1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

GeForce Kepler 104 (GK104) Packs 256-bit GDDR5 Memory Bus, 225W TDP

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. gorg_graggel New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    51 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    fixed...

    i think your estimated range is too far apart...

    this is from a germany based perspective, as energy prices are pretty high here...
     
  2. Ikaruga

    Ikaruga

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    870 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    183
    I seriously wonder what that picture has to do with anything of this. If that's from a Kepler tech demo, I'm dissapoint:/
     
  3. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    Not necessarily, no. There's a lot of room in memory clocks. In previous gen Nvidia used <<1000 Mhz GDDR5 clocks, AMD is using 1375 Mhz GDDR5. That's a potential 40% improvement right there, and performance relation to memory bandwidth is not linear. A 40% increase in BW could potentially suffice for an up to 80% performance increase before becoming too much of a bottleneck.

    It's the Stonegiant DX11 benchmark, released years (?) ago.
     
  4. KooKKiK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    31 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    I think there's not much headroom for GDDR5 speed, since AMD's Tahiti use the same memory clock as previous gen but increase the buswidth from 256 to 384 bit.

    And for your mention, nVidia previous gen used 320 and 384 buswidth not a 256 bit like this. That means you need to increase memory clock to somewhat about 1600 - 1800 MHz for BW compensation.

    1600 - 1800 MHz GDDR5, i mean... WooooooW thats must be a super special DDR5 :eek:
     
  5. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    Yes with same GDDR5 AMD went from 256 bit to 384 bits to obtain a 50% increase in memory bandwidth. Nvidia can get almost the same increase by just using the same memory that AMD has been using for 2 generations now. Simple.

    Nvidia used 384 bits on their high-end chip, GK104 is NOT high-end. High-end nowadays means GPGPU and GPGPU requires more bandwidth, that's why GF100/110 had a 384 bit bus, and same for Tahiti. High-end==GPGPU also means you need to leave headroom, it means you cannot make compromises, it means going overkill sometimes. Mid-range means you can take compromises, you can cut corners.

    Besides GTX560 Ti used a 256 bit bus and 1000 Mhz memory, like I said. To match HD7970 performance they need 50% performance over the GTX560. They don't need 1600-1800 Mhz GDDR5 that's absurd. They don't even need the 40% that 1375 Mhz GDDR5 would bring, because GPU perf is not linearly related to memory bandwidth.
     
  6. KooKKiK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    31 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    i know that GPU performance is not related to memory bandwidth.

    But, in many case, insufficient bandwidth can cause severe deduction in graphic performance. ( ex. HD5670 GDDR3 vs HD5670 GDDR5 )


    so, u gonna tell me that the bandwidth of 6970 level is enough for 7970 performance.

    where's the proof ???
     
  7. Jonap_1st

    Jonap_1st New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    288 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    South Green Jakarta
    well then, only times will tell..
     
  8. Selene

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    233 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    lol yea a few~!
     
  9. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    There's no direct proof of that, obviously, however there's hundreds of evidences found on other cards, that demostrate that memory bandwidth is not a heavy limiting factor.

    First of all you have to understand that HD7970 did NOT require all the bandwidth that it has. It does need more than HD6970, especially for compute, but it does not strictly need as much as it has. AMD did not have any other option than going 384 bits, because GDDR5 speeds higher than 1400 Mhz are not very doable and are very very expensive anyway. So their only option was a wider bus.

    Now:

    Evidence #1
    192 bit GTX460 has 86 GB/s BW
    256 bit 460 has 115 GB/s, that's 33% more BW but performance difference is not much bigger than 5%.

    Another example, GTX 480 vs GTX 570, evidence #2

    GTX 480 has 177 GB/s
    GTX 570 has 152 GB/s - it is slightly faster, despite the 480 having 16% more memory bandwidth.

    So is HD7970 kind of performance posible with HD6970 kind of bandwidth? Absolutely.

    PS: The HD5670 example you posted, GDDR5 vs GDDR3, you are talking about half the bandwidth which is not going to be the case with GK104 at all (if it really is 256 bit anyway). We would be talking about a 50% reduction is buss width, but an increase of 40% in clocks, for a net bandwidth loss of 10% compared to the GTX580, a card itself is probably NOT limited by it's memory bandwidth anyway.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  10. Ikaruga

    Ikaruga

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    870 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    183
    Yes I know, that's why I was wondering why would they demo their new tech with that.
     
  11. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    I think it's just Bta posting a random image because there's no picture of Kepler yet.
     
  12. overclocking101

    overclocking101

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,886 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    405
    Location:
    vermont
    so many nvidia haters! if ati haters went on and on about how something cant be true we would get infractions for "flaimbaiting" etc (i know I've had it happen). just makes little sense to me, if you dont believe it oh well so what who cares??? its a damn graphics card not a political debate for christs sake
     
    Red_Machine says thanks.
  13. Red_Machine

    Red_Machine

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,722 (1.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    379
    Location:
    Marlow, ENGLAND
    It's like Microsoft haters, nobody cares about them.
     
