How much faster than Nvidia's Maxwell is Pascal going to be?

[Delicieuxz]

NVIDIA to push Pascal architecture in 2016: 16nm process node, 32GB memory

 

Will a mid-tier Pascal card be like haveing 4x GTX 980 Tis?

[Guest]

NVIDIA to push Pascal architecture in 2016: 16nm process node, 32GB memory

 

Will a mid-tier Pascal card be like haveing 4x GTX 980 Tis?

I doubt that

[desertcomputer]

NVIDIA to push Pascal architecture in 2016: 16nm process node, 32GB memory

 

Will a mid-tier Pascal card be like haveing 4x GTX 980 Tis?

Probably not, not all of the GPU will get HBM. Mostly likely the high teir will get HBM and low medium will get new GDDR5. No way it will be 4x 980ti.. there wont make something 4 time as powerful.. mostly it will be 20-50 increase and release some new each year so their profit are high. 

[Xenift]

No, not nearly possible in my opinion.

 

Their upgrades mostly boost thigns like RAM, which would allow for more textures of higher quality to be displaced (HBM).

But this does not affect normal performance, only makes future games more pleasing.

 

Their supposetly compute improvement is also not that much.

Bandwidth is the amount of data that can be transferred at a time, if theres not enough data generated to even reach that threshold, it is meaningless.

 

But one thing that intrigues me is the gain in sli in the pascal gpus, more support and better integration seems to be coming into place and that's really nice to see.

 

Lets hope that pascal gives more than 30% by their flagship Gtx 1080Ti(lol)

 

 

​

[minibois]

We dont know. The thingnabout Pascal being 10 times faster or something probably was not a gaming benchmark.

/thread

[Lolucoca]

Nope. I doubt that. For VRam, it will be a big improvement tho

[Delicieuxz]

I've wondered whether the advent of 4K gaming could be a motivator for graphics power to take a big jump. When companies have a 2-year turn-around period, it can be pretty depressing to know that there are already games released at the time of new graphics hardware which that hardware cannot master... which incurs a stagnation in what game developers are willing to put into their game graphics for the following years.

 

I think Nvidia and AMD should have taken up the mantle to cooperatively advertise PC gaming to the public, like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo do for their consoles, like a whole decade ago. It's possible things could have been way beyond where they are now, regarding PC gaming graphics quality, and hardware performance - which would also mean better consoles from each of their generations.

[don_svetlio]

I've wondered whether the advent of 4K gaming could be a motivator for graphics power to take a big jump. When companies have a 2-year turn-around period, it can be pretty depressing to know that there are already games released at the time of new graphics hardware which that hardware cannot master... which incurs a stagnation in what game developers are willing to put into their game graphics for the following years.

 

I think Nvidia and AMD should have taken up the mantle to cooperatively advertise PC gaming to the public, like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo do for their consoles, like a whole decade ago. It's possible things could have been way beyond where they are now, regarding PC gaming graphics quality, and hardware performance - which would also mean better consoles from each of their generations.

Mantle is open source - Nvidia didn't bother with it.

[techguru]

NVIDIA to push Pascal architecture in 2016: 16nm process node, 32GB memory

 

Will a mid-tier Pascal card be like haveing 4x GTX 980 Tis?

LMFAO

 

it will probably be like 30-40% better...maybe as  high as 50% better then the 980ti

[rattacko123]

NVIDIA to push Pascal architecture in 2016: 16nm process node, 32GB memory

 

Will a mid-tier Pascal card be like haveing 4x GTX 980 Tis?

nope

read this: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/462486-nvidia-pascal-mythbusting/

it would be great having a mid tier gpu as good as 4x gtx 980 ti, but thats 100% not going to happen unless you are specifically talking about memory performance.

at the very best a mid tier pascal gpu will be equivalent to a gtx 980 ti but that's unlikely

[Delicieuxz]

Mantle is open source - Nvidia didn't bother with it.

I wasn't referring to AMD's Mantle, but the task of advertising PC gaming and graphics to the mainstream public, like with TV commercials, etc.

[don_svetlio]

I wasn't referring to AMD's Mantle, but the task of advertising PC gaming and graphics to the mainstream public, like with TV commercials, etc.

