!


----------



## erocker (Mar 18, 2013)

I digress that some folks might find this card appealing if they are using an older generation card and are just looking to upgrade right now. It would be nice to see price cuts to their entire 6 series though.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 18, 2013)

erocker said:


> I digress that some folks might find this card appealing if they are using an older generation card and are just looking to upgrade right now. It would be nice to see price cuts to their entire 6 series though.



It would though. Especially to even stay competitive with current AMD cards. 680/670 are pricey compared to what you can get from AMD in the performance/price end.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 18, 2013)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Yep agreed. I wish they would wait on these new cards for next gen to compete directly with next gen AMD cards.
> 
> Only reason I can think of for people to buy these cards right now are professionals who need the compute power, but don't want to spend $4000 for a card to do the same things. Oh and for people who want the sexy looking cooler!



Nvidia with Maxwell might have had same strategy Kepler had to make GeForce series GK104 weak in Compute power to lower its die-size. Maybe this is a quick way Nvidia can compete with the way AMD,Microsoft & Intel/Havok will be taking games with the next gen consoles being DirectX directcompute heavy.  This will buy them time and have a competitor even if its over priced.
Other then that there are milking every cent they can get from the GK110.

Sexy looking coolers you say ?
Just get lable paper and print out a picture of Kate Upton and slap that on your current cooler.  Bang!!! save $500 dollars right there.


----------



## Casecutter (Mar 18, 2013)

When Titan is 25% more performance though 125% more money than a 7970 Boost...  What's the use offering a 15% performance bump; that costs 65% more (~$700), or double the cost of a GTX680 for 15% inprovement... because face it they won’t  be $550-600!  

P.T. Barnum said it best or was it David Hannum...


----------



## Jack1n (Mar 18, 2013)

If this will be around 600-650$ it will be worth the money.


----------



## radrok (Mar 18, 2013)

Xzibit said:


> Isn't a scaled down Titan an oxymoron
> 
> I can see the new Nvidia naming scheme now
> GTX Titan
> ...



GTX MiniMe


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 18, 2013)

Help me understand this.  

I can buy two 680s for the price of one Titan.  Nvidea wants to burn through their poorly performing silicon, so they want to sell a "stripped down" version of Titan.  Realistically, the stripped down card will be specced higher that the 680 but priced higher than any performance gain it might possibly have.

Who in their right mind will buy this?

Looking at a limited production run, insane costs, and generally unappealing cost to performance ratio I can't see a market.  The Titan can claim absolute superiority.  The 680 can claim ownership of the single card consumer market.  What does the stripped down Titan claim?


----------



## douglatins (Mar 18, 2013)

A GTX685? 600usd? Sign me in


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 18, 2013)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Help me understand this....The Titan can claim absolute superiority.  The 680 can claim ownership of the single card consumer market.



Eh?

The Titan owns all single chips, yes.  Then the 7970 can arguably be called the most realistic king of the consumer market.  The 7970 at comparative speeds (call it GHz if you will) is superior to the 680.


----------



## Animalpak (Mar 18, 2013)

As i said they have to release this ( stripped down version ) instead of TITAN...  Then if the price was 650 to 700 bills i really considered buying !!


----------



## OneCool (Mar 18, 2013)

Who the hell at nVidia is coming up with this shit?

pointless :shadedshu


For the people willing to pay 600+ for this.......WTF


----------



## TheHunter (Mar 18, 2013)

lol told ya in that Quadro K6000 thread


----------



## buggalugs (Mar 18, 2013)

Nvidia are liers!! I remember after the 7970 came out, when NVidia said they thought the 7970 was going to be faster but its not so we're not going to release our GK110 chip we're going to release our GK100 instead because it competes with the 7970!

 Then they thought oh shit the GK100 isn't that fast compared to 7970 we better build in boost overclocking to make it look better. They had to max out the GK100 chip to get it to compete.

 Then they release this titan for $1000? What if the 7970 was 15% faster than it was? Would they have released titan for $699 up against the 7970?

 Anyway its all fun and games I guess


----------



## HumanSmoke (Mar 18, 2013)

buggalugs said:


> Nvidia are liers!! I remember after the 7970 came out, when NVidia said they thought the 7970 was going to be faster but its not so we're not going to release our GK110 chip we're going to release our GK100 instead because it competes with the 7970!-Then they thought oh shit the GK100 isn't that fast compared to 7970 we better build in boost overclocking to make it look better. They had to max out the GK100 chip to get it to compete.


Cool story. Leave it to an Aussie to take a singular point and spin it into a tall tale! 

Actual story from the original source:


> While it is still officially quiet from NVIDIA, spokespersons have revealed that they expected more from AMD.
> 
> During Consumer Electronics Show 2012 in Las Vegas, NVIDIA focused almost exclusively on its mobile system processors of the Tegra family. The company had nothing official to say about its coming Kepler architecture...



Note the complete lack of reference to GK 110 or _GK 100 _( a GPU that doesn't exist btw), nor the GK 104 and GK 107 which were the first Kepler series GPUs that achieved series production.


Casecutter said:


> When Titan is 25% more performance though 125% more money than a 7970 Boost...


