nVidia's 28nm Kepler expected to hit stores in late 2011?

[jlippo]

Originally Posted by MUYA

I think one of the "rumor" website mentioned that NV will start with mid range GPUs (with relative mid/low range transistor count)) to try and qualify the process (ala ATi with 6XXX series) and then big mamas will be popped out some time later. So, we may to wait a little longer for the flagship Kepler GPUs

Considering that Kepler shouldn't bring anything new in terms of programmability outside a small tweaks, mid range card sounds like strange thing to start with.
It's like bringing out gf4 with gf3 performance in launch.

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by jlippo

Considering that Kepler shouldn't bring anything new in terms of programmability outside a small tweaks, mid range card sounds like strange thing to start with.
It's like bringing out gf4 with gf3 performance in launch.

I believe he meant that nV will have some mid-rand/low-end parts on 28nm first, like a 28nm GTX520 and GTX550Ti, etc... on 28 nm to test it out. Once they're comfortable on the process they'll push out the GTX6xxx series.

[shadow001]

I'm in no rush with 3 water cooled GTX580's to be honest, not to mention that the only game that might actually stress them is battlefield 3 running at the very highest quality settings and on 3 screens, mainly because DICE are aiming this one at the PC as the main developement platform, and not consoles(about friggin time if you ask me).


Furthermore, one of Dice's developers stated that by the time the game ships, that there won't be a PC setup that will run the game smoothly at it's absolute maximum quality settings, so we might be looking at a title that will make the same impact as Crysis did in 2007....


I plan on putting that assesment to the test....

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by shadow001

I'm in no rush with 3 water cooled GTX580's to be honest, not to mention that the only game that might actually stress them is battlefield 3 running at the very highest quality settings and on 3 screens, mainly because DICE are aiming this one at the PC as the main developement platform, and not consoles(about friggin time if you ask me).


Furthermore, one of Dice's developers stated that by the time the game ships, that there won't be a PC setup that will run the game smoothly at it's absolute maximum quality settings, so we might be looking at a title that will make the same impact as Crysis did in 2007....


I plan on putting that assesment to the test....

Here's the thing that worries me though- last developer that pushed a game out for PC first (only as a matter of fact), and even openly stated that with how high-end the visuals were no PC at it's time of release would be able to play it fully maxed. They stuck to their word on that. When they released it even the greatest of rigs, oc'd to the max, with dual top-end video cards (8800GTXs) couldn't run the game full-tilt, just as the developer had promised. The PC community nearly crapped a brick, complaining about how it was poorly optimized and such.

That game was Crysis. To this day, many games struggle to meet it's level of graphical fidelity and over all realistic appearance.

Crytek then dumbed the visuals down considerably for the consoles, guaranteeing Crysis 2 would run full-tilt on today's gaming rigs. They get flak for it from the PC Gaming crowd. Crytek releases a High-res texture pack and DX11 patch, it seems to please most, but many are still "disappointed".

I'm almost afraid that for a pure PC game BF3 will be absolutely awesome, but because of how spoiled the PC Gaming crowd is by games designed for consoles and thus running purely maxed even on a mid-range rig, it'll receive flak if rigs sporting 3x 3GB GTX580s, 3x 6970s, or the equivalent can't run the game purely maxed. Me, I'd be greatful if that were the case. It'd mean that 2 years from now the game will still be fun to play through because by that time we'll likely finally have hardware that could run the game @ 100%. Would be great.

But just seeing how fickle and two-faced the PC community is, I almost anticipate a repeat of Crysis.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Redeemed

Here's the thing that worries me though- last developer that pushed a game out for PC first (only as a matter of fact), and even openly stated that with how high-end the visuals were no PC at it's time of release would be able to play it fully maxed. They stuck to their word on that. When they released it even the greatest of rigs, oc'd to the max, with dual top-end video cards (8800GTXs) couldn't run the game full-tilt, just as the developer had promised. The PC community nearly crapped a brick, complaining about how it was poorly optimized and such.

That game was Crysis. To this day, many games struggle to meet it's level of graphical fidelity and over all realistic appearance.

