Tuesday, July 7th 2020
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 and RTX 3070 Ti Rumored Specifications Appear
NVIDIA is slowly preparing to launch its next-generation Ampere graphics cards for consumers after we got the A100 GPU for data-centric applications. The Ampere lineup is getting more and more leaks and speculations every day, so we can assume that the launch is near. In the most recent round of rumors, we have some new information about the GPU SKU and memory of the upcoming GeForce RTX 3070 and RTX 3070 Ti. Thanks to Twitter user kopite7kimi, who had multiple confirmed speculations in the past, we have information that GeForce RTX 3070 and RTX 3070 Ti use a GA104 GPU SKU, paired with GDDR6 memory. The cath is that the Ti version of GPU will feature a new GDDR6X memory, which has a higher speed and can reportedly go up to 21 Gbps.
The regular RTX 3070 is supposed to have 2944 CUDA cores on GA104-400 GPU die, while its bigger brother RTX 3070 Ti is designed with 3072 CUDA cores on GA104-300 die. Paired with new technologies that Ampere architecture brings, with a new GDDR6X memory, the GPUs are set to be very good performers. It is estimated that both of the cards would reach a memory bandwidth of 512 GB/s. So far that is all we have. NVIDIA is reportedly in Design Validation Test (DVT) phase with these cards and is preparing for mass production in August. Following those events is the official launch which should happen before the end of this year, with some speculations indicating that it is in September.
Sources:
VideoCardz, TweakTown, kopite7kimi (Twitter)
The regular RTX 3070 is supposed to have 2944 CUDA cores on GA104-400 GPU die, while its bigger brother RTX 3070 Ti is designed with 3072 CUDA cores on GA104-300 die. Paired with new technologies that Ampere architecture brings, with a new GDDR6X memory, the GPUs are set to be very good performers. It is estimated that both of the cards would reach a memory bandwidth of 512 GB/s. So far that is all we have. NVIDIA is reportedly in Design Validation Test (DVT) phase with these cards and is preparing for mass production in August. Following those events is the official launch which should happen before the end of this year, with some speculations indicating that it is in September.
106 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 and RTX 3070 Ti Rumored Specifications Appear
Now you got me thinking, when Intel stated back in 90th that most common instructions are done in one clock, e.g. division... I need to think about it more, but indeed, what you state makes sense.
Say I have a block which is a chain of transistors that need to complete in 1 clock cycle. Having transistors switch faster, would allow me to build longer/wider chains and do crazier stuff in one clock. (how easily that translates into IPC gains is far from obvious, but clearly it could)
PS
Your posts come off somewhat arrogant, it would help if you would tone it down.Black level is absolute and OLED wipes the floor with LCD here.
Contrast is relative: black vs bright dot and LCD can be much brighter than OLEDs can afford (burn in) and achieve better contrast that way.
Still, our eyes do tell the difference.
VA LCDs have perfect blacks. I don't think any OLED has better black than the best VA.
Plasma had issues with whites, not blacks.
I honestly speak far and wide, bringing little evidence. There was a side by side display comparison. It was the same with igzo-ltps difference.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(unit)
As for "but some dudes on youtube make convincing argument that Samsung's Q-Lies are better than they are", welp, that's in the eye of beholder, mine call out BS.
K, so 16:9 aperture ratio 43" panel 300cd/m² bright will emit the same as a 150w bulb when displaying white image.
You've just rendered OLED and FALD TFT irrelevant.
In a thread about 3080.
That's a 10/10.
This is what happens when you have developed your whole skill tree on astroturfing.
b) You have this nice tendency to quote random things without providing sources. Is inserting a link really that difficult?
c) A graph with unnamed axes? Yeah, that tells us nothing. Percent of what?
d) "Harass your eyes with total darkness"? Our eyes are capable of discerning a wider dynamic range than any TV is capable of displaying, and any camera is capable of capturing. Having sufficiently low black levels is essential for any display panel that is going to be used in a typical home (non-controlled) environment. I certainly watch a lot of stuff with very dim room lighting.
I don't like biased discussions. If you don't like my references, how about you provide a little yourself, so the debate wouldn't be one sided...
As for my points being "exaggerated criticism": I would love for you to explain what exactly is exaggerated about it. The question of relevance to the thread topic is a straightforward question - this is a topic about rumored GPU specifications; you are talking about TV panel technologies. How is the latter relevant to the former? Asking you to provide sources for your quotes is a straightforward thing too. Sure, I guess you could call me biased against unsourced claims - I'll gladly accept that. Beyond that, I'm simply asking you to show us where you are getting your data from. There is no bias in this. The same goes for pointing out that you posted an image of a graph with unlabeled axes and no explanation - are we supposed to guess what the numbers represent? Asking you to provide some more information on what exactly you are trying to say is not bias. As for my latter point, I was just pointing out the absurdity of you simultaneously arguing that a) QLEDs have better contrast than OLEDs and b) that the total black of OLEDs "harass[es] your eyes", which must be understood as the low black level being harsh and difficult to look at in an otherwise normally lit room, which would mean that the OLED's image has a higher dynamic range than the QLED.
I am not the one making new claims here, thus I have no obligation to provide proof for my claims except if necessary to counter any proof you might bring to the table. As the one making new claim, the onus is on you to show evidence for these claims. So far your "evidence" has consisted of a couple of graphs with zero indication of what the graphs actually show. Rejecting this isn't bias, it is just reflective of you failing to present a comprehensive and convincing argument. And as I have strongly implied, this doesn't belong in this topic whatsoever, and should be moved to a topic dedicated to this discussion.
It seems astroturf pays big time. Why "trolling" has a negative connotation is beyond me.