Third GK104-based Single GPU Graphics Card SKU Detailed

[btarunr]

After GeForce GTX 680, which has all components of the 28 nm GK104 enabled, a dual-GPU GeForce GTX 690, which features two of these chips, and the GeForce GTX 670, NVIDIA is readying its third single-GPU GK104-based SKU. We know from older reports that this SKU could be named GeForce GTX 660 (Ti). A fresh report suggests that it will be carved out by disabling an entire graphics processing cluster (GPC) on the GK104 silicon, resulting in a CUDA core count of 1152; reducing the memory bus width of 192-bit GDDR5; and most likely reducing the ROP count to 24. This SKU could be used to capture a price point of around US $249, targeting AMD's Radeon HD 7800 series.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[DarkOCean]

hope its not 1,5 gb.

 

[sanadanosa]

I hope it's more gtx 680 cooler style rather than using axial fan

 

[hhumas]

so its a mid range 28nm gpu

 

[Crap Daddy]

I said long time ago that NV will have three SKUs based on GK104. It's the only available 28nm chip that they have against Tahiti and Pitcairn. GK106 is nowhere and GK107 is low-end.
GTX670 has to be around 350$ to take on 7950 and 7870 and this 660 will be up against 7850.

 

[Benetanegia]

GTX670 has to be around 350$ to take on 7950 and 7870 and this 660 will be up against 7850.

You're talking about price? Because performance wise, looking at specs I'm pretty sure the GTX670 will beat HD7950 by at least 5% and I don't see the GTX660 being much slower than HD7870 either, so low as to compete directly with HD7850, I mean.

IMO the GTX660 will have the same clocks as the 670 and let the disabled parts be the only difference, that's what they did with the GTX465. On high resolution the 660 will come down a bit, but at 1920x1200 and below I think it's going to be close to the 670 (within a 10% give or take) and hence equal or faster than HD7870.

Now, on price they can obviously compete with current HD7850 price, because GK104 has always been meant for that price range. They could put som pressure down to $200 even, if required, but I doubt they will push AMD too much on that front because they don't have GK106 yet. They will just let AMD take the initiative more than likely. That means that $350 and $250 are not very likely IMO. More like $375 and $325, still offering slightly better value, but making a price cut a difficult decision.

 

[soufianov]

only just 192bit memory bus width i think it would better if it was 256bit.

 

[Benetanegia]

only just 192bit memory bus width i think it would better if it was 256bit.

Not really, just look at GTX 460 768 (192 bits) MB vs GTX 460 SE (256 bits). The 768 wersion wins hands down.

Something must be disabled so as to clearly differentiate it from the 670 and it's better for a cheaper card to retain more of its shading/texturing/etc capabilities than retaining its ability for high resolutions because it's not going to be able to play on high resolutions anyway and people looking in that price range are less likely to have a 1600/1440p monitor. This way the differentiation is a slower card in general, but still powerful/close enough to the GTX 670 in 1080p and below, and with the catch that "on the 670 higher res is posible", so GTX670 also keeps its value. So better to have 1 cluster of everything disabled (balance) than 2 shader clusters disabled.

 

[dj-electric]

That something can be ROPs, it can be shader units and core clock. cutting the memory bus also means cutting the capacity and 2GB is pretty much a standard for performance market and upwards these days.

 

[okidna]

cutting the memory bus also means cutting the capacity and 2GB is pretty much a standard for performance market and upwards these days.

They can pull "another 550 Ti". Using memory chips of variable densities to achieve 2 GB VRAM.

 

[dj-electric]

Hell no, 550Ti IMO symbolize everything that is wrong with a mid range GPU. Starting from false branding to squeezing so much core clock to make up for lower shader count so you'll have ridicules power consumption, witch also lead to lame overclocking abilities. F*ck no. And yeah they can use different capacity chips to achieve 2GB that in my opinion would be a right thing to do. The difference between 1.5GB to 2GB could be a deal breaker for a lot of users.

 

[okidna]

Hell no, 550Ti IMO symbolize everything that is wrong with a mid range GPU. Starting from false branding to squeezing so much core clock to make up for lower shader count so you'll have ridicules power consumption, witch also lead to lame overclocking abilities. F*ck no. And yeah they can use different capacity chips to achieve 2GB that in my opinion would be a right thing to do. The difference between 1.5GB to 2GB could be a deal breaker for a lot of users.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Only the "memory chips of variable densities to achieve 2 GB VRAM", not the "false branding to squeezing so much core clock to make up for lower shader count so you'll have ridicules power consumption, witch also lead to lame overclocking abilities".

 

[blibba]

If you need >1.5GB of VRAM, Nvidia doesn't want you to buy this card. It's not for multi-monitor or 1440p gaming, it's a GTX460 successor to handle 1080p and 1680*1050. In this area 1.5GB is more than enough and it will excel. Remember that GDDR5 chips are not free.

 

[No_Asylum]

If you need >1.5GB of VRAM, Nvidia doesn't want you to buy this card. It's not for multi-monitor or 1440p gaming, it's a GTX460 successor to handle 1080p and 1680*1050. In this area 1.5GB is more than enough and it will excel. Remember that GDDR5 chips are not free.

Exactly! Anyone that needs more than 2gigs should order a 680-690 or a 7900 series.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Damn it, I need this... not this... :shadedshu

http://www.geeks3d.com/20120423/nvidia-gk110-the-true-7-billion-transistor-kepler-gpu/

The only card that justifies switching from my old GTX280SLI performance gap wise.

