Why buy Kepler?

fr33k · **Why buy Kepler? -** 02-08-2012, 06:39 | posts: 1,784 | Location: USA

Why would you buy kepler? If cost wasn't an issue... what would be the reason(s)?

Spets · 02-08-2012, 06:46 | posts: 1,435

Don't think anyone can really answer this when the cards haven't come out yet

Need to know the specs/performance.
Few things I do like though is physx, the cpanel and homebrew cuda apps on the web

If the VRAM and performance is low though it'd be a deal breaker.

Mufflore · 02-08-2012, 06:53 | posts: 9,536 | Location: UK

For higher performance/memory

SirDremor · 02-08-2012, 07:24 | posts: 253 | Location: Moscow, Russia

I will buy Kepler, because I've started building my new rig (hope to get it completed by June/July)

The main reason - superior performance (compared to at least my 2x GTX460).

Lavans · 02-08-2012, 07:25 | posts: 4,540 | Location: Austin

More AA goodness and downsampling.

fr33k · 02-08-2012, 07:27 | posts: 1,784 | Location: USA

higher performance is a given, but like what games or what do you expect out of it etc?
I want to buy kepler but i just dont see any games coming out in the foreseeable future that will take any advantage of it.

Mufflore · 02-08-2012, 07:31 | posts: 9,536 | Location: UK

I expect to be able to play all games with max settings at 1080p and get 60fps or higher.
User tweaked games (ie Skyrim) with even higher settings.

I doubt I'll get 1st gen anyway, my 580 should be fine for a while yet.

SirDremor · *Last edited by SirDremor; 02-08-2012 at 07:46.*

Well, in my case 2xGTX460 is still a good solution, but if I am already upgrading, then I think it is best to future proof my new PC.

Under "future" I mean possible releases of at least the following titles:
HL3 (probably it won't be so heavy on GPU, but who knows!)
Borderlands 2 (original Borderlands alrready runs for me "on the edge", so I think next chapter will be a bit heavier for GPUs)
Crysis 3
F1 2012-2013
Starcraft 2 Heart of the swarm (hey, even the original SC2 is very heavy on my current setup)
Dragon Age 3 (DA2 was already pretty heavy on my setup)
next Mass Effect universe games (I don't believe ME3 will be the end of ME games)

Mentioning these games of course I mean maximum settings (+high res mods if available) at 1980x1200, AA and possible 3D gameplay (but I am still undecided if I want to switch to 3D display).

Update:
Just to clarify - I don't upgrade every new generation (as you can see from the specs of my rig), I only do it when my current HW is unable to provide enough performance for my needs and upcoming game titles (in near and a bit farther future), so as I am building my new rig - it is the right decision to stick with "new" generation even if in short term it won't give me much difference.

Fusion_XT · 02-08-2012, 08:15 | posts: 760 | Location: Netherlands

3D Surround with AA @ high fps !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sdamaged99 · 02-08-2012, 08:41 | posts: 1,912 | Location: Isle of Man

Doesn't it only come with 2GB of VRAM though? That puts me off tbh

Lavans · 02-08-2012, 08:47 | posts: 4,540 | Location: Austin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdamaged99

Doesn't it only come with 2GB of VRAM though? That puts me off tbh

Assuming that's true, having only 2GB of VRAM doesn't bother me personally. Even with 1GB, I'm not encountering any issue running graphically intensive games that doesn't reach beyond the limit of my current GPUs. Even with SSAA enabled, I can't think of any game that's ever demonstrated any serious VRAM constraints. Even BF3 proves to be little issue, and I typically run it with a mix between high and ultra no problem, preferably with SSAO/HBAO and motion blur off.

clawhamer · 02-08-2012, 09:21 | posts: 1,545 | Location: eastcoast.ca

I’m going to sit back and watch and enjoy the 580 until Kepler matures; then if there’s a game I play that requires more horsepower I’ll bite.

As it stands right now, I’ll likely upgrade my platform and monitor before I upgrade the graphics card.

Looking forward to the release and reviews.. exciting times, indeed.

chinobino · 02-08-2012, 09:29 | posts: 632

e-peen! j/k

crap daddy · 02-08-2012, 10:49 | posts: 746 | Location: close to the edge

Why not?

Darren Hodgson · 02-08-2012, 11:26 | posts: 9,721 | Location: England

Quote:

Originally Posted by fr33k

Why would you buy Kepler? If cost wasn't an issue... what would be the reason(s)?

1. It's made by NVIDIA which usually means better drivers in my experience. That alone is the main reason I buy their cards as AMD's are just not up to the same level, even though they've recently added (after years of waiting) proper per-game profiles. NVIDIA have better anti-aliasing options though through being able to set AA compatibility flags with NVIDIA Inspector. OpenGL support is better, we can force Ambient Occlusion, there's PhysX... sure, the last two are hardly essential but they're nice bonuses nevertheless than the competitor doesn't have.

2. Games tend to have fewer issues with NVIDIA cards, e.g. the recent RAGE took AMD months to fix (have they even fixed it yet?), Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath has rendering artifacts, Kingdom of Amadur: Reckoning demo gives a black screen when post-processing is enabled, Need for Speed: SHIFT was effectively broken on AMD cards at launch, Batman: Arkham Asylum lacks anti-aliasing support through the game launcher, etc., etc.