25% ? Generally with a small sample set numbers can mean whatever you like
A quick look at the 28 available reviews I could  ( TPU, Anandtech, HardOCP, Guru 3D, Bjorn3D, HardwareLUXX, ComputerBase, Hardware France, Hardware Canucks, PC Perspective, OCC, Sweclockers, Lab501, Hardware.info, PCGH, Alienbabeltech, Tech Report, Hexus, Hot Hardware, HiTech Legion, TechSpot, PC Gamer, X-bit, bit-tech, expreview, Tom's, Hot Hardware, MaximumPC, Linus amongst them), says that the Titan is 33% faster (using highest game i.q. benches only) at 1920 / 2560, and 45.5% faster at 5760...and that taking into account some oddball benchmarking results ( the 7970GE gaining framerate from 2560 to 5760, or not losing any framerate between 1920 and 5760 in AC3 for example, or lack of driver support in Tomb Raider for example) in small sample sets* that skew the mean value of the averaged results.
* Only three sites benchmarked AC3 at 5760x1080:
TPU: Favoured the HD 7970GE by 44.99%
ComputerBase favoured Titan by 36.73%
HW Canucks favoured Titan by 49.09%

I'd be inclined to delve into the numbers a little further -along with any other possible workload the cards' user base might employ...after all, I seem to remember that many AMD proponents were happy to justify a $549 initial price tag for the 7970 based on its hashing ability.
Besides, if you're using a performance-per-dollar metric based solely on gaming you obviously aren't part of the intended market for the card. Given your distain for anything Nvidia it beats me why you even bother with the argument- it's not as if you'd buy an Nvidia card even if it came with a 100% rebate voucher.


----------



## radrok (Mar 18, 2013)

I was too convinced that GK104 wasn't meant to be the GTX 680 but when you look at the date on the HPC GK110 then you can see that it was too late to be even shown as a consumer part.

I would have been GF100 all over again, infact there is no GK100 and I'm fairly sure the reason are the very poor early 28nm yields.

I mean 7.1 billions transistors on a new manufacturing node? Would have costed an arm and a leg to produce in a sizable quantity for their GTX 670/680 lineup.

I think that if the 7970 was faster than it is now, like 10-15% more then Nvidia would have launched GK104 as midrange chip and they would have launched the GK110 as GTX 680 when they could have had reasonable yields.

Nvidia would have probably been without a single GPU capable of fighting AMD toe to toe and they would have probably used a dual GK104 solution.

But meh things have gone differently and we can only speculate.


----------



## sergionography (Mar 18, 2013)

this is so lame, when amd offered 30-40% better performance than nvidia with the hd7970 they did so at the same price point, and ever since the gap got even wider with significant improvements on drivers and then the ghz edition all at the same price point, but look at nvidia now barely coming out 25% faster and trying to milk their customers with 1000 dollars
idk but the review sites should be more harsh about this. 
I know businesses are no charity, but people should support amd as they have proven to have better business practices than both nvidia and intel


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 18, 2013)

sergionography said:


> this is so lame, when amd offered 30-40% better performance than nvidia with the hd7970 they did so at the same price point, and ever since the gap got even wider with significant improvements on drivers and then the ghz edition all at the same price point, but look at nvidia now barely coming out 25% faster and trying to milk their customers with 1000 dollars
> idk but the review sites should be more harsh about this.
> I know businesses are no charity, but people should support amd as they have proven to have better business practices than both nvidia and intel



Some vote with their wallet. 
I agree btw


----------



## Jacez (Mar 18, 2013)

I don't understand the pricing scheme anymore.

Back when GTX 280 was released, it cost 500$.
Then, GTX 295 was released half a year later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 480 was released a year later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 580 was released half a year later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 680 was released a year and a half later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 690 was released a quarter later and cost *1,000$*!
Then, GTX Titan was released half a year later and cost *1,000$*!

Okay, so the prices don't go down anymore.
Does that mean that GTX 780 will cost 2,000$? GTX 880 will cost 4,000$?

Why are we letting this happen?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 18, 2013)

There already is something to fit in that spot. The Titan. It should have been $750 from the start. The 690 is still the real Titan.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Mar 18, 2013)

sergionography said:


> I know businesses are no charity, but people should support amd as they have proven to have better business practices than both nvidia and intel


Probably relative to how much you're affected by a particular issue. For example, when was the last time Intel muzzled a forum site from discussing an issue with its software ?


Jacez said:


> I don't understand the pricing scheme anymore.
> Back when GTX 280 was released, it cost 500$.
> Then, GTX 295 was released half a year later and cost 500$.
> Then, GTX 480 was released a year later and cost 500$.
> ...


The GTX 280 was $649 at launch
You're also missing the GTX 590 ($699. As was the HD 6990), and previously, the nominal MSRP's were:
9800 GX2 $599
8800 Ultra $630
7800 GTX 512MB $650 (as was the X1900 XTX launched a few weeks later)
6800 Ultra Extreme 512MB  $899
6800 Ultra Extreme 256MB  $549 (as was the X850 XT PE)
FX 5950 Ultra $500 (as was the Radeon 9800 XT)
FX 5900 Ultra $500 (as was the Radeon 9800 PRO)
You notice the trend ? When both camps have broadly equal performance cards available, the price is also held in check. This is the same regardless of vendor. The HD 5970 held sway as the single fastest card from its launch up until the GTX 590 and HD 6990 eventuated. The HD 5970 was nominally a $600 card, and as "top dog" held pricing lower/similar performing cards at lower price points - notably the GTX 480 and GTX 580.


----------



## eventide (Mar 19, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> Probably relative to how much you're affected by a particular issue. For example, when was the last time Intel muzzled a forum site from discussing an issue with its software ?
> 
> The GTX 280 was $649 at launch
> You're also missing the GTX 590 ($699. As was the HD 6990), and previously, the nominal MSRP's were:
> ...