 

[KainXS]

Theres no point in releasing that card right now when they already have the higher performance card with the lower power consumption,

I mean if I were an investor and someone told me "hey lets just throw our best card out there for no financial reason" I would jump across the room and smack em into the unemployment office.

When Amd releases their dual 7900 card then maybe . . . . . ..

 

[dude12564]

If you need >1.5GB of VRAM, Nvidia doesn't want you to buy this card. It's not for multi-monitor or 1440p gaming, it's a GTX460 successor to handle 1080p and 1680*1050. In this area 1.5GB is more than enough and it will excel. Remember that GDDR5 chips are not free.

^This

 

[EpicShweetness]

3 SKU's off of 1 GPU hmm, last time Nvidia did this we got the GTX 465 and we all how that ended up :/

 

[atticus14]

If you need >1.5GB of VRAM, Nvidia doesn't want you to buy this card. It's not for multi-monitor or 1440p gaming, it's a GTX460 successor to handle 1080p and 1680*1050. In this area 1.5GB is more than enough and it will excel. Remember that GDDR5 chips are not free.

most people buy in their price range, not by the amount of GBs they can get when it costs them 100 more. Conveniently AMD has a 2gb model in that price range which will probably be similar in performance - people are not going to say "this only has 1.5gb?? oh well lets move to the next pricing tier!"

 

[PLAfiller]

Only 4 hours and 6 min left until "The special announcement" from nVidia in China: http://www.geforce.co.uk/whats-new/articles/its-coming-countdown/ .

 

[DaC]

Hell.... I want these mid range prices down!
$300+ for a mid range gpu is insane (I'm not even counting GTX 680 as mid-range, but the gpu's intended to be mid range from ati 7870/7850 and upcoming models from Nvidia)

7870 Down to $220.00 in 2 ou 3 months would be very nice.... but not great when we think back in time to the HD4xxx generation.... the best bang for the buck ever generation...

 

[blibba]

most people buy in their price range, not by the amount of GBs they can get when it costs them 100 more. Conveniently AMD has a 2gb model in that price range which will probably be similar in performance - people are not going to say "this only has 1.5gb?? oh well lets move to the next pricing tier!"

Nobody was suggesting anything about consumer buying models. My post was about Nvidia's specification choices.

What it might make sense and/or be interesting to do is suggest a consumer buying model that Nvidia's specification strategy might imply them to believe in if they choose not to give this card 2GB of VRAM. Two examples are:

• 
  Consumers decide how much VRAM they need then choose the best performing card in their price bracket with that amount or higher. In this case <1920*1200 gamers (who almost certainly make up the vast majority of consumers at this price point) will probably settle on some quantity between 512MB and 1.5GB (depending on the games they do/will play and their preferred AA levels/methods) and will choose between this Nvidia card and the 7870/7850 purely based on FPS in games at their resolution.

• Consumers weigh up cards given a budget based on some weighted addition of factors. Having more VRAM is one factor, performance is another, power consumption another, proximity to limit of price range another. In this case consumers with modest budgets, unlikely to be able to afford large monitor setups, give a fairly small weighting to VRAM quantity and Nvidia's tactics pay off.

Naturally this list is by no means exhaustive.

Both of those models work on the assumption that once consumers are buying cards this expensive (as opposed to 2GB GT440s), they are no longer considering VRAM quantity as the ultimate determinant of graphical performance.

Of course even if Nvidia do give this card 2GB of VRAM, which they might yet do, this doesn't imply that they're aiming this card at people who need it - it just implies that they're aiming this card at people who think that they need it.

 

[Inceptor]

hope its not 1,5 gb.

It probably is 1.5 GB.
If the GTX 680 can just about outperform the 7970 with just 2GB of VRAM, then 1.5 GB would be fine.

Here's a guess:
660 non-Ti : 1280-1536 MB, 192 bit
650/650Ti : 1024 MB, 128 bit

 

[atticus14]

Nobody was suggesting anything about consumer buying models. My post was about Nvidia's specification choices.

Im pretty sure a gpus specs are always related to what consumers will buy; you even said Nvidia wants people who think they need more ram to go to the next tier...but im saying unless they are nvidia die-hards, they dont have to go to a next tier when the 7850 should be competitive. Then take into consideration most comsumers aren't informed in the first place and 2 GeeBeez starts to look really good.

also if consumers can decide their "budget" based on weighing in factors its not really a budget. A budget should be a set amount and cant go any higher; if you can randomly go "erm i think ill spend 150 more for the next tier" then your not really on a budget or your going in debt.

 

[Inceptor]

Im pretty sure a gpus specs are always related to what consumers will buy; you even said Nvidia wants people who think they need more ram to go to the next tier...but im saying unless they are nvidia die-hards, they dont have to go to a next tier when the 7850 should be competitive. Then take into consideration most comsumers aren't informed in the first place and 2 GeeBeez starts to look really good.

also if consumers can decide their "budget" based on weighing in factors its not really a budget. A budget should be a set amount and cant go any higher; if you can randomly go "erm i think ill spend 150 more for the next tier" then your not really on a budget or your going in debt.

The "consumers" you're speaking of are a minority; the ones who either spend large amounts of money for overpriced prebuilt systems from the big resellers, or go to the trouble of finding someone in their locality that builds systems are not the norm. Everyone else buys a computer with an OEM-grade gpu and doesn't upgrade components... if they've actually bought a desktop... most computer owners own cheap sub-$1000 laptops.