Crytek then dumbed the visuals down considerably for the consoles, guaranteeing Crysis 2 would run full-tilt on today's gaming rigs. They get flak for it from the PC Gaming crowd. Crytek releases a High-res texture pack and DX11 patch, it seems to please most, but many are still "disappointed".

I'm almost afraid that for a pure PC game BF3 will be absolutely awesome, but because of how spoiled the PC Gaming crowd is by games designed for consoles and thus running purely maxed even on a mid-range rig, it'll receive flak if rigs sporting 3x 3GB GTX580s, 3x 6970s, or the equivalent can't run the game purely maxed. Me, I'd be greatful if that were the case. It'd mean that 2 years from now the game will still be fun to play through because by that time we'll likely finally have hardware that could run the game @ 100%. Would be great.

But just seeing how fickle and two-faced the PC community is, I almost anticipate a repeat of Crysis.

Killer Software always drives hardware sales in the end.....What would be the point of getting ever faster hardware if the games are built to run on 5 year old consoles?...Technology should always be moving forward and not just on the graphics side, but also gameplay and interactivety, physics aspects too, and if those also require more hardware power too, so be it....


I am so looking forward to 64 player matches online with BF3, as it can already get pretty hectic with 32 players on battlefield bad company, so imagine 64 players....

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Killer Software always drives hardware sales in the end.....What would be the point of getting ever faster hardware if the games are built to run on 5 year old consoles?...Technology should always be moving forward and not just on the graphics side, but also gameplay and interactivety, physics aspects too, and if those also require more hardware power too, so be it....


I am so looking forward to 64 player matches online with BF3, as it can already get pretty hectic with 32 players on battlefield bad company, so imagine 64 players....

I agree absolutely, and was not one of the folks whom bad mouthed crytek over Crysis. Just fired it up for the first time in a while last night and it still looks stunning. Looking forward to the next gen of GPUs so I can get a higher framerate but otherwise it's a great experience still.

I'd prefer more games were like Crysis- demanding and taxing of our hardware. It'd cause innovation in newer, faster, more efficient hardware as you stated. If PhysX were being pushed more, we'd have for more immersive and interactive environments. If 64-bit were being pushed we'd likely have larger and more dynamic game worlds capable of using up as much RAM as we could throw at it. So many possibilities with today's hardware, all of it not being used. A shame, honestly.

[shadow001]

To be honest, we also have to see what tthe high end 28nm parts end up looking like not just in performance relative to the existing 40nm parts, but also how they shape up in terms of power use and thermals too, especially for those users thinking about multi GPU setups as i got to feel that first hand with my own system....


This is the setup and pictures are worth 1000 words:






Now the video cards are working at 950 mhz core and 2300 mhz memory, they are consuming a lot more power than a stock GTX580 obviously and there's 3 of them to boot running at those speeds, and the water cooling is doing a fantastic job of keeping the temperatures in control(60*C under load), but the amount of overall heat that the system can output into the room is phenominal to say the least, especially now that we're in the summer, wich forces me to use the A/C a lot more.


Wich brings us to another problem.....With the PC running at full tilt in a benchmarking or gaming session and the A/C running to keep the room cool, all i have to do is turn on the TV(it's an LCD 46" and uses less than 100 watts i think) and the breaker that feeds power to the room activates as it's drawing a huge amount of power between the PC, the A/C and the T.V.....


I had to call in an electrician to seperate one of the wall sockets to a dedicated 15 amp breaker just for the PC alone so that i could use the A/C without worrying about tripping the breaker anymore.....You can imagine if Kepler at 28nm, in the on going pissing match with AMD for the fastest performance possible, still ends up using more power than the GTX580 and some use 3 cards wich will be further overclocked and integrated into a setup like the above picture....Nasty on the power and heat fronts....

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by shadow001

To be honest, we also have to see what tthe high end 28nm parts end up looking like not just in performance relative to the existing 40nm parts, but also how they shape up in terms of power use and thermals too, especially for those users thinking about multi GPU setups as i got to feel that first hand with my own system....


