Nvidia: No next gen graphics cards for a long time

[SpencerC]

3 minutes ago, Tribalinius said:

The project is probably under a metric ton of NDA for all we know. I really doubt Intel waited for Raja to leave to start their project. I'm sure some of the groundwork has already been done by the time he signed with them. The faster Intel gets his GPU on the market, the better it will be for all of us anyway.

I partially agree with you, but for the sake of Intel I hope they aren't speeding through this. Larabee was quite the disaster and seeing it replicated would only seal Intel's fate.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

I sold my TITAN X Maxwell on September last year for about the price 1070's were going around 450~... bought the FE 1080 Ti second hand (literally just 3 weeks of use) from a closing down rendering studio in October just before the mining craze... paid 600 dollars for it.

 

I got lucky yeah... the longer it lasts now indeed the happier I'll be.

I got my ftw3 1080ti new for 800 a day or so before new years eve. I thought it was overpriced at 800 and felt like I paid too much for it. With in a couple days the price of the 1080ti was 1500 and I felt pretty lucky that I bought it when I did. 

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I thought it was overpriced at 800 and felt like I paid too much for it

Ok well what would been a price that would have been justified? ti's have always been in that price range. 

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Ok well what would been a price that would have been justified? ti's have always been in that price range. 

760 to 780. I mean the strix was about 20 to 30 dollars cheaper but it was out of stock actually most of the 1080tis were out of stock which at the time I didn't think much of it. I though it was due to people buying cards after Christmas but shortly after the lack of stock ended up skyrocketing the price. I am quite glad microcenter had any left when I got there because if I waited a day or so they likely wouldn't have any. 

[ravenshrike]

42 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

Everyone can get Volta now and stop waiting. Only the low low price of €3000

Volta has no performance per cuda gain over Pascal. It's all down to the die shrink and increased core count. GDDR6 might give you a minor bump beyond that, but the gain would be the same if you slapped GDDR6 on a Pascal card.

[Okjoek]

9 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

AMD, our lord and savior, please bestow upon us the blessing of competition

The problem is you (maybe not YOU specifically, but I suspect this to be the greater general issue) people shouting at AMD to make competition are giving them no incentive to chase after gamers because you don't buy their cards for gaming even when they do catch up enough for nVIDIA to respond. It's the consumer's fault just as much as it is AMD's fault.

[Wh0_Am_1]

1 hour ago, SpencerC said:

Intel getting a gaming card out by 2020 is very optimistic. It takes a couple of years to design a GPU worth beans, and Intel has to be doubly sure that they won't cross any patents or copyrights held by either NVIDIA or AMD. 2022? That's a little bit better.

Take a look at this article from Forbes. It will actually hit in 2020.

Quote

"Those plans, however, will be extended to the PC gaming space to compete with the duopoly of Nvidia and AMD by the year 2020."

 here is another one from digital trends.

Quote

"Intel’s made its own onboard graphics solutions for years, and it’s even dabbled in discrete graphics cards before, but it could be gearing up to take on gaming GPU manufacturers Nvidia and AMD with its own gaming-centric graphics card slated for 2020."

 

[TacoSenpai]

The year is 20XX and no new GPUs have yet to be released and all people play is Melee Fox only.

[GoldenLag]

28 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

The problem is you (maybe not YOU specifically, but I suspect this to be the greater general issue) people shouting at AMD to make competition are giving them no incentive to chase after gamers because you don't buy their cards for gaming even when they do catch up enough for nVIDIA to respond. It's the consumer's fault just as much as it is AMD's fault.

I would buy an AMD card for my upgrade. But at the time of purchase there was a mining graze. As much as i wanted a AMD card there wasnt anything at the pricetier that was worth it. Im peobably going to end up with Navi or Vega 7nm if that ever touches the consumer market. Also im a cheapskate. I might end up getting a Vega 64 second hand or the 290x

[D13H4RD]

Well, on one hand, maybe AMD has a chance to release something competitive?

 

On the other, my 1060 has some breathing room again

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, maartendc said:

Why did Intel churn out the same old 4 core processors with 5% yearly improvements between 2012 and 2017? Because that was the best they could do? No way.

Yes, on the surface.

 

In actuallity, Intel's been working on uncore subsystems and new instruction sets, things that don't translate to across the board gains.

2 hours ago, maartendc said:

All of a sudden AMD releases competitive 6 core and 8 core CPU's, and BOOM a few months later intel steps up their game with Coffee Lake 6 core and 12 thread CPU's, and i9 with many more cores to compete with Threadripper.

