2 GHz GPU or bust :P I hate my GTX 980 so much because I couldn't squeeze out another 60 MHz to reach a round 1500 MHz :P

So...... those mismatched memory people from the speculation thread... what say you?

RejZoR2 GHz GPU or bust :p I hate my GTX 980 so much because I couldn't squeeze out another 60 MHz to reach a round 1500 MHz :p

60% ASIC quality...gotta love TSMC and their BS hype.

This made me laugh....

madafaka42047 :
i felt a great disturbance in the force... as if millions amd fanboys cried out in terror.. and were suddenly silenced.

Wouldn't it be just easier to show that they disabled the whole GPC rather than putting red boxes in random places?

RejZoR2 GHz GPU or bust :p I hate my GTX 980 so much because I couldn't squeeze out another 60 MHz to reach a round 1500 MHz :p

You could downclock 40MHz and have a nice round 1400 MHz :p

June 10 my case is waiting GTX 1070

matarJune 10 my case is waiting GTX 1070

Mine as well...Asus GTX1070 Strix.:D Running on intel HD530 at the moment :D

MSI GTX 1070 Gaming 8GB for me. :D

so 200$ less for different BIOS and GDDR5 ?

john_You could downclock 40MHz and have a nice round 1400 MHz :p

I haven't overclocked Maxwell, but isn't the clock binning in steps of 13 mhz? Kepler is like that at least, and it is related to boost clock which is ported to Maxwell.

john_You could downclock 40MHz and have a nice round 1400 MHz :p

:laugh:

gdallskWouldn't it be just easier to show that they disabled the whole GPC rather than putting red boxes in random places?

This would cut ROPs and memory controllers by 1/4 aswell.

Eroticusso 200$ less for different BIOS and GDDR5 ?

They cores are cut physically. This is as "different BIOS" as GTX 970 to a GTX 980 or an R9 390X to a R9 380

So, there goes "faster than Titan", or not yet?

Eroticusso 200$ less

Fake MSRPs:
$599 - $379 = 220$

Real MSRPs:
$699 - $449 = 150$

In other words: math is strong, within you... =)))))

Well this is better than some had speculated. The 1070 should handle anything maxxed 1920x1080 and 60fps with no problems, and then maybe I'll plunge for a 1080ti and nice 4k monitor in a year or so. The 1080 is tempting but the early reviews look like it's still a bit short of maxxed 4k 60fps gaming despite the marketing claims, and I'm not going to sli 2 $600 cards to get there.

AMD is going to really have to pull a shocker to even be competitive in the gaming segment before Vega is available. I don't see the Polaris 10 coming close to even the 1070.

Nvidia asks 2/3 the price for 3/4 the performance of 1080.

medi01So, there goes "faster than Titan", or not yet?



Fake MSRPs:
$599 - $379 = 120$

Real MSRPs:
$699 - $449 = 150$

In other words: math is strong, within you... =)))))

It probably is faster than the Titan. I think NVIDIA was talking about the Titan X.... and I bet its still close. ;)

dozenfuryAMD is going to really have to pull a shocker to even be competitive in the gaming segment before Vega is available. I don't see the Polaris 10 coming close to even the 1070.

This is where we agree and disagree.

I agree they will have to pull a shocker. The difference is, I think it will be that shocker.

Just because P10 is focused toward mainstream for efficiency/price/power, doesn't mean there will not be a higher-clocked/gddr5x close-to-~225w-capable variant. If that WERE the case (they abandoned that market until Vega), AMD would be an incredibly idiotic company. I think people give them too little credit, especially when they've said over and over chip is made to scale across a ton of different markets.

I still have absolutely no idea if a GDDR5x model will happen right away with P10, or if they will focus on mobile/<150w/perhaps slightly greater than 150w but still GDDR5 (for overclocking potential) for initial launch....or what. But it WILL eventually happen, and logic simply dictates with their supposed price and flop/gbps bw perf (extrapolated from the clocks of PS4 neo) that with GDDR5x it should (when clocked high-enough, which there is no reason shouldn't be able to happen) compete with 1070.

Even if you figure 2048sp instead of 2560 (which I don't necessarily believe, 2560 makes a ton more sense), the perf/$ ratio could/should still be similar, if not better, for P10 vs 1070.

225W would be a kick in the pants considering the 1080's 180W... and I would imagine the 1070 to be 165W or less...

alwaysstsEven if you figure 2048sp instead of 2560 (which I don't necessarily believe, 2560 makes a ton more sense), the perf/$ ratio could/should still be similar, if not better, for P10 vs 1070.

And when that happens I will shit a golden brick. Which I will promptly exchange for US dollars. And buy at least 3 480Xs with them.

P4-630Mine as well...Asus GTX1070 Strix.:D Running on intel HD530 at the moment :D

I want dat gigabyte g1 gaming or xtreme gaming... oh wait my name kinda already said that oh well.

I foresee a GTX 1070Ti in the works.

Eroticusso 200$ less for different BIOS and GDDR5 ?

No, like almost all silicon chips GP104 are sorted into different binnings, based on defective areas and thermal characteristics. Probably less than 5% of the chips are good enough for GTX 1080, and the others will be partly disabled and binned into lower products. This is a nesessity for manufacturers to get good yields and be able to provide great products at a relatively low cost.

Dj-ElectriCThey cores are cut physically. This is as "different BIOS" as GTX 970 to a GTX 980 or an R9 390X to a R9 380

No, they are never cut physically. They may either be disabled in BIOS or permanently disabled by cutting a bridge, but the parts of the chip is never physically removed. If you looked at a wide selection of GP104-200 chips, you'll see different SPs disabled in each chip.

The same also applies to CPUs. My good old i7-3930K is really an 8-core with two cores disabled.

Did they just degraded the card from 6,75TFlop to 6,45TFlop?
Sounds like the original idea was to have over 2000 shaders.