Reviews - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 2GB graphics card

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I knew someone would throw that up.

The sums still equal the same though - 192GB/s.

It doesn't change the fact that it is incorrect. Speed and bandwidth are not the same thing.

[Terbinator]

The slide states "Memory speed: 6.0 GBPS", which, when translated into GB/s is 48GB/s, which is still only a quarter of my GTX 580, or is there more calculations to be done?

I'm sorry, but NVIDIA would always state the highest number they can, they wouldn't put 6.0GBPS, they'd put 192GB/s, if that were the case.. So I really don't think I can believe the slide.

Ah, i thought you was sort of cross querying other rumours with the slide.

But yeah, i think we're inclined to believe that the bandwidth is the same between both cards.

[brasco]

Low TDP is more attractive than I was expecting, hope to see a 4GB model out asap

Cheers
brasc

[Terbinator]

It doesn't change the fact that it is incorrect. Speed and bandwidth are not the same thing.

The Hexus chart explicitly labels it speed etc.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Whats this, top of the line NVidia card comes in at under 200w...

Thats brilliant! i'l take two please

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Hexus chart explicitly labels it speed etc.

The Hexus chart has not confirmed anything,just aggregated the rumours together as even confirming the specifications is breaking NDA.

On top of this we all know it is meant to say MHZ not GBPS for memory speed and it is a stupid typo to make in the slide. Most people would read it as MHZ subconsciously anyway.

[Terbinator]

The Hexus chart has not confirmed anything,just aggregated the rumours together as even confirming the specifications is breaking NDA.

On top of this we all know it is meant to say MHZ not GBPS for memory speed and it is a stupid typo to make in the slide. Most people would read it as MHZ subconsciously anyway.

Hmmm, the Hexus "disclaimer" gives it good standing IMO. But yeah, I just read it that he was left confused so i tried to clarify why his 580 seemingly has more bandwidth.

[kalniel]

The Hexus chart has not confirmed anything,just aggregated the rumours together as even confirming the specifications is breaking NDA.

Look at the title of the article.

[Hoonigan]

Most people would read it as MHZ subconsciously anyway.

But "most people" will never be interested in that slide. The people that are interested, are the people that will notice the error.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It will be interesting to see how bandwidth limited a design the GTX680 will be though.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Look at the title of the article.

Look at the body of the article. Hexus is just stating that the rumours are confirming each other. They are not confirming anything.

It is not to say the specifications are wrong,but the reviewers over at HC and HardOCP already have details of the specifications and probably have cards too,but they are not confirming anything either for obvious reasons.

Only PC Perspective with their review of the GT640M has any actual Kepler information ATM.

But "most people" will never be interested in that slide. The people that are interested, are the people that will notice the error.

Sorry,but "most" people on many forums have not picked up on it though - only a few have then pointed it out. The vast majority of people tend to skim read these things and the same goes with reviews. Forgotten those word experiments where the mind autocorrects jumbled sentences??

[Terbinator]

Sorry,but "most" people on many forums have not picked up on it though - only a few who then pointed it out. The vast majority of people tend to skim read these things. Forgotten those word experiments where the mind autocorrects jumbled sentences??

But tbf Gbps, GT/s, MHz, where appropriate, are used inter-changeably quite often without any real consequence.

[Scribe]

The slide states "Memory speed: 6.0 GBPS", which, when translated into GB/s is 48GB/s, which is still only a quarter of my GTX 580, or is there more calculations to be done?

I'm sorry, but NVIDIA would always state the highest number they can, they wouldn't put 6.0GBPS, they'd put 192GB/s, if that were the case.. So I really don't think I can believe the slide.

x 256 for each channel, it's a 256-bit interface, so 6 / 8 * 256 = 192GB/s

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

But tbf Gbps, GT/s, MHz, where appropriate, are used inter-changeably quite often without any real consequence.

You are right, the appropriate units are never of any importance!!

[Hoonigan]

Maybe I'm just a little more observant than most other geeks, or more excited about the new cards as I've already got the money ready to go out and buy one .

Just so I can understand how the bus width and everything works together.. How does 6*8*256=192Gb/s?

6GBPS*8=48Gb/s, I get that, but then multiply that by 256 and you have a much higher number than 192Gb/s.

[Pete301]

Maybe I'm just a little more observant than most other geeks, or more excited about the new cards as I've already got the money ready to go out and buy one .

Just so I can understand how the bus width and everything works together.. How does 6*8*256=192Gb/s?

6GBPS*8=48Gb/s, I get that, but then multiply that by 256 and you have a much higher number than 192Gb/s.

It's not all multiplication. Firstly dividing the 6GBPS by 8, to get to bits. Then multiply by the bus width - 256.

I don't trust this slide thing at all. We're only going to find out the performance once some (trusted) reviews have been carried out.