ASUS Radeon RX 7600 STRIX OC review
Corsair RM1200X SHIFT 1200W PSU Review
Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
Nvidia GeForce X80 and X80 Ti Pascal Specs?
In our forums somebody posted the spec list shown after the break. Indicating the Pascal graphics cards would be called GeForce X80 and X80Ti, first a warning as the validity seems very doubtful.
Now, the sheet is nothing in the style from any Nvidia sheet I have ever seen, the specs are based on GDDR5, the cards called GeForce X80 and X80 Ti etc etc so the likely-hood that the table has been fabricated is far bigger being false than true.
Um yeah I had to think a couple of times over to even post this as heck it was spotted on a vague imguru link with no other info. Lets be honest here, the chart takes 5 minutes to make in Excel. Still for brevity's sake, I'll post them as they are bound to show up on other websites somehow, discuss here. And yes again, take it with a HUGE grain of salt (and then some more) please.
Okay, that's enough disclaimers right ? :) here we go:
NVIDIA GameWorks SDK 3.1 Released - 03/15/2016 08:28 AM
NVIDIA today announced worldwide availability of the NVIDIA GameWorks software development kit (SDK) 3.1, which introduces three groundbreaking graphics techniques for shadows and lighting as well as ...
Download Nvidia GeForce 364.51 WHQL driver - 03/08/2016 09:23 PM
Nvidai updated to a new WHQL driver. This is a new driver following the issues Nvidia had with multi-monitor support. The latest version, 364.51 This driver ensures you will have an optimal experienc...
Download Nvidia GeForce 364.47 WHQL driver - 03/07/2016 04:38 PM
Nvidia just released a new GeForce 364.47 WHQL driver. It's aimed at an optimal experience with Tom Clancy’s The Division, Hitman, Need for Speed, Ashes of the Singularity, and Rise of th...
Download: Nvidia GeForce 362.00 WHQL drivers - 03/01/2016 05:29 PM
Download the Nvidia GeForce GameReady 362.00 WHQL driver as released by NVIDIA. This set adds support for Gears of War: Ultimate Edition, Far Cry Primal, and the latest update for Dying Light. Downl...
Download Nvidia GeForce 361.91 WHQL driver - 02/15/2016 04:12 PM
Download the Nvidia GeForce GameReady 361.91 WHQL driver as released by NVIDIA. Learn more about how to get the optimal experience for ARMA 3, Street Fighter V, Monster Hunter Online, and HITMAN (Beta...
MMking
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 2015-12-05
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 2015-12-05
#5246543 Posted on: 03/17/2016 12:07 PM
In what universe is a 512 bit memory interface, clocked at 8000MHZ (effective i can only assume), capable of transfering 512GB data per second.
512 * 4000 (actual clock speed) * 2 (Double Data Rate) = 409.6GB/s transfer speed.
To reach 512GB/s on a 512 bit interface, you would need 5GHZ clock speeds (10GHZ effective)
As for shader cores and single precision. Assuming that the Pascal chip is of equal size, it seems plausible, considering the reduction from 28nm to 16nm = 57.1% the size.
Comparing the 900 series to the 700 series, more specifically the ''Titan black'' which is the most powerful GK110 chip. Compared to the Titan X, which is the most powerful GM200 chip.
Titan X
7.1% larger chip
12.9% more transistors
6.6% more Shader cores (nvidia dubbed them ''cuda cores''
25% fewer Texture Mapping Units
100% more Render output units
The 900 series is in practice, a combination of 1. larger chip. 2. improved design. 3. reduction in some areas. and 4. increase in other areas. The production technique, the work done at TSMC is still based on the same 28nm technology, though the yield and quality may have contributed slightly.
Comparing the 900 series Titan X and the ''Pascal Titan''
Shader cores = 200%
Texture units = 200%
Texture mapping units / Raster operators = 200%
Transistor count = 204.9%
I call bull****. While the speccs may come from Nvidia, i have extreme doubts that these numbers are anything but loosely written down approximations meant for the designers and technicians. Why? I haven't the slightest idea, but i'm guessing it's tough to predict the exact specifications months, or even weeks in advance of large scale production. Doubtless, the guys making the chips, TSMC, cannot guarantee yield quality, thus Nvidia has to work with approximations.
In what universe is a 512 bit memory interface, clocked at 8000MHZ (effective i can only assume), capable of transfering 512GB data per second.
512 * 4000 (actual clock speed) * 2 (Double Data Rate) = 409.6GB/s transfer speed.
To reach 512GB/s on a 512 bit interface, you would need 5GHZ clock speeds (10GHZ effective)
As for shader cores and single precision. Assuming that the Pascal chip is of equal size, it seems plausible, considering the reduction from 28nm to 16nm = 57.1% the size.
Comparing the 900 series to the 700 series, more specifically the ''Titan black'' which is the most powerful GK110 chip. Compared to the Titan X, which is the most powerful GM200 chip.
Titan X
7.1% larger chip
12.9% more transistors
6.6% more Shader cores (nvidia dubbed them ''cuda cores''
25% fewer Texture Mapping Units
100% more Render output units
The 900 series is in practice, a combination of 1. larger chip. 2. improved design. 3. reduction in some areas. and 4. increase in other areas. The production technique, the work done at TSMC is still based on the same 28nm technology, though the yield and quality may have contributed slightly.
Comparing the 900 series Titan X and the ''Pascal Titan''
Shader cores = 200%
Texture units = 200%
Texture mapping units / Raster operators = 200%
Transistor count = 204.9%
I call bull****. While the speccs may come from Nvidia, i have extreme doubts that these numbers are anything but loosely written down approximations meant for the designers and technicians. Why? I haven't the slightest idea, but i'm guessing it's tough to predict the exact specifications months, or even weeks in advance of large scale production. Doubtless, the guys making the chips, TSMC, cannot guarantee yield quality, thus Nvidia has to work with approximations.
motov8
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 2015-05-14
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 2015-05-14
#5246544 Posted on: 03/17/2016 12:17 PM
Fake, if it were true the price of cards would be insane like start from 999$ to 1499$
Fake, if it were true the price of cards would be insane like start from 999$ to 1499$
TheDeeGee
Senior Member
Posts: 8885
Joined: 2010-08-28
Senior Member
Posts: 8885
Joined: 2010-08-28
#5246545 Posted on: 03/17/2016 12:19 PM
If this chart is legit, it's very impressive, going from 250 Watts to 175 Watts and still be faster
I'm really looking forward to upgrade to 680, it's really on it's last legs when it comes to performance.
If this chart is legit, it's very impressive, going from 250 Watts to 175 Watts and still be faster
I'm really looking forward to upgrade to 680, it's really on it's last legs when it comes to performance.
poornaprakash
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-06-25
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-06-25
#5246550 Posted on: 03/17/2016 12:49 PM
GP100 supports HBM 2 as well as GDDR5 ??? Highly Unlikely
GP100 supports HBM 2 as well as GDDR5 ??? Highly Unlikely
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2797
Joined: 2006-02-23
If these are true it is looking good for my next upgrade Volta as I will be skipping Pascal