Nvidia Geforce GTX 980 Ti with Full GM200 Core Ready – Planned for September Launch

[ErickS89]

I knew the 980ti would basically be a Titan-X but with less vram, personally I'd rather have the larger framebuffer.  

[Merry]

I would have sposed they wouldn't name it 980ti.

Anyway the specs seem somehow awkward to me, there musts be something off.

I would rather have a card with 8go over 6go. 6 seems a little short for a card that'd be the second best of the market.
A chip with exactly the same power than a Titan X also feels awkward considering the fact a 600ish mm² chip should have tons of cut-down rejects, where'd they go?

Anyway, what troubles me the most is :
a ) we got cards that play perfectly at 1080p and 1440p (gtx 980)
b ) we have a card for 4k (titan X)
c ) we got "nothing" for 3xQHD or 3x4k

=> Releasing a card that would cost more than the GTX 980 while not bringing anywhere significant results seems off. If you want 4k, get titan X and overclock, if you want lower res go GTX 980/970... .

That and the fact Intel just hinted us that the 100-serie would STILL be limited to 16 pci-e lane (so only 2 cards at best and no m2 card) tells me that they'd give us a card with no market to go in.

[LOLPhilips]

I see lots of people remembering the original titan and the 780ti.. But atleast the original titan had double floating precision, and was a "cheap" quadro card.

This just looks stupid, but not at all suprising.

[Crosseyed Sniper]

Are we expecting to see any newer "lower end" GPUs released within the next few months? Maybe a lead up to the 980 Ti, or whatever it'll be called?ty6

 

By the way, I know there is a ty6 at the end of my last question. I left it there because my cat typed it! Well, she walked across the keyboard and type it.  :lol:

[asim1999]

I would have sposed they wouldn't name it 980ti.

Anyway the specs seem somehow awkward to me, there musts be something off.

I would rather have a card with 8go over 6go. 6 seems a little short for a card that'd be the second best of the market.

A chip with exactly the same power than a Titan X also feels awkward considering the fact a 600ish mm² chip should have tons of cut-down rejects, where'd they go?

Anyway, what troubles me the most is :

a ) we got cards that play perfectly at 1080p and 1440p (gtx 980)

b ) we have a card for 4k (titan X)

c ) we got "nothing" for 3xQHD or 3x4k

=> Releasing a card that would cost more than the GTX 980 while not bringing anywhere significant results seems off. If you want 4k, get titan X and overclock, if you want lower res go GTX 980/970... .

That and the fact Intel just hinted us that the 100-serie would STILL be limited to 16 pci-e lane (so only 2 cards at best and no m2 card) tells me that they'd give us a card with no market to go in.

U do realise it is a ROP Limitation for the VRAM. The 980 Ti and Titan X have 96 ROPs which are divisable by 3, hence 6 or 12GB RAM. If the card were to have 8GB RAM, it would have had 128 ROPS 

[Merry]

U do realise it is a ROP Limitation for the VRAM. The 980 Ti and Titan X have 96 ROPs which are divisable by 3, hence 6 or 12GB RAM. If the card were to have 8GB RAM, it would have had 128 ROPS 

Yeah but couldn't they use 1GB ram chips instead of the 500M ones they used in the titan X?

From what I understood, ROPs and memory controllers are linked ... But they can be tweaked to control more or less VRAM per memory controller?

To me, the amount of ROP limited more the bandwith than the amount of memory controlled ... But not sure.