GeForce GTX 660 Arrives Mid-August: Report

[Protagonist]

Originally Posted by radrok

Careful man, you are going to get jumped on with your statement

Well its an opinion/how i see it, if I'm going to get jumped coz of opinion then so be it. lets wait for the GTX660 to launch, then if its good I'll definitely give it props but then if its bad I'll say i told you so.

[sanadanosa]

Originally Posted by st.bone

No they are far from being screwed, coz they are screwing you the consumer even harder

Why? Because they make mid end graphics cards that perform par or better than AMD's high end? better efficiency too and cheaper than AMD at launch? I think it's big plus for me as a consumer.

[Wrigleyvillain]

Originally Posted by nvidiaintelftw

If you haven't noticed Nvidia GTX670 which is meant to be competitive with the 7950 at launch priced at $399, and what do we see in reviews. It goes out and actually beats AMD's $499 card(HD7970) left and right and comes just about 3-5% slower then Nvidias flagship(GTX680). So no, Nvidia's GTX6xx hasn't gotten their ass handed to them yet.

Calm down Nvidia, uh, fans...he should have worded his post better but was not referring to the entire 6xx series vs Radeon. Specifically "this round" e.g. 660 vs 78xx such as the 256-bit, 2GB 7850.

[alwayssts]

Originally Posted by nvidiaintelftw

LOL

This is the funniest thing ive seen all day.

If you haven't noticed Nvidia GTX670 which is meant to be competitive with the 7950 at launch priced at $399, and what do we see in reviews. It goes out and actually beats AMD's $499 card(HD7970) left and right and comes just about 3-5% slower then Nvidias flagship(GTX680). So no, Nvidia's GTX6xx hasn't gotten their ass handed to them yet.

7950 = 1792sp @ 800mhz
670 = 1568sp at a base of 915...or exactly matching 7950...and an avg boost to 950ish...the percentage difference between 1792->2048 where Tahiti often becomes ROP limited (~1840s'ish?.)

Please do some IPC math...or try clocking 7950 at not 800/5000. I try to be friendly, but people believing the marketing bullshit versus actual chip capabilities makes me . I continue to hope 8870 is 1792sp and 256-bit with very close to rated 7000mhz ram stock speeds matched to shaders clocks (~1100mhz). What marketing trick could nvidia make people believe if they did that?

Originally Posted by lukcic

Even if it can beat 7870, AMD will launch their new 8000 series in October or maybe later. So Nvidia doesn't get much more than 2~4 months of "good selling" peak until comes 8000 series. Nvidia should compete launch their products as soon as AMD does, or short after that...

Yep. You've prolly seen me pontificate that I expect a < 150w 1536sp 8850 at somewhere around 925/5000. If that comes to be and launches under $300, WTF does nvidia do then...especially if the chip is smaller?

One thing is for sure...660 will start prices a-tumbling. Sea Islands will probably set the market straight as far gk104 pricing goes...and all will be as it should be.

[blibba]

Why would you want >1.5GB on a mainstream card anyway? 512MB is still enough for 95% of new games at >1080p (I know, I try it).

Originally Posted by alwayssts

Yep. You've prolly seen me pontificate that I expect a > 150w 1536sp 8850 at somewhere around 925/500. If that comes to be and launches under $300, WTF does nvidia do then...especially if the chip is smaller?

One thing is for sure...660 will start prices a-tumbling. Sea Islands will probably set the market straight as far gk104 pricing goes...and all will be as it should be.

I imagine GK104 will be refreshed as GK114, and a higher clocked GTX680 released as the GTX760Ti. Leaving GK110 to hold the high-end.

[Wrigleyvillain]

Uh BF3 uses almost 1.5GB at 1200P on my rig. Skyrim over a gig.

[blibba]

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

Uh BF3 uses almost 1.5GB at 1200P on my rig. Skyrim over a gig.

I play Skyrim on a 512MB card at 2048*1152. That's with the texture patch and 2x transparency AA. Maybe you're running 8x AA or something? Perhaps you f*cked your ini file.

BF3, in fairness, is one game I've not tried. SC2, Metro 2033 and Crysis are all fine, though (admittedly not maxed in the latter two cases).

[Protagonist]

Originally Posted by sanadanosa

Why? Because they make mid end graphics cards that perform par or better than AMD's high end? better efficiency too and cheaper than AMD at launch? I think it's big plus for me as a consumer.

No because i know Nvidia is better than what they delivered

[MxPhenom 216]

Originally Posted by alwayssts

7950 = 1792sp @ 800mhz
670 = 1568sp at a base of 915...or exactly matching 7950...and an avg boost to 950ish...the percentage difference between 1792->2048 where Tahiti often becomes ROP limited (~1840s'ish?.)

