theoneandonlymrkExactly what I think regarding remember us.
This has to rate as one of the tattiest pr outbursts ive seen nvidia allow out , or perhaps you think nvidia pass engineering samples a few days old to just anyone, I don't.
No info at all here that can be carried into the future bar, LOOK A CHIP (could even be tegra who knows T6?? And 1421noted on the chip) voilà

Oh the AMD fanboy rage!

the54thvoidCome on AMD, join the fight! I want to see reasonable prices. (This isn't a dig at AMD, I WANT to see lots of competition and AMD can certainly put a fly in NV's ointment if it wants too).

RCoonAMD need to, I'm not paying for another horrendously overpriced GPU stunt from NVidia again. Below £550 this time please. I'm riding my upgrade hopes on getting two of these things with their fabled lower power usage.

As I said in the past, many wait from AMD, ask from AMD, demand from AMD to join the fight, so they can buy cheaper Intel and Nvidia stuff. How nice...



As for the card it is an ES with 8GB, 7GHz RAM. I think the only interesting stuff about this board is that 8GB, because it smells like a 256bit data bus. Also the SLI connectors just say "NO" to XDMA approach from AMD. Other than that, I don't think there is anything else of interest here. Maybe that pixelated black circles could be something more than just fans for the power circuit. ARM cores maybe in that area?

AMD is was part of the reason for the 680 being $499.99 instead of a 660 @ half the price, but thats in the past. Maybe this time around they wont sand bag and we can have full flag ships from the start.

GARLOL, you must be new to the PC world..... This is normal for a "test" sample card, its kind of like a beta, or alpha, testing stages.

No, I'm not new. I just mentioned that, because I saw a lot of "ES" in the past and they are not that different. ;)

BorisDGNo, I'm not new. I just mentioned that, because I saw a lot of "ES" in the past and they are not that different. ;)

I think it depends on the stage of the ES. If its very early sample, it likely will not look anything close to retail PCB reference designs. Typically the ES samples that are sent out close to the release date to reviewers (unless they send retail cards) are much closer to final designs.

I'll patiently wait for Pascal.

Hitman_ActualI'll patiently wait for Pascal.

That's at least 2, maybe even a 3-year wait. :)

Sony Xperia SThat's at least 2, maybe even a 3-year wait. :)

That sucks, man! :banghead:

Sony Xperia SThat's at least 2, maybe even a 3-year wait. :)

I thought it was Volta that's years away? Or was that done away with?

RCoonThat chip is crazy large...
Also, why is everything except the chip blurred out?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see 3 x 6 pins, 2 stacked on top of each other, one by the side.

1 x 8 pin, 2 x 6-pin.

Actually fairly common for prototypes. Nvidia likely wouldn't know exactly how the chip performs or its headroom for both stock clocks and AIB margins. The prototype allows for 2 x 6 pin and alternatively, 1 x 8pin + 1 x 6pin operation. Testing at a range of input power (GPU voltage) would offer a fine tuning capability - the old sliding scale of performance vs power consumption/heat output.

the54thvoidI'm with you there. NV need a stick up their ass to dislodge that pricing problem they have.

Well what you expect when R&D is actually Done on card instead of AMD model of throw some chips together, put cheapest ass cooler we got on it and ship it out the door. <-- what happened with AMD and 290x. They were so deadset on beating the 780. Nvidia tends to put out a card they will do least xxx, and what ever you get with boost OC. AMD is your card will do "up to xxxx" but we all know who uses the "up to" crap and ends up not being that. ISP's, mpg's on cars.

Lastly Nvidia is NOT only gpu maker, so don't like their price, then DON'T BUY THEM and spare us your AMD fanboy crap.

arbiterWell what you expect when R&D is actually Done on card instead of AMD model of throw some chips together, put cheapest ass cooler we got on it and ship it out the door.

It isn't really that simple I don't think. Nvidia tend to look for higher ASP's on consumer cards to offset the sweetheart deals they offer OEM's ( the Amazon Tesla K10 deal would be a good case in point). Since Nvidia also leverage a far (far far) higher proportion of its expenses on software development that also needs to factored in. The company has never been satisfied to merely exist as a counterpoint to another vendor, so the pricing tends to reflect that also.

BTW: For those dismayed about the size of the GM 204 die, it seems to scale out at ~430 mm²deducting the die package. Assuming it sits around Hawaii XT performance then it really isn't that bad considering Hawaii itself is 438 mm².

arbiterLastly Nvidia is NOT only gpu maker, so don't like their price, then DON'T BUY THEM and spare us your AMD fanboy crap.

Silly, nvidia is not alone but their pricing has a very pronounced negative effect on the whole market, since they are part of it, thus emphasizing and enforcing even further stagnation and crisis in the same market rather than positive influence on growth or whatever else you want to achieve. ;)

About Volta I don't know but I guess it is not possible to have anything else between Maxwell this year and the projected roadmap with Pascal in 2016.

MxPhenom 216Oh the AMD fanboy rage!

Are you on something.
I pointed out the obvious and I welcome all new tech even in 2015 :p im no OT fan of any of them.
Sorry if I was not excited enough for your liking but im not impressed by random ass silicon in that raw or mysterious a form.

theoneandonlymrkAre you on something.
I pointed out the obvious and I welcome all new tech even in 2015 :p im no OT fan of any of them.
Sorry if I was not excited enough for your liking but im not impressed by random ass silicon in that raw or mysterious a form.

Seems like you are on probably the same thing.

The pricing comments dont make any sense.....

lets see R9 290X = $550? cant be overclocked much because AMD pushed it to the limit already, uses more power.
GTX 780 = $450-550? Overclocked it beats the R9 290X and it matches the 780 ti and in some cases beats it...

