Bitcoin Forum

GK104 will have 1536 stream processors clocked at 1GHz.

Here's my totally speculative math:

A GTX 570 with 480 SP at 732MHz gets about 150 MH/s, or 0.3125 MH s^-1 SP^-1.

Scaling linearly with clock speed, we would expect 0.4269 MH s^-1 SP^-1 at 1GHz.

For 1536 SPs, that's 656 MH/s at an estimated TDP of 200w.

Of course, it's likely that these new SPs will be a little slower than the old ones, but even if they're 30% slower they should still be competitive with AMD cards.

my guess is it will be as good as a 6950.  dont they have about 1536?

GK104 will have 1536 stream processors clocked at 1GHz.
Here's my totally speculative math:

A GTX 570 with 480 SP at 732MHz gets about 150 MH/s, or 0.3125 MH s^-1 SP^-1.
...

Wrong, shaders in a GTX570 run at twice the core clock. Fermi will be running them at core clock, like AMD cards do.
This subject was already discussed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63518.msg755060#msg755060). Mining performance will almost certainly suck compared to AMD cards.

Wrong, shaders in a GTX570 run at twice the core clock. Fermi will be running them at core clock, like AMD cards do.
This subject was already discussed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63518.msg755060#msg755060). Mining performance will almost certainly suck compared to AMD cards.

I'm ready to boycott nvidia even more

Anyway, maybe someone more technically inclined ( ArtForz we are looking at you ) can tell us if there is some hope or not.

GK104 will have 1536 stream processors clocked at 1GHz.

Here's my totally speculative math:

A GTX 570 with 480 SP at 732MHz gets about 150 MH/s, or 0.3125 MH s^-1 SP^-1.

Scaling linearly with clock speed, we would expect 0.4269 MH s^-1 SP^-1 at 1GHz.

For 1536 SPs, that's 656 MH/s at an estimated TDP of 200w.

Of course, it's likely that these new SPs will be a little slower than the old ones, but even if they're 30% slower they should still be competitive with AMD cards.

The stream processors ("cuda cores") are dynamically clocked, and can go to 1411MHz (non-oc'ed).
http://www.overclock.net/t/1231113/gigabyte-gtx-680-2gb-already-arrive-at-my-shop

Also, you should be using hot-clocks in your calcs, e.g.:

GTX 570, 480SP at 1464MHz (2*732MHz) shaders ~150MH/s, so (1411*1536)/(1464*480) = 3.084*150MH/s = 463MH/s

The thing is... they've changed the architecture from Fermi, so untill someone tests it with real hardware, it's all a gamble.
http://www.techpowerup.com/162500/GK104-Block-Diagram-Explained.html
nVidia presentation slides: https://imgur.com/a/aQmuA

Last GPU was Fermi, now we have Kepler, then Maxwell. What do these names have in common? All three were great physicists...

nda is up and reviews are out. The 680 is shredding the 7970 in most applictions... Can't wait to see the mining performance.

Although I don't have much hope I would be interested to see the results TRL.

Here are results by proxy
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/review/2162193/nvidias-gtx680-thrashed-amds-mid-range-radeon-hd-7870-gpu-compute (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/review/2162193/nvidias-gtx680-thrashed-amds-mid-range-radeon-hd-7870-gpu-compute)

If you look at the second to last slide I posted, Sandra actually has a crypto benchmark that uses SHA256. I'm not sure how it's implemented since the numbers between the 6990 and the 7970 don't correspond to bitcoin hashing performance, but it should still be more useful than FP ops.

So according to that article, it is horrible at FP ops, and the 7970 beats the pants off of it in that benchmark. Wonder if they compensated by giving better integer ops? One can only hope....

Newegg listed "Shader clock: 2012MHz".

Interesting... 1536 ALUs at 2012MHz would give it more processing power than a HD 6990. Either the GTX 680 is going to be the fastest GPU for mining, or it is a blatant mistake from Newegg or the microarchitecture has undisclosed limitations that would prevent exploiting all this apparent power.

Kepler’s shaders run at the processor’s frequency (1:1)

First, we launch a single run of the Central Park level at 1920x1080 in DirectX 11 mode, without anti-aliasing. We get a 72.3 FPS result, and we observe GPU Boost pushing the GeForce GTX 680 between 1071 and 1124 MHz during the run (up from the 1006 MHz base).

The top chart shows that we’re bouncing around the upper end of GK104’s power ceiling. So, we increase the target board power by 15%. The result is a small jump to 74.2 FPS, along with clocks that vacillate between 1145 and 1197 MHz.

Figuring the power target boost likely freed up some thermal headroom, we then increase the offset by 100 MHz, which enables even better performance—76.1 FPS. This time, however, we get a constant 1215 MHz. Nvidia says this is basically as fast as the card will go given our workload and the power limit.

So why not up the target power again? At 130% (basically, the interface’s 225 W specification), performance actually drops to 75.6 FPS, and the graph over time shows a constant 1202 MHz. We expected more performance, not less. What gives? This is where folks are going to find a problem with GPU Boost. Because outcome is dependent on factors continually being monitored, performance does change over time. As a GPU heats up, current leakage increases. And as that happens, variables like frequency and voltage are brought down to counter a vicious cycle.

The effect is similar to heat soak in an engine. If you’re on a dynamometer doing back to back pulls, you expect to see a drop in horsepower if you don’t wait long enough between runs. Similarly, it’s easy to get consistently-high numbers after a few minute-long benchmarks. But if you’re gaming for hours, GPU Boost cannot be as effective.

Our attempt to push a 200 MHz offset demonstrates that, even though this technology tries to keep you at the highest frequency under a given power ceiling, increasing both limits still makes it easy to exceed the board’s potential and seize up.

Sliding back a bit to a 150 MHz offset gives us stability, but performance isn’t any better than the 100 MHz setting. No doubt, it’ll take more tinkering to find the right overclock with GPU Boost in the mix and always on.

I don't understand the people buying brand new 7970's thinking the resell value will be better, it's going to lose a few hundred $ in value the first few months, while a 5970 still maintains the majority if not all of it's value if you bought one when the 7970 came out.  Anyway more for me I guess.

549 Euros for a card w/ retail price of $500?  Ouch.  Guess some people had to have it.

549 Euros for a card w/ retail price of $500?  Ouch.  Guess some people had to have it.

I hope AMD counters with a drop in 7970 prices.  If they do, I just might go with some 7970s instead of waiting for the 7990.

Newegg listed "Shader clock: 2012MHz".

Interesting... 1536 ALUs at 2012MHz would give it more processing power than a HD 6990. Either the GTX 680 is going to be the fastest GPU for mining, or it is a blatant mistake from Newegg or the microarchitecture has undisclosed limitations that would prevent exploiting all this apparent power.

Per the NDA lifted today, this was a blatant error. The ALUs will run at 1006-1058 MHz, which should allow this card to mine at an upper bound of 450-470 Mh/s (80-85% the speed of a HD 7970.) This is assuming of course thar Nvidia added a BFI_INT-like instruction to the architecture, which is not certain. If not, performance would be much lower...

WOW. This would be heaven if true.

Can you say 14 GPU Nvidia mining rig with a relatively cheap motherboard ?

The only thing that may kill it is the crap MH/$ value but prices will drop anyway ...