  14. KooKKiK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    31 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    You have NO proof but i have my proof.

    3dm11 score of my GTX580@850 and stock BW

    http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2588707

    GTX580@850 and HD6970 BW ( 1835 mem clocks )

    http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2588751

    nuff said ??? ;)


    ps. i know that in order to bring GTX580 to HD7970 level in 3dm11, i have to push my 580 almost 1000 core clock but 850 core is enough for proving. :)
     
  15. gorg_graggel New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    51 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    lol, are you serious?

    this is one of the most civil kept discussions about that topic i have seen in a long time...

    people are actually discussing and speculating without any name calling or anything...

    and yes, it's a damn graphics card, which is being discussed on a tech enthusiast website...what are we supposed to do? talk about donuts?

    you sir, are the one who is trying to cause some stir...so either contribute, or get lost...
     
    EarthDog says thanks.
  16. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    lol. That's no proof of anything, because you don't have Kepler. So an overclocked GTX580 (10% OC) with a 10% underclock on the memory does 3% slower in 3Dmark 11 than without underclock. Wow!! That so totally proves your point, man... No.

    Besides the fact that 3% is thin air, we are not talking about making a card like yours be as fast as HD7970 and what memory bandwidth it needs for that. Things don't work like that. AMD/Nvidia spend months designing and balancing out their architectures and chips to get the most out of them and tweaking internal latencies and such. You taking your card and absolutely destroying that balance with a 10% core overclock and 10% memory underclock means nothing. But please, by all means try again.

    EDIT: At least you proved that AMD and Nvidia do their job and don't just ramdomly choose the specs of cards, but then again looking at how the only difference is 3% maybe you proved the opposite. I just can't choose what you proved yet. In general nothing, other than a GTX580 at 850 Mhz...

    And to finish. You artificially created a 20% deficit in memory bandwidth and the most you obtained was 3% less performance. Bravo, because like I said earlier Nvidia could create a card with only a 10% deficit, so 1.5% slower? Aww man, horrible bottleneck. AWWWWW!

    /sarcasm
     
  17. KooKKiK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    31 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    oh... c'mon stop all BS thing.


    my GTX580 is not even close to HD7970, but still it has a bottleneck.

    imagine Kepler or HD7970@6970 BW couldn't be any faster than mine and thats not only 3% for sure.


    at first, you told me that high end gpus have excessive BW, and thats for gpu computing purpose.

    then you change your argument and told me Kepler doesn't manage memory bandwidth in the same way as Fermi and SI.

    what kind of unreliable person you are ??? :confused:


    Try proving something ( at least find me some reference that not come from your mouth )

    OR stop BS around here !!!
     
  18. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    Bla, bla, bla 3% difference between both of your scores and I'm sure you even went as far as doing many and chosing the ones that showed the biggest difference. Don't worry everyone does that when desperately trying to prove something. Too bad you didn't check what the real difference was. Lame.

    And I don't have to prove anything, since I never actually claimed anything. I said that a bottleneck is not warranted, that there's high chances that a bottleneck won't occur and provided REAL evidence of previous cards NOT being bottleneck. The one who says there's going to be bottleneck is you, and the only proof you could provide is a lameass comparison with 3% difference that could be derived from margin of error in 3DMark scoring system or a cat farting down the street. You are not right. Get over it.

    EDIT: bah, I decided to be nice and teach you one or two things. Here: http://realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT042611035931&p=2

    Note: both have 2x or 100% more bandwidth that their "starved cousins".

     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  19. phanbuey

    phanbuey

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,203 (2.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    973
    Location:
    Miami
    Off topic:
    Looks like your proc is chocking your 580 like crazy - my 570 at 800Mhz gets a higher p score and graphics score of within 2%. o_O
     
  20. ZakkWylde

    ZakkWylde

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    256 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    44
    Location:
    Canada
  21. OOZMAN

    OOZMAN New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Messages:
    160 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Just some silly rumours with no evidence man.
     
  22. ZakkWylde

    ZakkWylde

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    256 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    44
    Location:
    Canada
    My thoughts exactly
     
  23. ViperXTR

    ViperXTR

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,394 (1.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    407
    evidenz plz
     
  24. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    I hope that they're right. Bring on a price war.
     
  25. KooKKiK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    31 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    i didn't see anything in the article that prove your argument.

    may be u should "try again" :laugh:


    oh, and you said you didn't claim anything ???

    what is this ??? :laugh:


    If i had Kepler IN HANDS and benched it right now, i'm sure u gonna make an excuse like "it's only an engineering sample" anyway. :laugh:
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page