Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: NVIDIA Introduces $400 GeForce GTX 770 GPU

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    No, games need that now. Look at how much better DirectCompute runs on AMD cards. New games use that for stuff like global illumination.

    Crippling the compute capabilities of the GPU can now hurt games severely.
    Fermi does not fare better in DirectCompute tasks except with FP64 stuff, which isn't used in games.

    Conversely NVIDIA has their CUDA-based PhysX solution.

    There are a lot of OpenCL / DirectCompute tasks that have always been far better on AMD cards, and there are a lot of tasks that are far better with CUDA.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wargames View Post
    Yeah, 1536 "crippled" CUDA cores, to force you to buy a $1000+ Tesla if you want to play with CUDA. Fuck you NVIDIA. AMD is going to crush you.
    This is a gaming graphics card.

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    GPU prices are through the roof. Both from AMD as well as NVidia. Remember when the flagship cards used to cost around 400 dollars and the high-end models were going for about 300? Now we get an upper-end card for 400, the high-end one for 700 and the flagship card to a thousand.

    No, thank you.

    And there goes the theory that competition helps with prices. Unless of course this means that there actually is no competition.
    The exact same thing happened to PSUs; you got an increase in quality over years. The same thing is happening on graphic cards right now.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    I wonder if the recent price spikes are because they know this is their chance to make a profit with the new consoles coming out. The GTX 400 series and the HD4000 series are still good enough to play modern games, but there's a possibility that with the new consoles, even the Titan or 7990 will just barely keep up. So if they increase the prices of their products, PC gamers will want something that can out-do a console, and with such determination they'll be more inclined to pay extra to achieve that.



    Also note that tablets and Intel CPUs are catching up in graphics performance. Both AMD and Nvidia need to make their discrete GPUs seem worth getting, so by putting a high price point on it, it lets customers think that they're getting something extra special. That's how fancy restaurants work - put some comforting/descriptive words and a high price tag and suddenly an everyday meal becomes "exquisite".
    Last edited by schmidtbag; 05-30-2013 at 08:00 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    GPU prices are through the roof. Both from AMD as well as NVidia. Remember when the flagship cards used to cost around 400 dollars and the high-end models were going for about 300?
    Uh, no. I remember when our flagship cards cost over $2,000.

    The Titan is aimed more at people who want high-performance double-precision math than it is at gamers, and my $200-ish GTX 660 plays every game I own at high to max settings.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    Uh, no. I remember when our flagship cards cost over $2,000.
    What? Radeon 9800 - 300 bucks. X1950XT - 300 bucks. HD4870 - 300 bucks. Get the pattern? The 4870 was vastly superior to the 9800. But it cost the same money. Those were high-end ones. The mid-upper range ones like Radeon 6850 were going for something like 180. Today's equivalent of that range go for double that amount.

    The Titan is aimed more at people who want high-performance double-precision math than it is at gamers, and my $200-ish GTX 660 plays every game I own at high to max settings.
    The Titan is aimed at gamers. It's marked and targeted at gamers. And it's bought by gamers.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Fermi does not fare better in DirectCompute tasks except with FP64 stuff, which isn't used in games.

    Conversely NVIDIA has their CUDA-based PhysX solution.

    There are a lot of OpenCL / DirectCompute tasks that have always been far better on AMD cards, and there are a lot of tasks that are far better with CUDA.
    Considering the lifespan of CUDA vs. OpenCL I would hope CUDA still has some legs. However, the writing is on the wall. As OpenCL matures with the likes of LLVM/Clang helping expand its reach, CUDA, will lose out and Nvidia will dump it.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    Considering the lifespan of CUDA vs. OpenCL I would hope CUDA still has some legs. However, the writing is on the wall. As OpenCL matures with the likes of LLVM/Clang helping expand its reach, CUDA, will lose out and Nvidia will dump it.
    In the HPC sector, probably not. In the consumer space, definitely.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    What? Radeon 9800 - 300 bucks. X1950XT - 300 bucks. HD4870 - 300 bucks. Get the pattern?
    Those aren't high-end cards. High-end cards used to be the kind of cards engineers used for designed airliners, and are now the kind of cards people use for complex computation rather than running games.

    The Titan is in that category, where $1,000 has historically been cheap.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    Those aren't high-end cards. High-end cards used to be the kind of cards engineers used for designed airliners, and are now the kind of cards people use for complex computation rather than running games.

    The Titan is in that category, where $1,000 has historically been cheap.
    http://www.nvidia.com/titan-graphics-card
    GEFORCE® GTX TITAN
    Supercomputer technology.
    Revolutionary gaming.

    The technology that powers the world's fastest
    supercomputer is now redefining the PC
    gaming experience.

    Introducing GeForce® GTX TITAN.
    Bring the powerful NVIDIA® Kepler™
    architecture technology that drives
    the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's
    Titan supercomputer to your
    next gaming experience.
    Sure, the Titan is not meant for gaming.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    Sure, the Titan is not meant for gaming.
    You could run games on our $2,000 cards; it was actually one selling point for those cards over our competitors' $2,000 cards that couldn't. But they weren't designed for that and you'd have been mad to buy them for it.

    By far the biggest difference between Titan and the cheaper Nvidia cards is double-precision floating point performance. That is irrelevant for gaming because no-one in their right mind uses it for games because performance sucks on Nvidia gaming cards. It is only useful for GPU computing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •