The Bookerman
Member
500$ for a mid range chip? Fuck that shit
That stuff won't get PC gaming out of the ghetto.
That stuff won't get PC gaming out of the ghetto.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NVIDIA GTX 880 Specs Rumored - Midrange Chip Again
- Thread starter mkenyon
- Start date
dgrdsv
Member
I don't think that we'll loose GDDR5 bus on Pascal.
Look what you have wrought, mkenyon.
It's not really mid-range at the time of its release. It's just that 1 year later they'll be able to squeeze more out of the design and we'll get a 980.
Sarcasm?
Sutton Dagger
Member
So seeing as the typical Nvidia number scheme looks like this.
670 = 760, 680 = 770
Would the 870 be equivalent to a 780 or 780ti? Which should mean that the 880 handily beats the 780ti, say 15-20% better performance. Or am I way off base?
670 = 760, 680 = 770
Would the 870 be equivalent to a 780 or 780ti? Which should mean that the 880 handily beats the 780ti, say 15-20% better performance. Or am I way off base?
The Bookerman
Member
Just a bit.
I just think video card prices have gone up to ridiculous prices(see Geforce titan), and going by Watch dogs' recommended specs so did pc requirements.
I guess Nvidia sees a market for those overpriced products.
hbkajshdvfbkjhvgkahsgdfka
Member
PC Gaming needs another 8800GT.
Way off base. The reason why those are the same is because they reused the same architecture and chips, just releasing them under new names. The 870, like the 670 was to the 680, should probably be an ever-so-slightly detuned version of the 880.
The GTX 760 begs to differ. $230-250 gets you an amazing card that has no problems with much of anything at 1080p.
Additionally, the $500 GTX 780 performs the same as a $1000 Titan for 1080p/1440p gaming.
Or another 9700/9800 Pro. What beasts.. for the price.
It was looking so good with the R290 and a $399 price point, and then the whole crytocurrency bs had to stymie that.
Sutton Dagger
Member
Oh yeah, forgot about that. So with regards to the second question how do you see the lineup in comparison to the 700 series in terms of performance. Say the 880 has a 15-20 percent performance advantage over the 780ti (is that reasonable?) would the 870 then perform about the same or maybe a touch better than the 780ti? I have the 670 and I'd upgrade to an 870 if I could get 780ti performance for under $500.
Eh, Watch_Dog's requirements aren't that unreasonable.
Wait until reviews are out.
Mango Positive
Member
The 8800GT was like that bit of free crack they give you to get you hooked. The 8800GT was my first card. Since then, I've upgraded my CPU / MB twice and I've owned a GTX 460, GTX 560ti, and now I'm holding fast with a GTX 680. I'm probably going to replace the GPU in time for Witcher 3. It's not a healthy habit. I've got music gear to purchase, god damn it! Fucking expensive hobbies...
The Bookerman
Member
explain to me how?
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
Hopefully the 860 gtx.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
Looks like I'm about the 5th odd person to quote this, and it's exactly my sentiments also, since the 670 I feel like I've been let down by Nvidia, was waiting around for the 770 thinking that would be my next big jump for a respectable price to performance card but now it seems if you want that jump in performance you have to spend a lot more money, it's like they pushed everything up one tier including the pricing :-(
Do I sell my 670 now while it's worth something a grab a 780......., I feel like I'm stuck between a rock and hard place.
cobragt4001
Banned
I'm hoping the 870 is equal to a 780ti because I have 2 670s and there really isn't a point to upgrade right now.
I have a 670 too, but if the 880 is faster than a 780 ti that means it's like double the 670's performance.
I'm looking at selling the 670 I have now while it's still worth something, then getting a 6GB 780 when they drop. Then, if the 880 is worth it, that 780 will still have a lot of value and I won't have to pay too much more for the upgrade.
I find it hard to believe it's already been nearly a year since the 780 / 7xx series came out. Looking at the last few flagships, 780 came out 14 months after the 680, and the 680 came out 16 months after the 580. Not that it clearly points towards anything, but I'd guess something would come out in 3-4 months (which is also when I happened to plan on building something).
Betta Lines
Member
Minimum 460, recommended 560Ti. That is entirely reasonable - those are budget cards now. They also claim to have an 'ultra' setting that pushes a 780Ti. That suggests a large window of scalability. Also good news for the enthusiast, as it sounds like there will be plenty of options to tweak.
The recommended specs on the Steam page are pretty reasonable. If you're talking about the ultra specs, well, they're ultra specs(and it's an Ubisoft game).
andromeduck
Member
wasn't the whole point of the memory cube and stuff to get out of DDR5 spec's restrictions?
dgrdsv
Member
It's purpose is to greatly increase memory bandwidth. But the memory size is important too, and I don't think that we'll get 4+ GBs of stacked memory in Pascal. What's even more important is that they'll need a lot more than 4 GBs of fast memory for their Tesla products which means that stacked memory will most likely serve as a cache or buffer between the ROPs and main GDDR5 pool - at least in the top end products (like GK110).
Also - smaller low cost GPUs will likely have a rather tiny amounts of stacked RAM due to their chip size being small. Thus they'll need an external memory also.
Yep, I had both of them and rode them for quite some time. I for one am hoping to go some way with the 770 now. But I almost sure it won't last 4+ years as the 8800gt did.
SneakyStephan
Banned
It depends on the game
watchdogs in the latest pc footage looks nothing like the unveil trailer that was supposedly running on a gtx680
Now the requirements have gone up and the graphics (even if you ignore the original trailer) do not look nearly good enough to justify it
crysis 1 ,metro , metro last light, stalker soc, half life 2 , doom 3, far cry, arma 3 (sheer scale and the impressive lighting)
those had graphics to match the requirements and those are the kind of games you want for pc,ones that are designed for hardware 2-3 years into the future
Not some xbox 360 port that clearly looks like an old gen port
I think it is becoming less relevant every year now. There was a much bigger gap between console and PC at the start of this generation than last generation. That gap will get bigger every year.
Just like last generation, only a few developers will attempt to push PC hardware in any significant way. I think Nvidia recognises this and will use it as an excuse to slow down the rate of progress.
I thought it was dual 680s?
Supposedly, yeah. DF's article on the game last July mentions "rumoured to be using Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 graphics cards".
Everyone of those games was called UNOPTIMIZED when launched.
Crysis 1 - framerate
Metro - framerate
Last Light - stuttering
Stalker - framerate
Half Life 2 - sound stuttering
Doom 3 - downgraded
Farcry - framerate
Arma 3 - framerate
Everyone. And I defended all of them on every forum that was full of rage and anger. People is very unfair when they get new stuff that does not understand or does not match what they expected (and people do not know what to expect of the new stuff).
Well, in terms of Crysis 1, Crytek did state that the game was designed to get better as graphics cards got more powerful. Of course Crytek got a lot of shit from people complaining that their PC couldn't run it at the highest settings. They were never meant to.
xBladeM6x
Member
That's what I was thinking. That's like being in the top 1% of people in the world, and "ranking" in the middle of that 1% in wealth, so you're "mid-range". LOL
It's a phrase that gets misappropriated time and time again (even I'm guilty of using it sometimes as shorthand) If a game works for someone of their setup they call it optimised and if it doesn't or has some issues they call it unoptimised. Where the vast majority of the time the problem being caused is a lack of capable hardware at the users end. I mean what exactly is unoptimised about it? That's a question hardly ever gets answered when pointing the finger.
Nvidia's Physx or now GameWorks just a lot of unjust stick. I can't wait to see the first game that gets FlameWorks implemented in it but it's odds on people will declare it unoptimised despite the tech demo saying that 30fps is about what to expect.
What I'm trying to say is that the titanic work of developers is valued only several years after the game is released. And it's unfair.
Surely every game can have problems at launch, and I can't defend that. But people tend to do a misuse of the word "optimization". When what they really mean is "I do not know how to config this game to run it decently on my computer".
Overrated, my own 8800GTX didn't last me past 2009.
OldAsUrSock
Banned
That just means your standards are higher than some others.
Yes it does, such a fantastic card. I "upgraded" to a GTX 460 which should have been the comparable "midrange" card of the then-newest product line, but it didn't last me nearly as long.
velociraptor
Junior Member
I'm still holding onto my 6950 for now. 3 years going strong. Still let's me play most games at 1080p and decent settings.
I just want a card that will guarantee me 1080p60 for the next four or five years. Don't know how likely this is but with most games being console ports I hope this is possible.
I'm interested in that one quite a bit now. The last four GTX x60 GPUs launched at $250 or less, and based on past trends, it's looking like the 860 will probably be somewhere between a 770 and 780.
Dictator93
Member
Exactly. I also prefer the balls daring attitude toward future proofing PC games. Only if every game scaled as awesomely as Crysis 1, 3, Doom 3, etc... Ultra settings, are ultra for a reason.
This post, so much.
However, there are some poorly coded games. Things like Far Cry 3 have really erratic frame times, no matter the configuration.
The thing about past trends, which is the reason why I wrote the OP in such a way, is that you can't base this release on much of any past trends outside of the initial Kepler/6xx launch.
Haint
Member
My sense is most people just want the current everyman system (e.g. the ~$200-$300 class GPU and $200 i5) to max out their games, less ridiculous levels of AA. Anything that strays from this is going to be lambasted for either being unoptimized or held back.
So a card released in 2006 only lasted you 3 years, The horror!
kutthoat5150
Member
I loved my 8800
gtx up until it crapped out on me and I swore never to buy Nvidia again. Here I am now with a 680 looking to upgrade to the 800 series because I can't force myself to make the jump to amd
m
Rogue_Ledr
Banned
Well it is more powerful, so I guess it would make sense.