Please do some IPC math...or try clocking 7950 at not 800/5000. I try to be friendly, but people believing the marketing bullshit versus actual chip capabilities makes me . I continue to hope 8870 is 1792sp and 256-bit with very close to rated 7000mhz ram stock speeds matched to shaders clocks (~1100mhz). What marketing trick could nvidia make people believe if they did that?





Yep. You've prolly seen me pontificate that I expect a > 150w 1536sp 8850 at somewhere around 925/5000. If that comes to be and launches under $300, WTF does nvidia do then...especially if the chip is smaller?

One thing is for sure...660 will start prices a-tumbling. Sea Islands will probably set the market straight as far gk104 pricing goes...and all will be as it should be.

I hope you realize it is impossible to compare SP counts and clock speed directly between cards right? AMD and nvidia architectures ARE MUCH different then one another.

[Nihilus]

Originally Posted by nvidiaintelftw

LOL

This is the funniest thing ive seen all day.

If you haven't noticed Nvidia GTX670 which is meant to be competitive with the 7950 at launch priced at $399, and what do we see in reviews. It goes out and actually beats AMD's $499 card(HD7970) left and right and comes just about 3-5% slower then Nvidias flagship(GTX680). So no, Nvidia's GTX6xx hasn't gotten their ass handed to them yet.

Performance wise, yes Nvidia is rocking. From a business aspect, they are getting there asses handed to them. They lost about 5% market share Q1 2012 alone and the STILL haven't release a midrange card.
Not the best source in the world, but just look at the best selling cards on Newegg. It is dominated by the GTX 560ti and the HD 6800 series. All priced around $150-$250.
Bought about $3k in nvidia stock a couple months back. BIG mistake.

[MxPhenom 216]

Originally Posted by Nihilus

Performance wise, yes Nvidia is rocking. From a business aspect, they are getting there asses handed to them. They lost about 5% market share Q1 2012 alone and the STILL haven't release a midrange card.
Not the best source in the world, but just look at the best selling cards on Newegg. It is dominated by the GTX 560ti and the HD 6800 series. All priced around $150-$250.
Bought about $3k in nvidia stock a couple months back. BIG mistake.

Have you seen AMD's recent fiscal qtr results? They are not doing well either.

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

Calm down Nvidia, uh, fans...he should have worded his post better but was not referring to the entire 6xx series vs Radeon. Specifically "this round" e.g. 660 vs 78xx such as the 256-bit, 2GB 7850.

Its hard to compare whats on paper between Nvidia and AMD gpus. Just by looking at the specs you can get an idea, but you will not know which is truely the better performing card till you see them in benchmarks.

[OneCool]

Better late then never I guess.

[MxPhenom 216]

Originally Posted by OneCool

Better late then never I guess.

Nvidia is late with their mid range teir of cards. AMD is late with their dual GPU behemoth.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by Nihilus

Performance wise, yes Nvidia is rocking. From a business aspect, they are getting there asses handed to them. They lost about 5% market share Q1 2012 alone and the STILL haven't release a midrange card.
Not the best source in the world, but just look at the best selling cards on Newegg. It is dominated by the GTX 560ti and the HD 6800 series. All priced around $150-$250.
Bought about $3k in nvidia stock a couple months back. BIG mistake.

I think that comes from being late to market... they have been a bit late with their releases when compared to AMD, and were basically left to make statements like
"we were expecting more from the competition," When in fact they had nothing available to counter at that moment.

and they definitely screwed themselves by not making a mid range part right away...

Then again PC sales are lower across the board this quarter, and they are probably not losing all of that market share to AMD.

[tacosRcool]

192 bit? I find this a little strange

[Benetanegia]

Yeah, there's 50% more GTX680 than HD7970's on Steam already, in half the time, meaning the are selling 3x times as much in the few months that it has been in the market. In fact there's just as many 680's as both HD7950 and 7970 conbined. And more than both 78xx's conbined too. Oh yep, they are soooooo getting their asses handed to them so badly. Poor Nvidia, selling their $500 card at a 2x-3x rate compared to competition's $250-450 range of cards. They will surely be in red numbers.

BTW Nvidia still hold a 62% of AIB market share, which is what these cards are all about. The only reason their general market share is down is because nearly every CPU that Intel sells and that AMD can actually sell in some volume have a GPU integrated. Nvidia currently dominates the discrete GPU market, especially on the high-end, high-margin segment. That is a fact and it will probably just grow in the near future.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by tacosRcool

192 bit? I find this a little strange

I think that has to do with the nerfing of the Kepler and the lack of need/want to design a memory controller/separate chip.

