Nvidia Kepler
Kepler’s predecessor was codenamed Fermi and it’s an understatement to say that it had a difficult birth. Still, all credit to Nvidia though, it stuck with Fermi and turned out some very good graphics cards with later incarnations of the architecture. A feat that a great number of people thought impossible having played around with the first examples of it. Not wishing to make the same mistake twice, the Nvidia took its time to unleash Kepler. Time, that was presumably well spent keeping an eye on what AMD was doing with its 7000 series.
Like AMD’s Southern Island’s architecture, Kepler is built using a 28nm process but is a much smaller chip at just 295mm², but then it does have a lower transistor count at 3.5 billion.
Furthermore, it’s not strictly a totally new architecture either, but more of a Fermi die shrink, tidy up and update. The upshot is its leaner, meaner and more power efficient processor. The first example of the new architecture to see daylight carries the codename GK104 but is better known as the GeForce GTX 680.
The GTX 680 has 1536 CUDA cores which is a staggering three times as many as the previous generation’s GTX 580. This massive rise is due to the fact that Nvidia has junked the shader clock and chosen to increase the number of CUDA cores to achieve the same effect.
Albeit minus the shader clock, Nividia has added a Boost Clock, so although the base clock speed is 1006MHz, the boost speed – turbo, if you like – is 1058MHz. The 2GB of GDDR5 memory is clocked at 6.008GHz and runs through a 256-bit bus giving a maximum memory bandwidth of 192.4GB/sec. So technically, that’s the how the land lies between these two gods of graphics, but back in the real world, how do these architectures fare in products you can actually buy?
Next page: Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 Dual-X
COMMENTS
Re: "£600 for a 2560x1440 monitor"
The one with 72% NTSC colour? Not worth the plastic it's housed in. The reason the Dell screens are near £600 and the better quality Hazro too, is because they reproduce 110% NCST or 100% Adobe RGB.
If all you do is pew pew pew on your screen, your budget thing is OK.
If you want a screen with decent colour reproduction then the £600 panels are the way to go. I pew pew pew and I design stuff too so I use a 100% Adobe RGB panel. Colour reproduction is "mmmmmmmmm niiiiiiiicccceee."
You just can't compare quality with budget, sorry.... FAIL.
Also, for anything more than a 1920x1080 resolution, you're talking silly money for the monitor to support it. Most of the 24"+ monitors run at this resolution - you're getting into £600-worth of Dell 27" for 2560x1440, and £950 for 30" of Dell 2560x1600...
Nice
I must convince the people at work that the GTX 680 would sit very nicely in my desktop, if only to test some neat CUDA fluid dynamics code a student has just made (which works nicely on a dual GTX 590 machine in the lab). It is so nice we are getting humongous compute clout for such modest prices, compared to the old Cray J932 and SV1e we used to have.
For a few Frames more.
Flippin – fan boy users – scum bags – riding on planetary meltdown – all for the sake of a few more FPS on Crysis. May you all die in a Day-after-Tomorrow scenario.
(I’ve got a GTX570 myself – still nice)