Frankly, are you being paid for all your efforts? So much statistics for a mere forum bypasser... Would take an hour just to collect and compile all the info you've amply piled up here...


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 19, 2013)

Best be better than the titan at a lower cost or fail IMO.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Mar 19, 2013)

eventide said:


> Frankly, are you being paid for all your efforts? So much statistics for a mere forum bypasser... Would take an hour just to collect and compile all the info you're amply piled up here...


Paid ?
Indirectly, I suppose. I've been an avid hardware buff for more years than I care to remember, and started a fairly comprehensive database of specs, reviews, usage, and evolution of graphics around the time that workstation graphics started becoming interesting for me ( i.e. SGI's IRIS ~1983)...back when information still arrived in a physical mailbox in the form of magazines, trade publications, and books.
An abridged version is presently in the editing stage for publication as a series at another site.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 19, 2013)

Hes a regular Wildstrom


----------



## Relayer (Mar 19, 2013)

Cool, a $900 card.


----------



## alwayssts (Mar 19, 2013)

Hmm.

When I see these oddities appear, I wonder what their point is other than dumping salvage.

I keep pondering the possibility of AMD going the RV770 route with Hainan and make not only 1792x2, but 1536x2 cards (remember the 4850x2?).  The former would certainly make more sense as a >300w card to take on 690 (greater than 1019mhz and using >6ghz ram would be needed to beat it...in theory AMD could go up to 1111/7000), but the later would make a ton of sense in the 225-300w club.  It may not be directly comparable to Titan (even if it is on paper) because of multi-gpu versus single chip issues, but it could certainly battle something like this at a (slightly) more realistic price point and seem appealing.

BTW, it would seem obvious the point of this is to equal absolute performance of 7970 at stock...or roughly 90% of Titan.  To put it another way: ~1.5x 7950/660ti/7870XT (Tahiti LE)


----------



## OneCool (Mar 19, 2013)

Well if you look at it from this point.Can nvidia dual gpu the "Titan" on one pcb? Im guessing no they cant.(atleast not now)Think Titan core x2 with 12gb GDDR5. 

Im guessing their setting this up to be the dual gpu one pcb monster.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 19, 2013)

If this is a trend for Nvidia then it will play out something like this.

K20x = GTX Titan $999
K20 = GTX Titan-mini $849-$899
K6000 = GTX Titan-supermini $699-799 due to 3GB memory  (Same performance as 7970 GHz)


----------



## HumanSmoke (Mar 19, 2013)

OneCool said:


> Well if you look at it from this point.Can nvidia dual gpu the "Titan" on one pcb? Im guessing no they cant.(atleast not now)


No reason why they can't except:
1. I doubt Nvidia actually want meaningful quantities of single GeForce GK 110 cards sold (since it diverts from Quadro/Tesla), let alone letting them go out two at a time.
2. The HD 7990 that is available at present uses a non-PCI SIG three 8-pin PCI-E power connection. That would also be enough to drive 2 x GK 110 + vRAM, if AMD decided upon not limiting clocks of a reference 7990 and going with the TUL design. 
3. The main problem for a dual-GK 110 would likely be physical PCB real estate limitation with the amount of memory chips required. 3GB per GPU would be feasible...I don't think 2 x 6GB would be.
4. If AMD decide to redesign their 7990 into a semblance of a production card (dual slot, 2 x 8-pin PCI-E) then Nvidia would likely see a more aggressively clocked dual GK 104 as a likely competitor.

Personally I doubt that a dual-GPU war is high up on either vendors "must have" list. The R&D versus PR gain becomes increasingly smaller as the second generation of 28nm approaches.


----------



## atikkur (Mar 19, 2013)

price it $499-550, and lower all keppler lines, gtx680 for 399, gtx670 for 299, and so on. everybody wins yeaaahhh,,,,....


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 19, 2013)

OneCool said:


> Well if you look at it from this point.Can nvidia dual gpu the "Titan" on one pcb? Im guessing no they cant.(atleast not now)Think Titan core x2 with 12gb GDDR5.
> 
> Im guessing their setting this up to be the dual gpu one pcb monster.



Who's soul will you be selling to get this?

The 7990 and 690 are out there in such limited quantities it isn't funny.  The Titan is an even rarer breed.  Let's assume you can physically make this card (read: huge assumption).  

Your $1000 card is doubled.  On top of that, you've got a price premium for all the unique components.  I can't see anyone buying a $2000+ card, and I can't see any card manufacturer ever putting something out there that has absolutely no market.  Anyone running two Titans obviously has some serious hardware, which would make running a pair in SLI very easy.  Even crunchers would have a hard time justifying a single card that has that poor of a cost-benefit ratio.


----------



## DarkOCean (Mar 19, 2013)

Xzibit said:


> K6000 = GTX Titan-supermini $699-799 due to 3GB memory  (Same performance as 7970 GHz)


how is that even make sense at that price?


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 19, 2013)

DarkOCean said:


> how is that even make sense at that price?



Nvidia hasnt made any sense as of late but if the K6000 ends up being a Geforce I dont think it will hit the market at a competative price.
GTX 680 4GB $539-$599 so I would expect it to cost more. 

With 7790 ready to go and the 655 TI around the corner. There bigger brothers shouldnt be too far away making these cards even more overpriced.


