Details regarding the elusive Geforce GTX 790 have finally surfaced. It is rumored to have 2x 2496 Cuda Cores, 2x 5GB of GDDR5 Memory and 2x 320 Bandwidth.
The card going to be expensive, why not just add to it 16GB GDDR5?
10 GB of RAM in a GPU is still unprecedented. 16 GB is an even huger leap.
Actually its 5GB Effective since vRam Doesnt Stack. 5gb x2
codelyoko is correct, so it's less ram than even The titan at this point. For anything real world the "doubled" ram means nothing. Either way looks like an interesting card, but I'm going to wait for the 800 series until I make investment. The keplar card isn't as good at GPGPU and processing. The Fermi cards were absolutely amazing at GPGPU, so I'll wait and hope that the 800 series has better GPU computing:) If this card is priced at 1000 (which I highly doubt, it will prob be around 1200-300). It could put a lot of strain on AMD to cut prices:) It would make the Titan obsolete (although the 780 Ti should have done that), but the titan is still the best at double precision (which means nothing in real world).
@kB0 I agree with you on most points except for: "If this card is priced at 1000 (which I highly doubt, it will prob be around 1200-300). It could put a lot of strain on AMD to cut prices:)" I agree the card will likely be $1199 or $1299, which is ridiculously overpriced and pointless to most consumers when you could just as easily buy 2x 780 Ti's and get better performance for around the same price. However, with pricing that high it will have no effect on AMD, because most people aren't going to spend over $1,000 for a GPU. And NVIDIA has proven they don't care about pricing fairly or competitively, since they feel they're slightly better performance (on the enthusiast end) and superior cooling are worth the premium. AMD already stomps them on Pice:Performance ratio, and AMD is the way to go for any gamer looking to penny pinch or on a tight budget (especially budget - mid range GPU's). "It would make the Titan obsolete (although the 780 Ti should have done that), but the titan is still the best at double precision (which means nothing in real world)." As far as gaming goes the Titan is a complete waste compared to the 780 Ti, which offer equal and many time slightly better performance for $250 - $300 less. However, the Titan isn't really for gaming, it's more for rendering, modeling, and scientific calculations in which case the Titan would be better for someone who wants a gaming / Smart PC. Titan has it's purpose, gaming just isn't it's main focus.
@ABizzel1 Your right, I'm merely stating that we will see competitive pricing from other cards as well (including Nvidia), but I also wanted to add that it will get lowered as tech becomes more available and mature. I just can't edit my comment after a while:P You make excellent point though! The titan is good for calculations and it's ram availability is outstanding but not all computing takes benefit from it. Most do which is exactly your point:) There is a market for everything, but the main thing is the size of market:P Thanks for sharing your knowledge it's appreciated! Bubble up+
ABizzel- How is AMD "stomping" nV on price/performance? Last i checked, GTX 780ti stomps the 290x and is only $80 more expensive than the cheapest 290x on newegg for example. That doesn't even factor in how review websites were all given hand picked specially binned 290x GPU's by AMD which scored much higher than anyone seems to be getting from retail cards. Anyways... cards this high end are such a niche market that they'll make just enough for the very small group of people who always buy such expensive cards. nVidia wont have a problem selling these cards. Q3 of 2013 showed nVidia up 2% in shipped cards, and AMD was down 8%. Ouch... http://jonpeddie.com/press-...