I could be wrong tho. EDIT: nope i'm just read another post stating that it is an all new chip.... hmm.

[Benetanegia]

192 bit is most probably because they've learned from the GTX670. It's pretty obvious that GK104 could do just as well with 1344 SPs as it does with 1536 SP. Clock for clock 670 and 680 are a couple of % from each other, only difference is clock. So it's obvious 1536 was too much, 1344 is too much too and could do nearly as well with 1152? That's the question, but it's probably much better for them and also simpler not to answer that question. Not even let that question to be made. A 192 bit card IS sufficiently slower as not to steal 670 or 680 sales. Period.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

192 bit is most probably because they've learned from the GTX670. It's pretty obvious that GK104 could do just as well with 1344 SPs as it does with 1536 SP. Clock for clock 670 and 680 are a couple of % from each other, only difference is clock. So it's obvious 1536 was too much, 1344 is too much too and could do nearly as well with 1152? That's the question, but it's probably much better for them and also simpler not to answer that question. Not even let that question to be made. A 192 bit card IS sufficiently slower as not to steal 670 or 680 sales. Period.

That sounds about right.

[Crap Daddy]

Originally Posted by Nihilus

Performance wise, yes Nvidia is rocking. From a business aspect, they are getting there asses handed to them. They lost about 5% market share Q1 2012 alone and the STILL haven't release a midrange card.
Not the best source in the world, but just look at the best selling cards on Newegg. It is dominated by the GTX 560ti and the HD 6800 series. All priced around $150-$250.
Bought about $3k in nvidia stock a couple months back. BIG mistake.

It wasn't such a big mistake as buying AMD stock. Just checked and if you bought middle of May the value is more or less the same while AMD fell from 7.50 to under 5. But I'm sure there are lots of things that influence this apart from launching mid-range cards. I really don't think NV are getting their asses handed to them business wise. Tegra 3 pops-up everywhere lately from smartphones to Google Nexus 7 tablet (which sells like hotcakes by the way) and the upcoming Microsoft Surface. Apple has Kepler in MacBook Pro, HPC is a growing market an Nvidia has a strong foot there and I'm seeing lots of crappy GT610M/620M in laptops. Yes, they don't sell 28nm midrange Kepler GPUs for 150-200. They sell them for 400-500, less units but with a considerable profit. It's enough to look at the 670 reference PCB and you'll get the picture. Now they'll have a 300$ part. For everything below there's the 7850 and last generations 6870/GTX560.

[Xzibit]

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

Yeah, there's 50% more GTX680 than HD7970's on Steam already, in half the time, meaning the are selling 3x times as much in the few months that it has been in the market. In fact there's just as many 680's as both HD7950 and 7970 conbined. And more than both 78xx's conbined too. Oh yep, they are soooooo getting their asses handed to them so badly. Poor Nvidia, selling their $500 card at a 2x-3x rate compared to competition's $250-450 range of cards. They will surely be in red numbers.

Are we looking at the same thing ? Steam Hardware & Software Survey: June 2012

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (680 & 670) Unless everyone on steam owns a 680 and no 670s
APR = 0.31%
MAY = 0.56%
JUN = 0.74%
Change = +0.18%

ATI Radeon HD 7970 (7970 & 7950) Unless no-one on steam owns a 7950
FEB = 0.31%
MAR = 0.38%
APR = 0.41%
MAY = 0.50%
JUN = 0.50%
Change = 0.00%

ATI Radeon HD 7800 Series (7870 & 7850)
MAY = 0.42%
JUN = 0.67%
Change = +0.25%

Kind of selectively sensationalizing it arent we.

[Wrigleyvillain]

Originally Posted by blibba

I play Skyrim on a 512MB card at 2048*1152. That's with the texture patch and 2x transparency AA. Maybe you're running 8x AA or something? Perhaps you f*cked your ini file.

BF3, in fairness, is one game I've not tried. SC2, Metro 2033 and Crysis are all fine, though (admittedly not maxed in the latter two cases).

And how are you monitoring this? It does not work right for AMD cards, in GPU-Z anyway. At any rate, there's no way your numbers are correct.

I was using well over a gig 5 years ago running Oblivion mods.

Fucked up my .ini file? Cute. Besides, that is not the only game. Crysis is over a gig too with 4x AA plus ZPOMAF.

I would have loved to stick with my 6850 Crossfire longer but I needed more VRAM. Period.

[Nihilus]

Good point on Tegra, it's been a huge success. It used to be that the average joe bought desktops with discrete cards to get more power with much less money. Now more then ever discrete cards will only be bought by the enthusiasts and that is very unlikely to reverse back.

[Casecutter]

We know GK-104 cards are good and essentially now there’s parity between the "Ghz Tahiti’s" when both 7950 and 7970 arrive. Though at some point soon all "non-Ghz" versions will probably be priced to move, while "Ghz" units will see more price advantage as the originals exit. Also, given traditionally Nvidia won’t get super aggressive with high-end "GTX 680" parts anytime quick they will contest no differently than in previous times. Appears AMD has the Nvidia’s higher-end well corralled, especially with the price drops; a GTX 670 has like 3 AMD cards that are all inline $/perf; the original 7950 is a 15% less; the 1Ghz 7950 will be 5-10% cheaper; while after rebates the non-Ghz 7970 is par with what GTX670's go for after offers.

I'll move to Nvidia’s GK-107 (GT430) at this point I’m not sure what’s up, because even with DDR5 it might come close to 7750. Although can Nvidia work better pricing while still provide DDR5, they’d have to or it’s no competition with AMD’s Cape Verde parts... And why is that? I mean Nvidia has known what was needed months ago, and they come up so short? Is Kepler not scaling well, was the GK-104 just a mainstream push really hard, and finally can the GK-106 extract the same marvels?

Can this GK-106 extract three levels, a "Ti part" that’s 25-30% than the old GTX560Ti, bettering the 7890 and at $300 but there’s the original 7950 vie close to there also. A GTX660 that’s $200 and wipes the 7850 (I think that’s where the real contest will be). Finally a GTX650 on say 128-Bit 1Gb DDR5 at $150-130 that takes it to the 7770, I think Nvidia will miss that mark?

It would appear Nvidia can make do with just two chip achieving 5 Sku’s between $150-500, AMD using three chips, yielding 6 Sku’s (plus the two extra for the time being) that covers $100-500.

[Benetanegia]

Originally Posted by Xzibit

Are we looking at the same thing ? Steam Hardware & Software Survey: June 2012

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (680 & 670) Unless everyone on steam owns a 680 and no 670s
APR = 0.31%
MAY = 0.56%
JUN = 0.74%
Change = +0.18%

ATI Radeon HD 7970 (7970 & 7950) Unless no-one on steam owns a 7950
FEB = 0.31%
MAR = 0.38%
APR = 0.41%
MAY = 0.50%
JUN = 0.50%
Change = 0.00%

ATI Radeon HD 7800 Series (7870 & 7850)
MAY = 0.42%
JUN = 0.67%
Change = +0.25%

Kind of selectively sensationalizing it arent we.

The GTX670 is not yet on the list, the numbers are only for GTX680. Same for the HD7950 it's not in that list you posted. It's in this one tho. 680 0.66%, 7970 0.44%, 7950 0.22. Simple math: 44 + 22 = 66, meaning "In fact there's just as many 680's as both HD7950 and 7970 conbined." In your list 0.74% amounts for roughly 50% more than 7970's 0.50%. No?

On the same list HD78xx (both cards appear combined) 0.60 % IS less than 680's 0.66%, at least in my universe (and Walternate's). Even in your link 0.74% is more than 0.67%, and so: "And more than both 78xx's conbined too".

Point is, most evidence suggests that Nvidia is selling more 680's than either 79xx's or 78xx's for a higher price and much better margins than AMD sells 7900's. If there's a company subjectively having their asses handed to them, that would be AMD, except none of them is in anything close to a bad situation. Both are selling the cards for much more than it costs them, especially if we compare to previous generations. And especially GK104, is smaller than GF104/114, so it makes up somehow for the 20% higher wafer price, it's 256 bit too, meaning same amount of memory chips, with a similarly simple PCB and components (I don't even know if 670's PCB could be argued as even simpler than GF104). GF104/GF114 cards were never sold for more than 250 euros (in fact I bought my 460 1 month and a half after it was released for just 160). 680 is selling at 500 a pop. So yeah... poor Nvidia. There's one simple reason we don't get the 660 until so late and that's it. Why the hell would they say goodbye to all those super-high margins, when they are selling all the GK104's that TSMC can make? It' sucks for us and I guess someone could be angry at them for, basically, being a company, but that's what it is atm. If it weren't for "bad" initial (new process) yields, and didn't need to harvest, they wouldn't even had released the 670 yet and the fact it was released late, anyway, already tells half the story. The other half is, pretty much, what happens when Nvidia is about to announce the 660? Price cut from AMD, exactly, and what does that do to 670/680? Hint: prices/margins are not going to go up.