----------



## Jacez (Mar 19, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> Probably relative to how much you're affected by a particular issue. For example, when was the last time Intel muzzled a forum site from discussing an issue with its software ?
> 
> The GTX 280 was $649 at launch
> You're also missing the GTX 590 ($699. As was the HD 6990), and previously, the nominal MSRP's were:
> ...



Wait, you're just mixing everything up. Let's organize.

7800 GTX 512 - 600$ / X1900XT - 400$ (identical performance to X1900XTX)
8800 GTX - 600$ / HD 2900XT - 400$ 
8800 Ultra - 700$ / N/A
9800 GX2 - 600$ / HD 3870 - 450$
GTX 280 - 500$ / HD 4870 - 300$
GTX 295 - 500$ / HD 4870X2 - 550$
GTX 480 - 500$ / HD 5870 - 350$
GTX 580 - 500$ / HD 6970 - 350$ 
GTX 590 - *700$* / HD 6990 - *700$*
GTX 680 - 500$ / HD 7970 - 500$
GTX 690 - *1,000$* / HD 7990 - *1,000$*
GTX Titan - *1,000$* / N/A

So, as you can see.. with the GTX 590/HD 6990, nVidia and AMD have set a dangerous precedent of pricing Dual-GPU cards above 600$, and nVidia exacerbated this by pricing the GTX 690 at 1,000$. This caused the non-reference HD 7990 to be released at an identical 1,000$.

This means we'll never again have our 500$ GTX 890's, like the GTX 295, and it sucks.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2013)

xzibit said:


> isn't a scaled down titan an oxymoron
> 
> I can see the new nvidia naming scheme now
> gtx titan
> ...



gtx 780?


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 19, 2013)

btarunr said:


> gtx 780?



Well I was going off the fact that its a GK110 and I really dont see it being a 780 if its going to be 10-15% slower than the Titan. Nvidia put themselfs in a box with Titan. If 780 is a further crippled GK110 thats a lot of leftover K20 chips.  
Say its released 2 month from now that would be a $500 premium on a Titan card.  Dont see that happening and it will just look bad.
Not saying they have to but I really dont see them justifying selling a GK110 chip for $450-$500 when 2 months earlier your selling it at double the price for 10-15% performance increase.


That just leaves them open for AMD to out clock them with there refresh at a more attractive price point.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Mar 19, 2013)

This post is more a case of adding info rather than taking issue. Sorry for the OT in advance...


Jacez said:


> Wait, you're just mixing everything up. Let's organize.
> 7800 GTX 512 - 600$ / *X1900XT* - 400$ (identical performance to X1900XTX)


Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose what model is defined as the top SKU. The XTX was clocked higher in core and memory than the XT, and is also marginally faster because of it. $649....as was the 7800GTX 512MB-as I noted. The 256MB version was $600


Jacez said:


> 8800 GTX - 600$ / HD 2900XT - 400$


The R600 card was priced lower, because it was little faster than the preceding series, and priced in accordance with the 8800GTS 640MB 


Jacez said:


> 8800 Ultra - 700$ / N/A
> 9800 GX2 - 600$ / HD 3870 - 450$???
> GTX 280 - 500$ / HD 4870 - 300$
> GTX 295 - 500$ / HD 4870X2 - 550$


The HD 3870 was $249 at launch- I presume you mean HD 3870 X2


Jacez said:


> GTX 480 - 500$ / HD 5870 - 350$
> GTX 580 - 500$ / HD 6970 - 350$


As well as the HD 5970 ($699-799), HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 ($479).
GTX 590 - *700$* / HD 6990 - *700$*
GTX 680 - 500$ / HD 7970 - 500$  (note: the 7970 was $549 at launch)
GTX 690 - *1,000$* / HD 7990 - *1,000$*
GTX Titan - *1,000$* / N/A



Jacez said:


> So, as you can see.. with the GTX 590/HD 6990, nVidia and AMD have set a dangerous precedent of pricing Dual-GPU cards above 600$


Not really. These things tend to cyclic. The userbase as a general rule doesn't allow the price to stay at peak levels- it simply isn't pervasive enough. If it was we'd be paying a lot more than $1K for _any_ enthusiast single GPU graphics card. The $500 single GPU card has been around for a few generations, and for some reason people think that the price has always been in vogue. Once upon a time, $280-300 bought a top of the line card- it didn't stop companies jamming some extra goodies onboard and charging a 200% mark-up. You might also note that an SLI solution could cost $1800-2500 scarcely two years later ( Google Quantum3D Obsidian Pro 100DB-4440 or 100SB-4440V for instance), then factor in inflation. You might also note that ATi's All-In-Wonder's progenitors were generally amongst the trendsetters in incrementally raising prices towards (and past) the $500 mark in the first place for the volume production high end.


----------



## Recus (Mar 19, 2013)

Nvidia releases new card - haters rise.


----------



## arbiter (Mar 19, 2013)

Inflation? for a matter of arguement over 690 costing 1000$, there was a certain ATI based gpu that was selling anywhere from 1200-1500$.


----------



## Jacez (Mar 19, 2013)

Okay, I'm not sure why you're nit-picking my post. 

My point was about the GTX 590 and onwards, not the preceding generations. Their only purpose was to build up a case. 

But I thought I'd respond anyway.



HumanSmoke said:


> Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose what model is defined as the top SKU.



Well, it's my comparison, so yes, in fact.. I do get to choose.



HumanSmoke said:


> The XTX was clocked higher in core and memory than the XT, and is also marginally faster because of it.