@AndrewLB 290x isn't suppose to cost that much but they are being bought so fast, places like Newegg and Tigerdirect have upped the prices. 290x MSRP is $549 - see if you can find one at that price. One reason why is here: http://www.techpowerup.com/... 290x was to meant to match the Titan which it did and did so for $550. The Ti was brought out to make sure Nvidia reigned supreme which it did. You can check out the Anandtech review below. http://anandtech.com/show/7...
the card is powerful and all but, at least for now, what's the point of it? 4k gaming is still pretty expensive upfront and it's not even worth it considering so little support it's getting from the dev/publisher's side. if you're thinking that 4k gaming is the future (I also think that it is, btw) and in the next couple of years it will be mainstream, doesn't it make more sense to wait until the scene is ready and by that time, 4k capable GPU would cost more affordable like mid-end GPU right now? so, why would anyone buy this? and it seems like company like Valve and other pc makers are also looking to expand their gaming vision to be more "console-like" with the Steam Machines and Ultra high end cards like this is playing no role in this new grand scheme to lure gamers. it looks like they are acknowledging that consoles have stronger influence to the gaming trend than pc and based on the power of current consoles, 4k gaming will have wait another gen, which in turn will slow down progression into 4k by the devs knowing the majority is limited to 1080p. sure some devs might push the envelop but there won't be many of them especially those under big publishers with strict financial control. so I don't see the point of this card as of now aside from showing off that you can throw away money for nothing! EDIT: @kB0, "needed"? it might be "useful" to some but I don't think it's "needed". like you said, 780 Ti is plenty for now.
The point is that this is how tech advances, simply stating that 4k isn't widely available or even possible for some ppl is no excuse to stop progress. Remember this is a dual card so basically 2 780 ti cards. There are plenty of games that need a lot of horse power especially at 2560x1600, which is not 4k, and requires a LOT of power. This especially the case if you want solid 60 fps across the board. I can easily say that realistically speaking no card is ever enough for too long:P Who wouldn't want to run 100% of games at max at any resolution? Also don't forget those that run 3 monitors, they need a lot of horse power too. The card is needed, but the price might be a slight turn off for a lot of people:) Most might just grab let's say 1 780 ti, then SLI it later.
Well these cards are not meant for gaming purposes. They are for business purposes. The average PC gamer dont buy these high end cards and only the people who have money to throw away as well get these. Those people buy them initially and help lower the costs for the future until they be made more efficiently at cheaper prices. Any PC gamer who boasts about these cards are most likely full of shit so keep that in mind.
^^^ I like the way you think! :D
If I was rich I would buy stuff like this
@badz149 What @kB0 said is exact right. Gaming is evolving and with with newer technology and engines game requirements are going to get more demanding for PC, so evolution in gaming hardware has to happen consistently to keep up. PC gaming is entering the 2k and 4k era, and even with this card barely manages to max out Crysis 3 in 2k @ 60fps, bumping up to 4k and you're hard-pressed to get a solid 30fps from what's likely to be a $1,000+ GPU. As you basically said this GPU isn't for the masses, and the vast majority of gamers are better off sticking with 1080p. This is solely for enthusiast, and to show what the next boost in technology will be capable of. NVIDIAs refresh of Maxwell should offer similar performance to this GPU on a single card, and Volta is rumored to offer nearly twice this performance on a single card. This is simply the evolution of hardware, and thus the evolution of gaming. These cards are more geared towards businesses and developers, who need PC's that are vastly more powerful than their target audience. Edit Perfect example, Intel's 5th-gen i3, i5, and i7 CPU's are rumored to be Dual-core hyperthreaded (i3), Quad-core hyperthreaded (i5), and 8-core hyperthreaded (i7). There's no point in a normal person or gamer walking into a store a buying an 8-core hyperthreaded CPU for $600+ because the majority of their applications and work still don't max out Dual-Core to this day, let alone Quad-Core. For future gaming purposes the Quad-Core hyperthreaded CPU is more than enough, but the 8-core hyperthreaded CPU is there for; once again, businesses who need extreme rendering and development. An i7-5960k + GTX 790 desktop doesn't make any sense for a gamer regardless of how powerful it would be. You'd get equal and in some cases better results with an i7-4770k + 2x 780Ti, and save around $300 - $500 in the process. One if for editing and making content, the other is for running that content at the highest level it was programed for.