That wouldn't achieve anything - people who play games for the graphics are called out and beaten with a stick for being a casual (figuratively)

[Delicieuxz]

That wouldn't achieve anything - people who play games for the graphics are called out and beaten with a stick for being a casual (figuratively)

 

Well if the PC gaming market had been bigger relative to the console market during the 360 / PS3 generation, maybe PC gaming wouldn't have gotten shafted so much, and graphics evolution wouldn't have stagnated for so long. The standard set by 2007's Crysis is only recently being matched in other AAA games (and still not in others, like Fallout 4). More people buying good graphics cards would push PC graphics development.

 

 

LMFAO

 

it will probably be like 30-40% better...maybe as  high as 50% better then the 980ti

 

I think it should be like an octopus, with each tentacle being equal to one GTX 980 Ti.

[don_svetlio]

 

Well if the PC gaming market had been bigger relative to the console market during the 360 / PS3 generation, maybe PC gaming wouldn't have gotten shafted so much, and graphics evolution wouldn't have stagnated for so long. The standard set by 2007's Crysis is only recently being matched in other AAA games (and still not in others, like Fallout 4). More people buying good graphics cards would push PC graphics development.

 

 

 

I think it should be like an octopus, with each tentacle being equal to one GTX 980 Ti.

 

Crysis 1 wasn't really a tech masterprice, more so a poorly-coded way of pushing DirectX to it's limits. Even now, a 980 Ti cannot max that game out at 1080p and not drop to 40 fps at times. It took 2 whole years for a GPU that could run it maxed at 30fps to even be developed (that being the 5870). Gaming is not about the graphics, it's about the experience. If you really only care about how things look then why even bother with games? Just loop Unigine Valley or Heaven or 3D mark and watch that all day.

[Paralectic]

We need a single card to push 4K at 100FPS+ from Pascal.

I don't think more than 20% improvement.

[don_svetlio]

We need a single card to push 4K at 100FPS+ from Pascal.

I don't think more than 20% improvement.

That means 300% - 980 Ti can only push 30-40fps @4K

[Paralectic]

That means 300% - 980 Ti can only push 30-40fps @4K

Well, it depends.

Using presets won't cut it, but turning AA off and some other "worthless" settings with ultra textures and a far render distance on a normal AAA game it can drive 60FPS right?

Ofcourse when the Ti is overclocked and such.

[don_svetlio]

Well, it depends.

Using presets won't cut it, but turning AA off and some other "worthless" settings with ultra textures and a far render distance on a normal AAA game it can drive 60FPS right?

Ofcourse when the Ti is overclocked and such.

With medium-high settings yes, 60fps is doable but it's only a matter of time until Call of Duty 1337 comes out and it runs like shit

[Paralectic]

With medium-high settings yes, 60fps is doable but it's only a matter of time until Call of Duty 1337 comes out and it runs like shit

Pretending you need a beefier GPU so they can neglect optimization is not "next-gen" lol.

[Delicieuxz]

Crysis 1 wasn't really a tech masterprice, more so a poorly-coded way of pushing DirectX to it's limits. Even now, a 980 Ti cannot max that game out at 1080p and not drop to 40 fps at times. It took 2 whole years for a GPU that could run it maxed at 30fps to even be developed (that being the 5870). Gaming is not about the graphics, it's about the experience. If you really only care about how things look then why even bother with games? Just loop Unigine Valley or Heaven or 3D mark and watch that all day.

People sometimes say 'gameplay > graphics', but good gameplay with poor graphical presentation, or poor story, or poor controls... is hurt by not being supported by all the other elements. No one part of a game stands on its own. Graphics are a significant part of a game's quality, but it harms a game when other aspects of its design are unattended to. A game with good other elements is made stronger, and better, by having better graphics. Graphics provides immersion, believability, and aesthetics. They aren't the whole game, but they're an important part of it.