The only things that changed was that Coffee got released prematurely, after Haswell through Kaby failed to deliver 6 cores at their target TDP and clocks, and that more Xeons got unlocked multipliers.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

11 hours ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

So the question is, why is this happening, is Nvidia having issues or is the GTX 10 series just too successful for Nvidia to inovate?

Now Nvidia once again discussed Raytracing or Nvidia RTX , and one has to ask, how does Nvidia plan to power this because right now you apparently need 4 Tesla V100s 

To answer the question, I think it's the latter. Pascal in NVIDIA's eyes is "too successful" to release anything new.

 

With that said, I do think there's no game out there that has truly pushed Pascal to the very limits of what it can do. Final Fantasy XV Windows Edition may have pushed Pascal rather hard, but it's nowhere near what I think would show off Pascal's true capabilities beyond triple-digit framerates at max settings with GTX 1060's like what everyone here expects anyways.

 

Ray Tracing can already be done on an ancient architecture like Kepler. The best examples are OTOY's Brigade Engine, which does ray tracing at the global level using a pair of GeForce GTX TITAN cards in SLI (the original TITAN cards before the TITAN Black) for 1080p before factoring in time for optimisation to get it to run at 60 FPS, potentially with one card instead of two. This is far more demanding than doing ray tracing only on reflectives, refractives, and shadows.

 

So to answer "How does NVIDIA plan to power this thing...?", well, they can tune RTX to run on Pascal (down to the GeForce GTX 1060 6GB for good quality anyway), and at the absolute most, Maxwell (To the tune of a GeForce GTX 980). They can set up RTX to run on lower-end hardware, but you have to sacrifice on image quality to get it to run on something like a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB or a GeForce GTX 960 (both 2GB and 4GB models).

Edited June 4, 2018 by Jurunce

[Wh0_Am_1]

3 minutes ago, Jurunce said:

To answer the question, I think it's the latter. Pascal in NVIDIA's eyes is "too successful" to release anything new.

 

With that said, I do think there's no game out there that has truly pushed Pascal to the very limits of what it can do. Final Fantasy XV Windows Edition may have pushed Pascal rather hard, but it's nowhere near what I think would show off Pascal's true capabilities beyond triple-digit framerates at max settings with GTX 1060's like what everyone here expects anyways.

 

Ray Tracing can already be done on an ancient architecture like Kepler. The best examples are OTOY's Brigade Engine, which does ray tracing at the global level using a pair of GeForce GTX TITAN cards in SLI (the original TITAN cards before the TITAN Black) for 1080p before factoring in time for optimisation to get it to run at 60 FPS, potentially with one card instead of two. This is far more demanding than doing ray tracing only on reflectives, refractives, and shadows.

 

So to answer "How does NVIDIA plan to power this thing...?", well, they can tune RTX to run on Pascal (down to the GeForce GTX 1060 6GB for good quality anyway), and at the absolute most, Maxwell (To the tune of a GeForce GTX 980). They can set up RTX to run on lower-end hardware, but you have to sacrifice on image quality to get it to run on something like a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB or a GeForce GTX 960 (both 2GB and 4GB models).

RTX needs the Tensor cores within the Volta to work efficiently, so that is not possible, unless they release new cards with tensor cores backed in.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

9 minutes ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

RTX needs the Tensor cores within the Volta to work efficiently, so that is not possible, unless they release new cards with tensor cores backed in.

It does in its current form. What I'm getting at is they can "tune it" to run on Pascal as well to compete with alternative solutions like the Brigade Engine. This means they can make RTX run off of CUDA if need be. If solutions like that exist, then NVIDIA has competition to tackle.

 

Also you didn't have to quote the entire thing if the last paragraph of mine is being addressed

Edited June 4, 2018 by Jurunce

[Majinhoju]

I bought my 1080 last November.  I suppose it's nice to know it's not obsolete yet

[Wh0_Am_1]

4 minutes ago, Jurunce said:

It does in its current form. What I'm getting at is they can "tune it" to run on Pascal as well to compete with alternative solutions like the Brigade Engine. This means they can make RTX run off of CUDA if need be. If solutions like that exist, then NVIDIA has competition to tackle.

 

Also you didn't have to quote the entire thing if the last paragraph of mine is being addressed

They could, but "Tensor cores" are far more efficient at this task then "CUDA cores" so that tech would be expensive, and eat heavily into the performance of games, That is why Tensor cores are such a big deal. Because this next gen will have likely have more CUDA cores than the last, and separate tensor cores for raytracing which means that the tech will not interfere with your FPS, and the detail of objects.