Cause people do what the fuck they want. 4k 60hz monitor is 3-4 months away from dell priced under 1000$ A pair of ncie gpus is about 1000-1200$. It's not that expensive when you consider other hobbies. Go and try to get into racing that's like 10-15k just to get into it. poor people think everyone has no money, this is all OPTIONAL.
I think gaming needs to move forward too but games' requirement are not alligned with hardware advancement at all thus leaving cards like this to waste in terms of raw power. I'm talking strictly about gaming here. We don't want to admit it but the Titan is a flop sales wise and it's matched or outdone by cards a fraction of its cost not even a year after release. Looking at current trends of powerful card getting cheaper very quickly as newer caeds are unveiled every 6 months, who intheir right mind still want to buy this?
I just want to know one thing... is this card powerful enough to play Minecraft at 30fps/720p?
This will be a good $500 card in 5 months.
GTX 690 is still around $1k so I doubt that very much. These cards have a select market that are willing to pay the price.
I don't think it will be as expensive as people are predicting. I just don't see them charging over $1k espacially since they're not using fully enabled Titan chips like in the 780ti. I think they'll sell it for exactly $1k like the GTX 690 cost.
64GB DDR5 is more likely a crazier option
Holy Shit I want it but I don't need it. I already have SLI 770 but that thing is a best. Talk about 4K gaming and future proof.
Yep. Nvidia is going to push 4K capability forward like crazy with these cards. My current GPU I've had for a year and a half, pretty much top of the line when it came out with 3 GB of RAM and 1560 CUDA cores. This has like 3.5x the power and RAM packed inside of it than my current GPU. It's ridiculous how fast we are moving right now. The PS4 and Xbox One are going to be left in PC's 4K dust in no time.
But we console gamers don't spend $500 every 2 years.
Detoxx Nothing to do with anything. If you can't/don't want to buy it, that's you. Some people can, and the others will be left behind.
Detoxx how many games do you buy a year? If you buy 10 a year, and a PC gamer buys 10 a year the guy with the PC would have saved ~$500 in 2 years.
"But we console gamers don't spend $500 every 2 years." PC gamers dont either, however they do have the option should they choose to. Consolers dont have that option they are stuck with old tech regardless. Dont forget consoles need replacement too, its not like they last more than 3 years. Meanwhile PCs tend to last alot longer. Personally i have seen people go through 2-3 xbox 360s in 5 years and about 2 PS3s. You could pretty much upgrade the GPU on a PC with that money and end up with new hardware instead of the same old console.
I don't know why you are bringing the consoles up at all. You'll get both consoles for the price of that graphics card alone. Not to take anything away from the graphics card. It's insanely powerful and people who are willing to pay the price will definately get a high end piece of hardware but it's not meant for the mainstream audience. Edit: decrypt: "Dont forget consoles need replacement too, its not like they last more than 3 years. Meanwhile PCs tend to last alot longer." I've been gaming for over 20 years now. I still have all my consoles and they're all working like new (Sega Genesis is the one i own for the longest time but I even have a working Atari 5200). The only console I needed to get repaired is the PS3 but that was the 60GB version and the repair costed me less than 100 bugs.
PC gamers can buy a console in 2 years just on the savings of games and DLC alone. By that time consoles will be cheaper, and there will be a lot of 2nd hand games to choose from.
@I_am_Batman Please talk sense, consoles before PS3 and Xbox 360 were different. They never needed Fans, Heat sinks etc. The current console gen are locked down PCs made from cheapest available parts. Infact the last gen was known for the highest failure rates in console history, are you now going to deny facts? Not many had their original boxes working after 3 years of usage, its a fact. Replace a console after 3 years of usuage you are stuck with the same old tech, replace a GPU after 3 years you end up with better hardware.