Define "marginally". It was no more than a 2% overclock on an "OC" edition card that typically adds 10$ to the stock price. Except this time, it was 200$.. which is why an XTX was a good way to tell whether someone was a hardware enthusiast or not.



HumanSmoke said:


> $649....as was the 7800GTX 512MB-as I noted. The 256MB version was $600



You can quote links all you like - the MSRP wasn't correct in the 7800 GTX 512's case.



HumanSmoke said:


> The R600 card was priced lower, because it was little faster than the preceding series, and priced in accordance with the 8800GTS 640MB



Thanks for the history lesson, but I was alive in 2007, as well.



HumanSmoke said:


> The HD 3870 was $249 at launch- I presume you mean HD 3870 X2



Yes, I did.



HumanSmoke said:


> As well as the HD 5970 ($699-799), HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 ($479).
> GTX 590 - *700$* / HD 6990 - *700$*
> GTX 680 - 500$ / HD 7970 - 500$  (note: the 7970 was $549 at launch)
> GTX 690 - *1,000$* / HD 7990 - *1,000$*
> GTX Titan - *1,000$* / N/A



I didn't have room for the HD 5970, because the HD 5000 series was more of an inbetween than a rival, since the GTX 200 series was GPU-for-GPU for powerful and the GTX 400 series was late.

Yes, HD 7970 started at 550$, but when GTX 680 came out the price dropped to 500$.. which is what counts.



HumanSmoke said:


> Not really. These things tend to cyclic. The userbase as a general rule doesn't allow the price to stay at peak levels- it simply isn't pervasive enough. If it was we'd be paying a lot more than $1K for _any_ enthusiast single GPU graphics card.



(I can accept "tend to be cyclic", but "tend to cyclic" simply doesn't sound right.)

Yes, they *tend *to be. Yes, it is a *general *rule. That is precisely the issue. 
You're missing the point with your lax generalizations. The only reason graphics cards won't cost 2,000$ is because the international over-arching consumer hyperbole of demand cannot extend that far. At a certain point, raising a price on a product with a hard-demand inclination does lower its demand, and no one is going to pay 2,000$ for a graphics card.
This does not mean that we're not *already *in deep shit. 1,000$ for a graphics card that would have cost 500$ 3 years ago, is ridiculous. The cycle has clearly changed. 




HumanSmoke said:


> The $500 single GPU card has been around for a few generations, and for some reason people think that the price has always been in vogue. Once upon a time, $280-300 bought a top of the line card



You're making my point for me. Yes, prices have been going up for some time now. This is *bad*.



HumanSmoke said:


> You might also note that an SLI solution could cost $1800-2500 scarcely two years later ( Google Quantum3D Obsidian Pro 100DB-4440 or 100SB-4440V for instance), then factor in inflation.



Yes, a company that priced its cards at 2,500$ could not compete and now no longer exists.

Miracles do occur.



HumanSmoke said:


> You might also note that ATi's All-In-Wonder's progenitors were generally amongst the trendsetters in incrementally raising prices towards (and past) the $500 mark in the first place for the volume production high end.



And ATi's All-in-Wonder cards are also extinct.


----------



## tokyoduong (Mar 19, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> Making that generalization is insulting and in a lot of cases is not true. This is uncalled for and immature. People who are obese don't need you telling them what to do either, so I would can it before you really get yourself in trouble if you haven't already.
> 
> As for the price, it's a valid concern and there are a lot of people bring it up. It shows how many people have it on their mind. Just because we can justify why nVidia did it doesn't mean that nVidia did the right thing, which is what I'm gathering from what people are saying.



It's not insulting or generalizations. It's called exaggeration because everyone is complaining about pricing of a product that is obviously going to be overpriced.

If you want to analyze this from a economic/financial stand point.

Top 3 reasons this product will be priced high:

Low Volume: manufacturing involves fixed cost + variable cost so economy of scales great vary cost per unit produced. The higher the volume the less the fixed cost have an effect on each unit.

Cost Push: due to low volume, complexity, bleeding edge tech requirements, and very limited # of facilities that can actually produce this. The cost per chip will be higher not because of anything besides a lack of options. That cost will be passed onto the customer

Small market: demand is very low for this product, even in this forum there's only a handful that will actually think about buying it. Even a smaller amount will actually buy it.

Let's talk about why initial pricing doesn't matter because of equilibrium and substitute goods.

If price is higher than equilibrium then consumers won't buy or buy less of it. There will be a surplus. Since this is low volume then # of unsold units will have a higher % impact than a high volume product. You will bet that retailers/eseller/oem will cut orders and it will look drastic since a store would only order 20 and they cut it to 5, it will look like a 75% drop in demand. That kind of %s will raise eyebrows of statisticians at NVIDIA immediately. They will adjust prices accordingly almost immediately. Why? NVIDIA doesn't want fire sales and stacks of their flag ship cards in all stores and tarnish their "superior goods" image.

Second, you have many options for substitute goods. NVIDIA has substitute goods themselves such as SLI of several different products that can match or exceed the same performance by this card. You also have choices of AMD cards and their CF. Then you also have consoles and their coming next gen launch. 

Conclusion: they can price it whatever they want but it won't matter so stop complaining. It's not like they're the only one making graphics chips and consumers have no choice.


----------



## jihadjoe (Mar 19, 2013)

Gtx780!


----------



## HumanSmoke (Mar 19, 2013)

Jacez said:


> My point was about the GTX 590 and onwards, not the preceding generations. Their only purpose was to build up a case.....Well, it's my comparison, so yes, in fact.. I do get to choose [_what card is designated as the top SKU_]...I didn't have room for the HD 5970....Yes, HD 7970 started at 550$, but when GTX 680 came out the price dropped to 500$.. which is what counts.


Ah, I see. Cherry picking a time range using cherry picked parameters that don't bear any relationship to the vendors actual card hierarchy using your own personal pricing conventions that bear little in common with reality- an argument you're bound to win ...An example:


Jacez said:


> You can quote links all you like - the MSRP [$650] wasn't correct in the 7800 GTX 512's case.


You mean like this one:
...a bargain considering nVIDIA’s *current pricing *for the 7800GTX 512MB of $699USD 
Or this, or this, or this, or this, or this...
Feel free to post some proof that the 7800GTX 512MB was selling below MSRP

If we're cherry picking- or to use your rationale _"Well, it's my comparison, so yes, in fact.. I do get to choose"_, here's another taking into account limited production run cards for the uber-enthusiast:
6800 Ultra Extreme 512MB...$899
7800 GTX Black Pearl....$999
8800 Ultra Leviathan...$899
HD 5970 4GB...$1000-1199
Asus Mars....$1500
Asus Ares......$1000
Asus Mars II...$1499
HD 7970 6GB...$700
HD 7990......$799-899
Asus Ares II...$1699
GTX 690......$1000
GTX Titan....$1000


----------



## badtaylorx (Mar 19, 2013)

ahhhh.....i think nvidia means to say they're launching the GTX 770 this summer???  

or was the titan just a 680ti???


----------



## Jacez (Mar 20, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> Ah, I see. Cherry picking a time range using cherry picked parameters that don't bear any relationship to the vendors actual card hierarchy using your own personal pricing conventions that bear little in common with reality- an argument you're bound to win ...An example:
> 
> You mean like this one:
> ...a bargain considering nVIDIA’s *current pricing *for the 7800GTX 512MB of $699USD
> ...





Are you for real..?

So, I disagree with you about the price of the 7800 GTX 512 and HD 7970, both of which have *no bearing* on my overall summation in *any way*, and that's all you want to talk about?

It's like saying "I think we should feed starving children in Africa" and someone getting pissed off at you, completely forgetting your point, because "they're technically toddlers, not children."

Listen, if you ever fill out that prescription, drop me a line, alright?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Mar 20, 2013)

Jacez said:


> So, I disagree with you about the price of the 7800 GTX 512 and HD 7970, both of which have *no bearing* on my overall summation in *any way*, and that's all you want to talk about?


Hell no.
The fact that you can't accept that you got called out for quoting cherry picked- and some obviously false price points to bolster your argument. I provided relevant links to educate and forestall any unsubstantiated claims. As for what I wanted to talk about- how about a whole babble of hyperbole that stems from your first post:


Jacez said:


> Does that mean that GTX 780 will cost 2,000$? GTX 880 will cost 4,000$?


And, no, it does not. *EVERY* time an expensive limited production hardware arrives, some knee-jerk reactionaries seem unable to stop themselves from donning the "The End is Nigh" sandwich board.
For someone so concerned about conciseness and relevancy in posting, I'd also note that you were quite happy to wander (way) off topic and make some deal over an obvious typo:


Jacez said:


> (I can accept "tend to be cyclic", but "tend to cyclic" simply doesn't sound right.)



Anyhow I done. Feel free to call my attention to the pricing of the GTX 780 if it retails anywhere close to $2000.


----------



## HammerON (Mar 20, 2013)

Alright folks, let's stop the bickering and move along.


----------



## Jacez (Mar 20, 2013)

HammerON said:


> Alright folks, let's stop the bickering and move along.



Sorry, Hammer.. but I can't let such pretentiousness continue. Feel free to delete our posts if you see fit.



HumanSmoke said:


> Hell no.
> The fact that you can't accept that you got called out for quoting cherry picked- and some obviously false price points to bolster your argument. I provided relevant links to *educate *and *forestall *any unsubstantiated claims.



Lol. Don't you just love it when you can tell the egomaniacs by their over-used vocabulary?

You chose to completely divert the attention from the topic at hand because you *gasp* took issue with 2 (out of the 20) numbers I put up.

Well, congratulations. You were right! The 7800 GTX 512 did retail for 650$.

Would you like that (1) internet now or after you've finished gratifying yourself at the thundering roar of your own awesomeness?



HumanSmoke said:


> And, no, it does not. *EVERY* time an expensive limited production hardware arrives, some knee-jerk reactionaries seem unable to stop themselves from donning the "The End is Nigh" sandwich board.



Generalizing me into a pool of people you don't respect does not denote that you're right.

The fact is, your broad understatement of the situation only trivializes a *very *important issue.

Yes, USUALLY price increases don't last, but USUALLY they are the cause of a lack of competition, which is entirely understandable (i.e. 8800 Ultra)..

But now we have a precedent. Both companies are heightening their prices of competing products. It's no different than price fixing, except that it is not intentional and thus not illegal. It does, however, suck majorly for the consumer.



HumanSmoke said:


> _Anyhow I done._ Feel free to call my attention to the pricing of the GTX 780 if it retails anywhere close to $2000.



Why does it matter?! 1,000$ is too much!