[Tech Enthusiast]

The ONE time i get myself to not buy ever new card,... the ONE time i manage to hold me back a generation.

 

Now i still have a 970 and want to upgrade for almost 2 years,... i only wanted to skip a single generation.

Who knew the generation would be like 4 years. Damn.

[Wh0_Am_1]

1 minute ago, Rattenmann said:

The ONE time i get myself to not buy ever new card,... the ONE time i manage to hold me back a generation.

 

Now i still have a 970 and want to upgrade for almost 2 years,... i only wanted to skip a single generation.

Who knew the generation would be like 4 years. Damn.

IKR?

[Zandvliet]

13 minutes ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

IKR?

15 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

The ONE time i get myself to not buy ever new card,... the ONE time i manage to hold me back a generation.

 

Now i still have a 970 and want to upgrade for almost 2 years,... i only wanted to skip a single generation.

Who knew the generation would be like 4 years. Damn.

 

Same here...

[Motifator]

They should at least work on G-Sync 2.0, along with releasing more actual IPS G-Sync panels and none of that TN garbage. By actual, I mean monitors that support HDR with at least around 500 nit, 100HZ, 4k, 30 inches etc... these are all possible after seeing what they did with the Predator X27. If they feel the GPUs are good enough (a bit of more power would certainly be useful for 4k) they should get the monitors right. There are 100s of FreeSync monitors out there and the new LG monitors like the 32 inch ones are really impressive in the sense that they support HDR, %99 sRGB etc. G-Sync ones, not so many new monitors except two / three that cost $2000.

So 10s of monitors vs couple 100s of them. At least reduce G-Sync pricing, G-Sync monitors cost absurdly high compared to FreeSync.

[Wh0_Am_1]

2 hours ago, Motifator said:

They should at least work on G-Sync 2.0, along with releasing more actual IPS G-Sync panels and none of that TN garbage. By actual, I mean monitors that support HDR with at least around 500 nit, 100HZ, 4k, 30 inches etc... these are all possible after seeing what they did with the Predator X27. If they feel the GPUs are good enough (a bit of more power would certainly be useful for 4k) they should get the monitors right. There are 100s of FreeSync monitors out there and the new LG monitors like the 32 inch ones are really impressive in the sense that they support HDR, %99 sRGB etc. G-Sync ones, not so many new monitors except two / three that cost $2000.

So 10s of monitors vs couple 100s of them. At least reduce G-Sync pricing, G-Sync monitors cost absurdly high compared to FreeSync.

Ugh... that is possible with current G-sync... Have you watched the latest LTT video?

[Motifator]

1 minute ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

Ugh... that is possible with current G-sync... Have you watched the latest LTT video?

What are we talking about here? To my knowledge, G-Sync currently doesn't support HDR unless you buy into that $2000 FALD panel maybe.

[TechyBen]

15 hours ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

Hey everyone! Nvidia has announced at Computex tonight that there will be no new GPU for a long time. This comes right after Jensen discussed the success of the GeForce cards as a distributed computing platform and the booming success of games such as PUBG and Fortnite.

So the question is, why is this happening, is Nvidia having issues or is the GTX 10 series just too successful for Nvidia to inovate?

Now Nvidia once again discussed Raytracing or Nvidia RTX , and one has to ask, how does Nvidia plan to power this because right now you apparently need 4 titan V100s 

and the Pascal generation of cards is already 2 years old, so how long can Nvidia make us wait before it starts to hurt? And when are we getting the 1180? I don't know about you guys but this is starting to get tedious.

[insert Oprah meme here, but sorry I cannot be bothered to fire up Gimp/Photoshop and animate it... but]

You get a 1080, you get a 1080... and you get a 1080!!! EVERYONE GETS A 1080!!!! [Forever... ]

But that's what I assume it to be, with mining and the economy, fabrication yields... everyone is expected to live off 1080s.

[Wh0_Am_1]

6 minutes ago, Motifator said:

What are we talking about here? To my knowledge, G-Sync currently doesn't support HDR unless you buy into that $2000 FALD panel maybe.

Sorry I meant yesterdays video about the 4k, 1000nit HDR, 144hz, G-sync monitor from ASUS. P.S. is loses HDR capabilities when pushed beyond 120hz

 

[Motifator]

You know that monitor costs at least $2000, right? Availability is an issue too. There are FreeSync 2 monitors that cost 1/3 of it which do HDR. Although not as well as that one, but they still sort of do it. Most people can't afford that monitor anyway. In Europe it costs upwards of €2500 with VAT, even.