"its not like they last more than 3 years." It's ridiculous ... of course they usually do . They already have an expiration date of sort , no need to exagerate about it to promote your pciste agenda . "Not many had their original boxes working after 3 years of usage, its a fact. " No it's not a fact . You can't even support that claim with data , even including a widespread issue of the past like the 360's rrod , so why go with that angle ? Console got an expiration date already based on the hype of the upcoming one and the amount of game slowing down in between gens . ps : any way believe what you will , i dont expect to change your views and argument on the matter , i'll just vouch for what i do see and actually deal with at work and everyday's life . While it's obvious for all to see that you'd pretend console are worthless in all aspect to flaunt an already superior pc model
"Personally i have seen people go through 2-3 xbox 360s in 5 years and about 2 PS3s. " I see on a daily basis , even if many times due by the maintenance mistakes of their owners (or lack of) , fried Graphics cards , mainboards or screens , alongside dead consoles . Some of those pieces are literally between 1/3 or half the cost of their pcs . You do have a point of sort , about the overall "cheapness" oriented optimisation and use of heat dissipation for more and more pc based consoles . But you vastly exagerate the consequences . If you are gonna argue that most people go through a second console every 3 years . others can easily argue about the cost of pc parts changes and repairs too . Let's not pretend there arent failure , both hardware and human based in the pc world .
@ Baka I've had 3 360s and 3 ps3s because they've died. Only 1 of those was free. The rest were all paid for. Mind you, it was spread across over 7 years but it's still a LOT of wasted money. Everyone I know has had at least 1 - 2 broken systems. More if they had both. And detoxx...shut up. PC gamers don't have to pay for online services, console tax, and other silly little things. I'm a PC and console gamer and your ignorance is astonishing. I bought a rig 4 years ago. The card was 300$ and it's still maxing most games. So poof goes your invalid argument.
@Allsystemgamer And i could say that mny people i know still got theirs . Wich would still be hardly receivable as proof of any kind . I'm not pretending there arent failure ... of coure not , but so far the arguments advanced here are just generalisations . Most likely even including my own tiny experience at repairs or in life
This is 2 GPU's that means you can only SLI it once and it has horrible heat, conducting and noise levels on top of that it will cost atleast $1,200 According to Moore's law a GPU of similar capacity will cost about $300 in 2018... To spend 300 now is like buying a relatively mid range GPU. pretty much no PC gamer is going to have something like this until 2017-2019
Detoxx- Why do you keep repeating that lie? I don't spend anywhere near $500 every 2/yr. My current i7-680, 16gb ddr3, gtx 680 4gb, etc system not including the video card is now almost 6 years old. By your math, i should have spent $1500 since then. The only purchase I made was in 2012 for the graphics card upgrade, replacing my previous card which was about 5-6 years old. The GTX 680 was $500, but MINUS the $250 i got for my previous card. Heck, I spent less than $500 for my motherboard, ram, CPU, and power supply, not to mention that I also sold my old cpu/mobo/ram and got about 50% of of the cash i just spent on the new components. All the other parts came out of my previous computer. Then when you factor in that PC games are far cheaper, they don't require $60+/yr to play. Also, most of us actually MAKE MONEY with our computers. btw... aren't you using a PC right now to post on this site? How is it "extra spending" when most of you console guys ALSO have a PC? Some sort of PC is pretty much required in life nowdays, so the truth is, Console owners spend more money to keep current Since everyone pretty much has a PC, the cost of the base PC, minus the video card of course, should not even be factored in. The choice you need to make is whether or not you're going to buy a Console (ps4/xbone) OR a Video card for your PC. I spend about $300 every 3 years on video cards, but by selling my old card, I typically get 50-60%
@JBSleek It's not really pushing 4k gaming at all, especially once games start getting more demanding, thus it's definitely not future proof. Most 4k games aren't PC optimized, but instead are PS360 console ports. Those that are (for example Crysis 3) this card will struggle to hit a consistent 4k @ 30fps. And now that many of those ports will be of PS4 quality, it's only going to be more demanding. For 2k gaming it's perfect, 4k no.
lol ps4 and xbone obsolete already? poor bastards gonna have their consoles for 10 years
Thing is those 'poor bastards' will not have to spend a single penny while if you want to keep up with newest games you'll have to upgrade your PC hardware few times during those 10 years you said.