This is the setup and pictures are worth 1000 words:






Now the video cards are working at 950 mhz core and 2300 mhz memory, they are consuming a lot more power than a stock GTX580 obviously and there's 3 of them to boot running at those speeds, and the water cooling is doing a fantastic job of keeping the temperatures in control(60*C under load), but the amount of overall heat that the system can output into the room is phenominal to say the least, especially now that we're in the summer, wich forces me to use the A/C a lot more.


Wich brings us to another problem.....With the PC running at full tilt in a benchmarking or gaming session and the A/C running to keep the room cool, all i have to do is turn on the TV(it's an LCD 46" and uses less than 100 watts i think) and the breaker that feeds power to the room activates as it's drawing a huge amount of power between the PC, the A/C and the T.V.....


I had to call in an electrician to seperate one of the wall sockets to a dedicated 15 amp breaker just for the PC alone so that i could use the A/C without worrying about tripping the breaker anymore.....You can imagine if Kepler at 28nm, in the on going pissing match with AMD for the fastest performance possible, still ends up using more power than the GTX580 and some use 3 cards wich will be further overclocked and integrated into a setup like the above picture....Nasty on the power and heat fronts....

I've argued this point before and it got no where. Those that defend nVidia will do so. There seems to be no limit to how much power their GPUs need nor any limit to how hot they run- the nVidia crowd will always blow those arguments off.

[Roadhog]

A 46" LCD more than likely uses 200-400watts.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Redeemed

I've argued this point before and it got no where. Those that defend nVidia will do so. There seems to be no limit to how much power their GPUs need nor any limit to how hot they run- the nVidia crowd will always blow those arguments off.

Don't get me wrong here, i'm not talking about Nvidia exclusively but also AMD, as their latest dual GPU cards just basically piss all over the PCI-e power specification in terms of maximum power, wich is 300 watts and interestingly enough, nobody seems to care that they do...


Even in the single GPU arena the overall power consumption is still going up at a gradual rate for both brands, even though marketing companies will sugar coat it by saying that the performance might double for 28nm parts compared to the current 40nm ones, so those new GPU's are more power efficient for the amount of workload they output, and they'd be correct....I'm just looking at what my wall socket and breaker is saying to me..


**** you and your system basically, or in star trek terms... Captain, we just don't have the power....

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Don't get me wrong here, i'm not talking about Nvidia exclusively but also AMD, as their latest dual GPU cards just basically piss all over the PCI-e power specification in terms of maximum power, wich is 300 watts and interestingly enough, nobody seems to care that they do...


Even in the single GPU arena the overall power consumption is still going up at a gradual rate for both brands, even though marketing companies will sugar coat it by saying that the performance might double for 28nm parts compared to the current 40nm ones, so those new GPU's are more power efficient for the amount of workload they output, and they'd be correct....I'm just looking at what my wall socket and breaker is saying to me..


**** you and your system basically, or in star trek terms... Captain, we just don't have the power....

You know it is rather interesting you bring this point up. Out of curiousity I googled the power draw for a 7900GTX, then googled the power draw for my 5770. Both are pretty much the same! So my 5770 is offering, what, maybe four times the performance of a 7900GTX at the exact same power draw. Pretty awesome I thought.

But yeah, you're right. The power requirements seem to be getting higher and higher as time progresses.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Roadhog

A 46" LCD more than likely uses 200-400watts.

Just checked on the rear sticker.....114 watts average consumption.


200~400 watts used to be the old cathode style T.V's depending on their size....I had a 37" cathode that could use 500 watts, and even my A/C at the slowest settings still uses 7 amps (840 watts)....With the fan at maximum speed and pushing the electric motor and compressor hard inside the unit, it can reach 12 amps on it's own...


It's pretty impressive when you think just how much power is being used inside the average house and people tend to underestimate the power use of certain appliances, such as the 40 amps provided in the house wiring for the oven alone, wich needs a special wall socket and seriously thick power cable for it( a 4800 watt dedicated circuit)...Add microwaves and vacuum cleaners and washing machines and dryers....Basically anything that has to produce a lot of heat or uses powerfull electric motors as the main culprits here, though incandescent bulbs aren't exactly stingy on power either...