dr_rus
Member
They also tend to ignore the fact that GDDR5X is in fact a new memory type as well and it's actually newer than HBM.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fudzilla - Nvidia GP102 (Pascal) Titan coming "soon"
- Thread starter wachie
- Start date
They also tend to ignore the fact that GDDR5X is in fact a new memory type as well and it's actually newer than HBM.
You wish tho
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
It's not necessarily the performance of GDDR5X that's the 'issue' for some. I think it's more to do with power savings HBM2 would bring to a 16-18GB card. This amount of GDRR5X VRAM is going to take a comparatively large amount of power I would imagine and to a lesser extent, space.
dr_rus
Member
Well, yeah, but in that case if it will be $999 you'll get 50% performance for what? 33% more money over 1080 AIB? So it kinda makes sense if you have the money for it.
From what was shown GDDR5X power savings are comparable to HBM2's. Although in case of HBM a lot here depends on the I/O width it seems.
SneakyStephan
Banned
HBM being more efficient means it has lower power draw/ mb/s
As hbm speeds go up it'll quickly surpass gddr5 in power consumption
HBM 1 in fury etc was so low power because it was very very slow (for HBM obviously, it was plenty fast)
HBM2 has twice as much bandwidth and already consumes more power than HBM1
GDDR5x is also more efficient than gddr5 as well.
The space saved on pcb argument would be a bigger one for me (I have a fairly small case, antec sonata III , which can barely fit 11" gpus) but it's a niche thing
SneakyStephan
Banned
Since amd won't have anything at all to go up against this until at least navi (and even then), yes it's going to be ridiculously expensive.
Monopoly prices ftl
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
HBM being more efficient means it has lower power draw/ mb/s
As hbm speeds go up it'll quickly surpass gddr5 in power consumption
HBM 1 in fury etc was so low power because it was very very slow (for HBM obviously, it was plenty fast)
HBM2 has twice as much bandwidth and already consumes more power than HBM1
GDDR5x is also more efficient than gddr5 as well.
The space saved on pcb argument would be a bigger one for me (I have a fairly small case, antec sonata III , which can barely fit 11" gpus) but it's a niche thing
Interesting. I've not compared HBM2 to GDDR5X before. I don't think I've compared HBM1 to GDDR5X but I knew how much more power efficient HBM1 was over standard GDRR5 and it's still more power efficient than GDDR5X at the same speeds.
But yeah the stackable nature of HBM is an undeniable plus.
ethomaz
Banned
384bits bus + GDDR5X and you will be fine.
We are talking here at near 500GB/s with GDDR5X... you won't need more.
Also picked up by numerous other sites.
http://vrworld.com/2016/07/05/nvidia-gp100-titan-faster-geforce-1080/
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-gp100-geforce-gtx-titan-launch/
http://techreport.com/news/30347/rumor-nvidia-next-titan-might-be-the-titan-p
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52886/nvidias-next-gen-titan-50-faster-geforce-gtx-1080/index.html
VR World:
http://vrworld.com/2016/07/05/nvidia-gp100-titan-faster-geforce-1080/
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-gp100-geforce-gtx-titan-launch/
http://techreport.com/news/30347/rumor-nvidia-next-titan-might-be-the-titan-p
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52886/nvidias-next-gen-titan-50-faster-geforce-gtx-1080/index.html
VR World:
ethomaz
Banned
If true that will be amazing.
The thing is, the rumored 480 GB/sec bandwidth (HBM2) seems really disappointing for a Titan product. Radeon R9 Fury X with HBM1 gets 512 GB/sec. I know Nvidia's Pascal architecture is far more efficient than the Fiji X, but still...
480 GB/sec is like right between GDDR5-X and HBM1
The bandwidth spec seems more in line with what you'd expect from 1080Ti.
480 GB/sec is like right between GDDR5-X and HBM1
The bandwidth spec seems more in line with what you'd expect from 1080Ti.
dr_rus
Member
384 bit GDDR5X @10Gbps will provide that exact figure of 480GB/sec of bandwidth. No HBM2 in sight.
I have no idea why anyone still expect any GeForce to use HBM2 this year. HBM2 would provide 720-1024 GB/s of bandwidth which is a complete waste for a gaming GPU with peak processing power of 1.5x GP104. And if you halve this number by going with 2 stacks / 2048 bit bus you're basically getting the same figure which would be way less expensive to implement and produce as a 384 bit GDDR5X bus.
I don't think that NV will use HBM2 in the gaming space until Volta at the earliest - and possibly even beyond that, when 10nm will allow them to pack enough processing power to actually require HBM2 bandwidth.
As a 980 Ti owner, I still wouldn't bother with a new Titan even if it was 50% faster than what I have now. The thing is that an overclocked 980 Ti or 1080 runs everything really great at 1440p and for 4K you are stuck at 60 Hz until late this year or next year. So until 120+ Hz 4K displays are on the market I have no reason to upgrade. Even if you can't run anything at actually 120 fps, the higher refresh rate still generally makes for less perceived motion blur.
SneakyStephan
Banned
This line made me cringe
Don't buy an insanely expensive 1700 cpu, buy a 350 dollar cpu and then what? a1350 dollar gpu that is just as insanely expensive?
a 980ti is not enough for 60 fps at 4k in the newest (and demanding games), let alone to get proper 60 fps (no drops below 60) , the kind of framerate you need when gaming
ethomaz
Banned
480GB/s is overkill for 1080... so think a little about how waste is to use HBM in a Fury X lol
Titan with GDDR5x @ 480GB/s is the way to go actually.
mr stroke
Member
Currently running 2 Titan X's and still can not max out Witcher 3 at 4K 60 FPS
mr stroke
Member
Probably $1099.00
Thats crazy. I like to max out my games but i cant see myself spending over a grand for the next Ti branded card. Might just stick to console.
So it's either full Ultra 60 FPS 4K or 1080p medium 30 FPS consoles? I feel there's a healthy in between.
Seems a bit asinine, a 6950x can easily hit 4.0 overclocked as well as all of the broadwell-e line. A 6700k can hit 4.5 but that is like a broadwell-e hitting 4.3 which is still doable. I don't understand.
If this is true found my next video card upgrade in a couple years when the GTX 1270 surpasses this.
ethomaz
Banned
Skylake IPC > Broadwell-e IPC.
That is why even at high overclock Broadwell-c can't rival Skylake in games.
Frozone
Member
Yea, I'm tempted but will wait for Volta. Got a Titan X now and am satisfied with Ultra 4k @ 30FPS in W3 (no hairworks). I want a big jump in order for it to be worth spending $1.5k. And besides, most games aren't going to require that kind of power before the next gen Nvidia boards come out.
Isn't the IPC gain like 8-12% no chance in hell something is being bottlenecked on one and breezing in the other with that minimal difference.