While i generally take the same line when talking to PC elitists, it balances out when you consider console games are generally 15-20 euro/dollar more expensive so after a 3 years or so of buying roughly 15-20 games a year they're pretty much paying less than console gamers
Yeah it balances out for each side people throw in too much variable about used games , free games , f2p , the cost of screen monitors , mouse , keyb , pads , online subs , mmos or whatever . Bottom line is : the initial upfront of a pc is bigger but you can do much more than gaming , and can excel in most area of gaming that console can't - PC games are usually cheaper - Consoles still got their lower upfront cost , and of course they own set of exclusives , just like pc .
@elweon, few problems with your statement 1) New consoles are usually released 5-7 years, not 10. You're confusing that with how long they're usually supported for. 2) You seem to be implying that just because somebody owns a console they can't also have a gaming PC 3) You also seem to be forgetting the biggest factor, cost. Consoles don't cost $1000 for a reason.
They cost so low sure but the price for software is outrageous. I bet a PC game who spends $1000 on a PC saves in not having to pay yearly for online and cheaper game prices over five years.
@elweon Very childish. 1. They also get exclusives that PC will never have, while at the same time leeching away at the PC's library of games. 2. They also have a low entry price of $400 for an entire "CAPABLE" gaming platform, compared to buying a $1,000+ GPU alone. 3. HDTV's best seller are 1080p, there's no point in buying a $1,000 GPU that's designed for maxing games at 2k, when you're TV can't display the resolution thus forcing you to buy a monitor / new TV that can. 4. PS+ is a great service offering free games across 3 platforms. XB Games for Gold is.......at least off to a decent start for 2014. 5. Local co-op / multiplayer (although it's happening less and less). And there's more. Each platform has it's own advantages. If you want top end gaming and have the money to dish out then you should have a gaming PC. If you want a simple, easy to use, easy to set-up, affordable, experience then a console is good enough.
4. PS+ is a great service offering free games across 3 platforms. XB Games for Gold is.......at least off to a decent start for 2014. How are these free games when you have to pay $50 a year for the subscription service. PS+ is subscription service those games aren't free. As soon as the subscription is over you don't have access to those games. How is that free? I don't get when people say that it's like Netflix. You don't say Netflix movies are free.
$400 console is compareable to a $1000 gpu LMAO. your second point is dumb. i guess your never gonna buy a 4k tv. and every platform have exclusives even if pc exclusives are making its way to consoles, most pc gamers are not gonna care. they will still have exclusive and not put them on a pedestal like console gamers do for every exclusives. i have other systems, but exclusives are dime a dozen. theyre good but not beat all end all like people on this site make them out to be.
sooooo. you are going to buy this probalby $1,000-1500 GPU.... Yeah sure you are.
Well im buying ps4 and a new PC, it must be a shock for you who post above me, a man having 2 gaming platforms,,,,,
I'm thinking about skipping XBO all together once my PC is finished. It really depends on the exclusives. A good 98% of the Xbox library is on PC, and 90% of the PS library as well. But the PS has more and IMO better exclusives to me. While the XB has had some decent exclusives none of them are games that would make have to own the console, so I have to see what new exclusives they bring over time. On to flip side the situation would be the same had the PS3, not shown that Sony is all about exclusives, and I have to have my Uncharted, God of War (although it needs a new wind), Quantic Dream, a possibly Last of Us sequel, Yakuza, and the niche exclusives they often have. From now on, I'm running multiplats on PC, and exclusives and multiplayer on PS4 (or the occasional exclusive on PS3, Vita, 3DS, Wii U, and 360 for L4D2).
Jesus. All you fucking PC gaming elitist pricks in here. You know, it IS possible to have both. I've got a dedicated gaming PC plugged into the same fucking TV as my 360, PS3, and my PS4. Grow up.
Carefull. you are actually making sense!
Sounds pricey. I'm considering building a new desktop at some point, but I don't see the point in buying this, the 780 is already overkill for most things and futureproof for a good while. Heck, so is the 760 I suppose if you stay at 1080p.
So excuse those are the types of technology that pc elitist brag about? Graphic Cards for the price of 3 PS4? It's ridiculous and not justifiable.
"Because I can't afford nice things it's not justificed" Okay. Move on. PC gamer got choises and console gamer got NONE. if we want to game in 4k we can today and you wont in 10 years so yeah. That's the beauty of an open platform.
hmmm dooo want, if there isnt a new gen announced pretty soon i got to jump on this. my 3GB 580 doesnt do its job anymore as a graphic whore :D
Eww, graphics whores are the worst. I'm still going strong with my 560 GTX.
loool, my most played games in 2013 was Dota 2, Hearthstone, FTL, Prison Architect, Fallout New Vegas and Skyrim. so im not that bad :P tho i would love to have everything as i want in Skyrim and run BF4 on max above 40FPS XD
Skyrim ran on Ultra at 1080p with 50-60 fps on that card though.
Who in the smeg buys these freaking cards? I've just bought an oem nvidia 660 from a friend for £60 and overclocked the ass of it. Plays BF3 full hd no problem. Why would I need this? Getting triple digit frame rates is nuts. I suppose for 4K gaming, but still. Why?
@triple digit frame rates 120FPS is a godsend if you have a true 120Hz monitor. even better if it got 2ms response time :D you will really see and feel the difference once you get on to those framerates.
People who want a powerhouse in a mini atx case for easy transport.
Mini atx case? I think you'd need a suitcase to fit one of these in :-)
Monster card. I'd be waiting for Maxwell if I were building a new rig. Yeah this card is a lot of money but there are a lot of people with 3 monitor setups and 2k screens that can justify the expense. Some PC enthusiasts don't care how much if costs. It costs money to be on the bleeding edge. It's obviously worth it for them, and the fact is PC gamers save a heap of money on games and not paying online fees which leaves them these kinds of opportunities. For those who care about money something like a 660ti is cheap as chips now and easily gets the job done at 1080p 60 FPS (in most cases), which is more than I can say for the new consoles - which is a crying shame since I've always owned consoles too. Right now there is no compelling reason for me personally to buy a console but I'll probably grab a PS4 if a couple of must have exclusives come out.
only rich pc gamers can buy it... personally, i will prefer to waiting for gtx 880 rather than this one...
A bit OFF TOPIC: 4k resolution must be nice. But I would rather have 100% realtime ray-tracing at 1080p first. I dont get why we keep ignoring all the other important aspects of graphics in favor of resolution. It is hard to imagine 'them casual folks' picking up a 4k tv for their living room in time for the next upcoming console gen (PS5 Xbox-two gen)(4-5years). The transition from SD to HDTV is still in progress. Its been around 8 years since bluray launched and we still have DVDs selling more than bluray and SD is still the norm for many. 4k wont be the norm by next console cycle. Developers shouldn't 'fully' optimize games in 4k. We should be encouraging developers to push graphics in other areas other than resolution. And use that power, that would've have otherwise been compromised if we go the 4k route, elsewhere. 1080p/1440k as a standard is just fine. Honestly, I would rather have the PS5 fully optimized at 1080p than 4k. I know its a little too early to be talking about next-next gen, but this 4k talk is non-sense to me considering all the other graphical potential that goes unnoticed.
I like what you've written and a lot I agree with. 4k seems is easier for Devs to account for than real time ray tracing, which is probably more CPU dependent in general (not using nvidia Phys X). But I'm with you on this one. Maximizing visuals at 1080p has someway to go yet.
LOL all this making new gpus yet nothing out in the real world in gaming would use it and probably wont for years to come and by then 50 newer cards at least will be out and far better than this, it just seems like a giant game of oneupmanship rather than making things for a reason.