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 20, 2013)

tokyoduong said:


> It's not insulting or generalizations. It's called exaggeration because everyone is complaining about pricing of a product that is obviously going to be overpriced.
> 
> If you want to analyze this from a economic/financial stand point.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying your wrong so don't go getting defensive, you're pandering to the wrong person. I'm just saying if you have a point, you can make it without insulting people and making insulting generalizations about people. Keep your posts mature and thoughtful and I typically won't have a problem with them. There is a reason why a mod deleted the post, and I'm sure it's not because of your stance on this issue.


Jacez said:


> Sorry, Hammer.. but I can't let such pretentiousness continue. Feel free to delete our posts if you see fit.



You're asking for an infraction. When a moderator asks you to do something (or not to do something) on the forum, it's usually unwise to disobey them in public as opposed to messaging him or her in private.


----------



## Jacez (Mar 20, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> You're asking for an infraction. When a moderator asks you to do something (or not to do something) on the forum, it's usually unwise to disobey them in public as opposed to messaging him or her in private.



Yuppers. That's why I replied to him specifically in my post.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 20, 2013)

Jacez said:


> Yuppers. That's why I replied to him specifically in my post.



Which is not private. Read the rules, please.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/announcement.php?f=14



> Reporting and complaining
> 
> All posts have a "report post" button on the left side of the post, click it when you feel something is inappropriate.
> *If you disagree with moderator actions contact them via PM, if you can't solve the issue with the moderator in question contact a super moderator. Don't start public drama.*
> ...


----------



## Casecutter (Mar 20, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> Besides, if you're using a performance-per-dollar metric based solely on gaming you obviously aren't part of the intended market for the card. Given your distain for anything Nvidia it beats me why you even bother with the argument- it's not as if you'd buy an Nvidia card even if it came with a 100% rebate voucher.



It took all your cut-and-paste-wordy-ness of a bunch of who' knows of their credibility reviews to supposedly make your point.  I'm not contesting the pricing of the Titian, a Halo card is whatever...

I went by the W1zzard, and a 2560x the _minimum_ resolution anyone would think of buying something like that for.  I wish W1zzard would've average out his 5760x1080 results. 

I do understand your "other possible workload the cards' user base might employ... intended market for the card" for Titian, and in that realm it's a no-brainer against dedicated workstation hardware.  Although, does Nvidia propagandize this gelding it as such, it will chiefly tested for gaming.  Sure it's a part of the claim, but truly a small foundation of the marketing, and we what to see how a 13 SMX (14% less) provides against the 7970 architecture.

I'm not against the Nvidia design or performance, just their Green Team Marketing that continues to live off the "G92 Glory Years".  

I am a fan of the GTX670 the best card Nvidia has produce in many moon’s; a nice reference design is a great purchase when it can be had for $320. I also like the GTX650Ti, but really only a sensible buy when you can find say a MSI PE for $130 and add a little oomph.

Titian is having it's time on the mount as well it should, however the "Runt of Titian"… sorry it doesn't appear to have any "trickle-down" affect, not unless Nvidia surprises with a $600 price point.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 20, 2013)

Starting public drama is HumanSmoke modus operandi with anything Nvidia.

Even when you point out hes wrong he switches to something else to point out hes right all along

You have my sympathy Jacez and welcome to Techpowerup.  Get used to him...


----------



## Hood (Mar 20, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> Thats why i'm on Radeons for years now...



I'm on Nvidia for years now, because the equivalent Radeon cards are hotter running, noisier and more power hungry.  But the real deal-killers are the perennially buggy drivers and software supplied by AMD.  CCC is a joke, I've never seen a program that crashed so often and for no apparent reason (several versions/cards).  For this reason alone, I avoid ATI/AMD like the plague.  If you make your choice because of a few lousy dollars saved, my advice is save up for an extra week or two and always buy Nvidia.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 20, 2013)

Hood said:


> I'm on Nvidia for years now, because the equivalent Radeon cards are hotter running, noisier and more power hungry.  But the real deal-killers are the perennially buggy drivers and software supplied by AMD.  CCC is a joke, I've never seen a program that crashed so often and for no apparent reason (several versions/cards).  For this reason alone, I avoid ATI/AMD like the plague.  If you make your choice because of a few lousy dollars saved, my advice is save up for an extra week or two and always buy Nvidia.



nVidia was pretty bad with power consumption and heat prior to the GTX 600 series cards. The GTX 500 and 400 series loved to eat power. I've had more issues with nVidia drivers than I have had with AMD drivers. AMD has also never fried any of my hardware. I have a GeForce 8600 GTS that fried the DDC on one of my displays at work. I also don't need to update my drivers for my AMD cards nearly as often as I did with nVidia, so its a double edged sword. My experiences with AMD have been pretty good.

I've never had CCC crash on me and drivers will fail very rarely and when it does it's usually related to my overclock and running crossfire at the same time, not my drivers.

So all in all, I'm sorry that you've had a bad experience but I haven't experienced what you have with AMD, and I think it is worse that nVidia damages hardware rather than just crashing.

So yeah, even if my AMD video cards did crash a couple times, I would prefer that to my nVidia card bricking a display. It also wouldn't be the first time that I had a nVidia card that didn't work right.

---

With all of this said though, this thread isn't a Red vs Green thread so we should stop this argument right here.  If you really want to continue it then I think it calls for a new thread or a PM war, but I won't be arguing the point beyond this post.


----------



## EpicShweetness (Mar 20, 2013)

Relayer said:


> Cool, a $900 card.



Hella! That's the first price that popped into my head with the obscene pricing NVIDIA has been doing lately. :shadedshu


----------



## Casecutter (Mar 20, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> nVidia was pretty bad with power consumption and heat prior to the GTX 600 series cards.



My sediments exactly, that might have been the case with AMD before the RV770 (4870) since then not true, and when you look at Keplers under actual gaming load it's not that noteworthy, better but super outlandish.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/01/08/asus_geforce_gtx_670_directcu_ii_4gb_gpu_review/9


----------



## HumanSmoke (Mar 20, 2013)

Casecutter said:


> I went by the W1zzard, and a 2560x the _minimum_ resolution anyone would think of buying something like that for.  I wish W1zzard would've average out his 5760x1080 results.


I think W1zzard has commented before that it is because of the relative lack of cards for comparison at that resolution- 5760x1080 only recently being added to the benchmarks. If you're wanting a graphic boiled down to a single number, you'll have to keep a few bookmarks handy - a comparison of sites also throws up a wider range of games/apps, and driver issues, which are more prevalent with multi-monitor gaming.
Aside from TPU, Anandtech, Hardware Canucks, ComputerBase, Alienbabeltech, Sweclockers, HardwareLUXX, Hardware.info, bit-tech, OCC, Tom's Hardware and HiTech Legion also benched at 5760x1080. HardwareLUXX also benched a fairly gruelling 5760x1080 using sparse grid super sampling (SGSSAA).


Casecutter said:


> I do understand your "other possible workload the cards' user base might employ... intended market for the card" for Titian, and in that realm it's a no-brainer against dedicated workstation hardware.  Although, does Nvidia propagandize this gelding it as such, it will chiefly tested for gaming.  Sure it's a part of the claim, but truly a small foundation of the marketing


And both you and I are part of the explanation. Look at the sheer number of forum threads, arguments, and postings in mainstream tech sites whose bread and butter is gaming orientated hardware concerning the Titan. The PR value Nvidia has reaped from the Titan far outweighs any profit from the cards themselves. If they sell 10,000 cards and make $500 off each one (doubtful unless yields are spectacular), that nets them $5m. PR and the halo effect probably outweigh the monetary return.
How much discussion takes place regarding Quadro and Tesla cards in comparison on tech sites ? Virtually nil in comparison- pro users generally have a more concise idea of their needs -and they certainly aren't the same tyre-kickers and flamers that frequent mainstream forums commenting on hardware they will never own. Pro graphics/math co-processors don't really need PR -just a solid support base and a given feature set. A pro user isn't going to be debating the cards merits on gaming forums- they're more likely to fire of an email to Boxxtech, Amax, HP, or whomever their last contract was with ( The user can configure workstations using Tesla, Quadro or GeForce in a lot of instances) 
Even with minimal "conventional PR", Nvidia are going to sell a hell of lot more pro boards than GeForce branded ones. Leaving aside every Tesla K20 upgrade from 2050/2070/2090, OEM workstation sales, probable Quadro sales, and whatever number of boardsPiz Daint will require, the count already stands at ~22000 ( ORNL's Titan,NCSA's Blue Waters, and CSCS's Todi).


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Mar 20, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> Maybe NVIDIA should stop releasing pointless cards and start making cheaper cards with same performance. Pretty much EVERY single card from NVIDIA is overpriced compared to similar performing Radeons. Every time i'm buying new gfx card i look at both and see that all GeForces are too expensive for what they offer. Thats why i'm on Radeons for years now...



as my freind told me :"you buy amd if you want power, and nvidia if you want stability." After running an AMD laptop for a year now....he was right. AMD may be more powerful, but the constant driver issues and buggy performance (dont get me started on AMD's linux performance) drove me to nvidia. now, everything just works.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 20, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> as my freind told me :"you buy amd if you want power, and nvidia if you want stability." After running an AMD laptop for a year now....he was right. AMD may be more powerful, but the constant driver issues and buggy performance (dont get me started on AMD's linux performance) drove me to nvidia. now, everything just works.



Really? I've had good experience with nVidia's Windows drivers but nVidia's dual-monitor support for linux is horrid which is what turned me off. fglrx and radeon drivers do multi-monitor out of the box just fine and lately fglrx has been working great on all the AMD GPUs I have, which is a pleasant surprise.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Mar 21, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> Really? I've had good experience with nVidia's Windows drivers but nVidia's dual-monitor support for linux is horrid which is what turned me off. fglrx and radeon drivers do multi-monitor out of the box just fine and lately fglrx has been working great on all the AMD GPUs I have, which is a pleasant surprise.



I think it might depend on the program. although, i had the exact opposite issue with nvidia and amd. FGLRX runs fine with ubuntu, but not other distros, like mint (personal favorite). never had an issue with nvidia and dual monitor in linux though. not quite sure why.

FWIW: minecraft will NOT run with fglrx without massive amounts of tweaking to get it to stop crashing.


----------



## Jacez (Mar 21, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> as my freind told me :"you buy amd if you want power, and nvidia if you want stability." After running an AMD laptop for a year now....he was right. AMD may be more powerful, but the constant driver issues and buggy performance (dont get me started on AMD's linux performance) drove me to nvidia. now, everything just works.



I've been running an HD 6950 for a year now. Never had a problem with the drivers.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 21, 2013)

The great driver debate...

This sums it up


----------



## jihadjoe (Mar 21, 2013)

http://xkcd.com/386/
Apparently, duty calls.


----------

