Imagine 10 Nvidia Geforce GTX 1080s!

[App4that]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

Nvidia says 11 teraflops. 11 tflops of what? Single precision? Double precision? Half-precision that's worthless for everything consumer-oriented? They also claim it's twice as fast as a  980, is that true? The point is, marketing fluff is marketing fluff. I'll wait for some tangible results.

You want confirmation bias. Are you folding, mining, rendering, gaming? Pascal is not Maxwell, the AMD grab bag of insults won't work anymore. If you value your sanity DO NOT Google AMD's announcement on rebadging the promised mobile chips rather than new architecture.

 

Ooops, spoilers.

 

Good game though

[App4that]

10 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Let's put it this way, 200% is not a valid generational jump. One might realistically expect to see a 30% increase (130%) in performance with equivalent core counts and things, but the 1080 lacks literally hundreds of effective processing units in relation to the Titan, albeit slightly higher clocked, but has claimed to be twice as fast. Do you honestly believe that? Maybe in Voodoo 2 days, but that's just not quite believable anymore. Yes, I'm rendering, and yes, I need real floating point, and Nvidia has always gimped their cards at anything but CUDA (they cut a clean 50% off OpenCL performance in some 200 version driver update). If you HONESTLY believe that Nvidia's remarkably pedestrian consumer cards are beating AMD cards at compute any time soon, (wow, DP is 1/3 or 1/4 single precision still) you have no clue what you're talking about. There's no way in heck that a 1080 is twice as fast as ANYTHING based on big Maxwell.

You are probably a few hours from feeling very silly. Maybe a day.

 

 

 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

Something make me doubt that very highly, but there's no reasoning with Nvidia fans, so after benchmarks show it being barely on par with a modestly over-clocked 980ti, I'm sure you'll keep spewing about how masterfully fast it is. Can't wait for the LuxMark results on this heap.

Like I said, have the stones to come here after the benchmarks hit.

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Okay, I'm here, and there's no way they went from 6144 Gflops to 11 Tflops with less hardware. That's not possible, save for in marketing, or if you're using "flops," meaning NV proprietary half precision at two operations per unit instead of one.

http://vrworld.com/2016/05/10/pascal-secrets-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080/

[thekeemo]

On 5/15/2016 at 1:16 PM, 0ld_Chicken said:

yeah, but $600 x 8 is still $4800.   Thats almost 10% of what I owe on my house 

Where do you get a house for 48000

[0ld_Chicken]

5 hours ago, thekeemo said:

Where do you get a house for 48000

The ghetto.

 However I've paid off over half of mine already.... 10% of what I owe, not the value of the house

[Godlygamer23]

2 hours ago, rrubberr said:

Are you ready for the "I told you so's?" Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

What are you referring to exactly? 

[Godlygamer23]

3 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

as was stated by your impressively contradictory source

What source?

[App4that]

1 hour ago, rrubberr said:

It's less than moderately faster than a stock-clocked Titan. Not too impressive, and, as was stated by your impressively contradictory source, actually slower per clock than the previous Maxwell arch. I guess it isn't really entirely without sacrifices.

You might want to watch this. And rethink your statements.

 

Now watch this, and remember the board partners will have offerings that surpass this just like they have before.

 

 

[minibois]

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, rrubberr said:

It's less than moderately faster than a stock-clocked Titan. Not too impressive, and, as was stated by your impressively contradictory source, actually slower per clock than the previous Maxwell arch. I guess it isn't really entirely without sacrifices.

GTX Titan=slower than 780ti and GTX 970. And the GTX 1080 is a lot faster at stock than a Titan X and 980ti, and looking at the FPS even at the same clock speeds it'd still be a lot faster than a TitanX. There are no actual sacrifices with the GTX 1080, although it seems that going with the reference design is a bad choice.

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Let's compare it to one over clocked 980ti, or perhaps more fairly to the two 980ti's you could buy for less than the same price? No I didn't watch the videos, and no, you aren't going to be convincing me that it's an impressive piece of hardware anytime soon. Standard 10-20% improvement between generations, and nothing more.

And now a few hours later, you are looking very silly. When you refuse to look at evidence that proves you wrong, and the fact that massive improvements are being noted with stock GTX 1080 compared to stock TitanX and 980ti, it only costs $699 for the FE GTX 1080 in the US, with other manufacturers being able to go down to $599 with custom PCB+coolers. Watch the videos instead of acting like a console peasant/PC peasant (to everyone else, unfortunately they still exist)

[Scitesh]

On 5/15/2016 at 0:38 AM, 0ld_Chicken said:

yeah I just found that, nice!

yeah, lemme know what use the other 6 are.  even the 4th might not be doing much (if current SLI is anything to go by, things could be changing)

 

edit: that goes for the 980ti's too 

They could use NV link(the one used on Tesla cards) just hypothetical... But you said to imagine 

?

[Dabombinable]

7 hours ago, rrubberr said:

That's cute... so I can actually get three 980 ti's? Anyway, 12 fps gains when the Titan X already managed to pull 150 fps doesn't seem like much of a gain to me (mind you, DX 11 is still the standard), but if you want 170 fps cropped to 60 with vsync instead of 150 dropped to 60, be my guest! I definitely see that their marketing claims were entirely truthful now. Thank you for clearing that up.

Look at the launch price + power consumption + the new features. And while you keep on being sarcastic, their claims actually were true-we are seeing the expected performance.

[Dabombinable]

5 hours ago, rrubberr said:

True? Eh, maybe somewhere in the range of "true," but let's all remember that, clock for clock, Pascal is slower, so they're really riding the "clock it higher, not make it better" train all the way up. Also, I'm not quite sure what "new features" there are, save for some gimmicks in software.

Ok. First. Look at the maximum clock speed of the GTX 1080-1607MHz base/1733MHz boost, then the overclock that seems to be achievable by GTX 980ti owners-1450MHz. That is only a 283MHz difference, and the difference we are seeing in games wouldn't be as large as it is if the clock speed was lower as its still not that much higher.