 

I've gamed on PC since 1992, starting with Test Drive 3, Wolfenstein 3D, Commander Keen, etc... and I've always gotten excited by the next level of graphics in games. The graphics race ended abruptly in 2007, with Crysis, and I think there was a backlash against that mentality that still persists today, but the argument for that backlash loses its merit when its not looked at within the context it emerged from: all areas of gaming getting sacrificed for the sake of graphics. That's no longer the state of game development today, and seeking good graphics today doesn't mean that all the other aspects of game design are being put down.

[don_svetlio]

People sometimes say 'gameplay > graphics', but good gameplay with poor graphical presentation, or poor story, or poor controls... is hurt by not being supported by all the other elements. No one part of a game stands on its own. Graphics are a significant part of a game's quality, but it harms a game when other aspects of its design are unattended to. A game with good other elements is made stronger, and better, by having better graphics. Graphics provides immersion, believability, and aesthetics. They aren't the whole game, but they're an important part of it.

 

I've gamed on PC since 1992, starting with Test Drive 3, Wolfenstein 3D, Commander Keen, etc... and I've always gotten excited by the next level of graphics in games. The graphics race ended abruptly in 2007, with Crysis, and I think there was a backlash against that mentality that still persists today, but the argument for that backlash loses its merit when its not looked at within the context it emerged from: all areas of gaming getting sacrificed for the sake of graphics. That's no longer the state of game development today, and seeking good graphics today doesn't mean that all the other aspects of game design are being put down.

If a game is fun, I couldn't care less how it looks. That's subjective. Hence why I play "Long Live the Queen", "Warcraft 3" and "Heroes of Might and Magic III and V" rather than Battlefront, Crysis 3 (I've never touched that tosh), CoD or Battlefield or any other "good-looking" game - usually the amount they spend on making it look good results in such piss-poor gameplay, story and mechanics that I can't be arsed to even consider the damn thing.

[Paralectic]

People sometimes say 'gameplay > graphics', but good gameplay with poor graphical presentation, or poor story, or poor controls... is hurt by not being supported by all the other elements. No one part of a game stands on its own. Graphics are a significant part of a game's quality, but it harms a game when other aspects of its design are unattended to. A game with good other elements is made stronger, and better, by having better graphics. Graphics provides immersion, believability, and aesthetics. They aren't the whole game, but they're an important part of it.

 

I've gamed on PC since 1992, starting with Test Drive 3, Wolfenstein 3D, Commander Keen, etc... and I've always gotten excited by the next level of graphics in games. The graphics race ended abruptly in 2007, with Crysis, and I think there was a backlash against that mentality that still persists today, but the argument for that backlash loses its merit when its not looked at within the context it emerged from: all areas of gaming getting sacrificed for the sake of graphics. That's no longer the state of game development today, and seeking good graphics today doesn't mean that all the other aspects of game design are being put down.

Didn't read your whole post but I find simple Indie games way more entertaining than the majority of triple A titles.

Games like Super Meat Boy, One Finger Death Punch and so on are more fun than Shadow of Mordor, GTA V or whatever game I've played and didn't like so much.

[gonnog]

People sometimes say 'gameplay > graphics', but good gameplay with poor graphical presentation, or poor story, or poor controls... is hurt by not being supported by all the other elements. No one part of a game stands on its own. Graphics are a significant part of a game's quality, but it harms a game when other aspects of its design are unattended to. A game with good other elements is made stronger, and better, by having better graphics. Graphics provides immersion, believability, and aesthetics. They aren't the whole game, but they're an important part of it.

 

I've gamed on PC since 1992, starting with Test Drive 3, Wolfenstein 3D, Commander Keen, etc... and I've always gotten excited by the next level of graphics in games. The graphics race ended abruptly in 2007, with Crysis, and I think there was a backlash against that mentality that still persists today, but the argument for that backlash loses its merit when its not looked at within the context it emerged from: all areas of gaming getting sacrificed for the sake of graphics. That's no longer the state of game development today, and seeking good graphics today doesn't mean that all the other aspects of game design are being put down.

 

Felt the same but now i feel like Dany Glover in Leathal Weapon. Maybe i played too many games?

And its true, indies somethimes can be refreshing.

 

But still games are in much better shape than movies.

[Praesi]

Even if...NVidia would never sell 10 times faster Cards in 2016. They would split it in several Generations to make more Moneyzzzzzzz B)