GARThe pricing comments dont make any sense.....

lets see R9 290X = $550? cant be overclocked much because AMD pushed it to the limit already, uses more power.
GTX 780 = $450-550? Overclocked it beats the R9 290X and it matches the 780 ti and in some cases beats it...

Nice maths. Now try again this comparison with EVERY GRAPHICS CARD UNDER $400.

john_Nice maths. Now try again this comparison with EVERY GRAPHICS CARD UNDER $400.

Ok, lets see

R9 280X = slower than the GTX 770 in most cases costs $300-$350 on average depending on model

GTX 770 = Overclocks like a champ, costs $300-400 on average depending on model and ram

both are very close, i dont see where this "huge" price difference is..... That argument is pointless, we can go down, all the way down to the 750 ti, same story..... Not saying one is better than the other, just saying they are close to price/performance.

They blurred out the sexy parts lol

GAROk, lets see

R9 280X = slower than the GTX 770 in most cases costs $300-$350 on average depending on model

GTX 770 = Overclocks like a champ, costs $300-400 on average depending on model and ram

both are very close, i dont see where this "huge" price difference is..... That argument is pointless, we can go down, all the way down to the 750 ti, same story..... Not saying one is better than the other, just saying they are close to price/performance.

Slower than GTX 770? then why is R9 280x is being "best graphics card for money" by Tom for Graphics Card june edition?
www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-4.html

Looks fake to me

HumanSmokeBTW: For those dismayed about the size of the GM 204 die, it seems to scale out at ~430 mm²deducting the die package. Assuming it sits around Hawaii XT performance then it really isn't that bad considering Hawaii itself is 438 mm².

That doesn't seem to make much sense to me that it would perform the same as a Hawaii XT. Why would Nvidia go through the effort of designing a new GPU if it was only equal to its competition from a performance/die area perspective? I find it unlikely that they are selling so many GTX 780s that the lower production cost of a smaller, fully enabled GPU (compared to an 80% enabled GK110) would pay back the capital investment in a new die.

Much more likely is that it is an improvement over Hawaii XT from a performance/die area perspective. However, considering the usual price differential between AMD and NVidia, they probably will both have the same performance/price with the NVidia card having higher performance and a higher price.

LeonVolcoveSlower than GTX 770? then why is R9 280x is being "best graphics card for money" by Tom for Graphics Card june edition?
www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-4.html

There's a difference between having the best performance (what the original post you're referring to said) and having the best performance/price, which is what the Tom's hardware article is stating.

LeonVolcoveSlower than GTX 770? then why is R9 280x is being "best graphics card for money" by Tom for Graphics Card june edition?
www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-4.html

I would guess they went with 280x cause its cheaper card not faster. Considering only 1 nvidia card on that list I question the writer who he favors personally.

The Von MatricesThat doesn't seem to make much sense to me that it would perform the same as a Hawaii XT. Why would Nvidia go through the effort of designing a new GPU if it was only equal to its competition from a performance/die area perspective? I find it unlikely that they are selling so many GTX 780s that the lower production cost of a smaller, fully enabled GPU (compared to an 80% enabled GK110) would pay back the capital investment in a new die.
Much more likely is that it is an improvement over Hawaii XT from a performance/die area perspective. However, considering the usual price differential between AMD and NVidia, they probably will both have the same performance/price with the NVidia card having higher performance and a higher price.

Did you note my use of the word "assuming"? I suppose I could have said that the GM 204 could have X% of improvement over Hawaii....and what kind of response do you think that would elicit from some of our more rabid posters?
Truth is, I think GM 204 is a successor to the GK 104 and GF 104/114 lineage, so ~ 780/780Ti/290/290X performance would be respectable. I'm not certain that comparing the card to a heavily castrated die from the previous generation is overly helpful. The HD 7870XT (Tahiti LE) also a heavily cut part basically sits at the same level of performance as the incoming (Pitcairn-based) R9 270X. Personally it wouldn't surprise me to see the 780/780Ti 3GB phased out and the 6GB cards using B1 (assuming it isn't being further revised) silicon become the norm. If the 880 is 256-bit then it's possible to market that as mainstream, and the 6GB/384-bit for the higher resolution crowd. Will it happen? Who knows? But if both vendors are using the same process, and the same die space - and Maxwell isn't that great an improvement over Kepler so far, how much better than Hawaii do you expect it can be ?

LeonVolcoveSlower than GTX 770? then why is R9 280x is being "best graphics card for money" by Tom for Graphics Card june edition?
www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-4.html

Tom's?.....Tom's Hardware? Awesome.

BTW: The pricing that Tom's used looks a little like bait advertising. The card now retails at the same store for $300, which is more in line with other outlets.

GAROk, lets see

R9 280X = slower than the GTX 770 in most cases costs $300-$350 on average depending on model

GTX 770 = Overclocks like a champ, costs $300-400 on average depending on model and ram

both are very close, i dont see where this "huge" price difference is..... That argument is pointless, we can go down, all the way down to the 750 ti, same story..... Not saying one is better than the other, just saying they are close to price/performance.

The cheapest 770 here costs 290 euros here. The cheapest 280X costs 250. And of course 770 is not faster "in most cases".

280 here costs on average 20 euros less than 760.
There is nothing new from Nvidia to put next to 270X
270 costs a little more than 750Ti and it is way faster
Even 265 that costs the same as 750Ti is faster
260X is faster than 750
260 is cheaper than 750.
250X is faster than Nvidia cards in the same price range.
The same is true for 250
and 240