NVIDIA cards tend to be expensive but they're well worth the money IMO. I've been buying them since 1998 and all of them have been 100% reliable with no issues whatsoever. Unless Kepler turns out to be another GTX 480 disaster then I can safely say that the GTX 680 will be the next card I fit in my PC. To be honest I don't really care how much it costs either as I'm sure I'll want one as soon as they are available to buy.

Darren Hodgson · 02-08-2012, 11:32 | posts: 9,721 | Location: England

Quote:

Originally Posted by crap daddy

Why not?

True.

When the choice is between them and AMD then there really isn't any choice in my book as it all comes down to the quality of the drivers more than the cards themselves IMO. There's nothing I'd like more than to be able to choose between AMD and NVIDIA cards on the strength of the hardware and their pricing but until AMD improve their drivers then there will only really be one choice for me.

I bought the HD 5870 to replace my GTX 280 but only because the GTX 480 turned out to be a disappointment. In the end I regretted that and felt I should have just waited for the GTX 580 (if I'd known it was coming so soon) which is a better card in every way then the two HD 5870s I had. It's why, with Kepler on the way, I wasn't remotely tempted by the HD 7970 as I know I'd regret it. I personally don't feel it is a very good upgrade from a GTX 580 anyway.

Xzibit · 02-08-2012, 12:04 | posts: 4,383 | Location: Europe

No thanks, outdated PhysX, High energy consumption, cheap VRMs, like on 590.
But if one 680 or 780

will have 3GB VRAM and will be cheap, I'll think about it

Darren There are no problems now with AMD drivers. All is fine.

BlackZero · *Last edited by BlackZero; 02-08-2012 at 12:10.*

^Are you sure there wasn't another issue with your system when running an amd card that lead to all your issues, as it sure seems like you had lots of issues with it from all the times you've mentioned it. Been using nvidia/amd for years, never had issues with drivers from any side.

Veteran · 02-08-2012, 12:40 | posts: 7,404 | Location: United kingdom

So it says 2x680/690 in SLI on Water in my Avatar,cause there really is no other reason as every high demanding game can be played with the current hardware,its all about Epeen.

Redemption80 · 02-08-2012, 12:50 | posts: 13,444 | Location: Glasgow

Why Kepler?i?
The better the devil you know.

7970 looked like my next card until i saw the pricing, and wasn't willing to take the risk switching sides unless the card was cheap.

It also comes down to features/gimmicks you like, or dislike.
PhysX might be rarely used and not optimised for GPU's, but it's an extra option, and more is always better than less, while Eyefinity, or any other multi-monitor gaming is something i will never use.

There are also more TWIMTBP games than AMD Gaming Evolved ones.

Wouldn't say Nvidia are any better driver wise, but better with driver support for games, the actual drivers from Nvidia have been piss poor for the last three months, likely because they are focus on Kepler.

Sever · 02-08-2012, 12:59 | posts: 4,826 | Location: Land of the Great Downunder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavans

Assuming that's true, having only 2GB of VRAM doesn't bother me personally. Even with 1GB, I'm not encountering any issue running graphically intensive games that doesn't reach beyond the limit of my current GPUs. Even with SSAA enabled, I can't think of any game that's ever demonstrated any serious VRAM constraints. Even BF3 proves to be little issue, and I typically run it with a mix between high and ultra no problem, preferably with SSAO/HBAO and motion blur off.

im sure at least one manufacturer will be crazy enough to stick 4gb on the thing.

amieneel · 02-08-2012, 13:38 | posts: 890 | Location: India

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Hodgson

1. It's made by NVIDIA which usually means better drivers in my experience. That alone is the main reason I buy their cards as AMD's are just not up to the same level, even though they've recently added (after years of waiting) proper per-game profiles. NVIDIA have better anti-aliasing options though through being able to set AA compatibility flags with NVIDIA Inspector. OpenGL support is better, we can force Ambient Occlusion, there's PhysX... sure, the last two are hardly essential but they're nice bonuses nevertheless than the competitor doesn't have.

2. Games tend to have fewer issues with NVIDIA cards, e.g. the recent RAGE took AMD months to fix (have they even fixed it yet?), Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath has rendering artifacts, Kingdom of Amadur: Reckoning demo gives a black screen when post-processing is enabled, Need for Speed: SHIFT was effectively broken on AMD cards at launch, Batman: Arkham Asylum lacks anti-aliasing support through the game launcher, etc., etc.

NVIDIA cards tend to be expensive but they're well worth the money IMO. I've been buying them since 1998 and all of them have been 100% reliable with no issues whatsoever. Unless Kepler turns out to be another GTX 480 disaster then I can safely say that the GTX 680 will be the next card I fit in my PC. To be honest I don't really care how much it costs either as I'm sure I'll want one as soon as they are available to buy.

U have been using nvidia cards since 1998 ?? Would like to know, which nvidia gpu u used in the year of 1998 ?

harkinsteven · 02-08-2012, 13:50 | posts: 1,525 | Location: Ireland

Quote:

Originally Posted by amieneel

U have been using nvidia cards since 1998 ?? Would like to know, which nvidia gpu u used in the year of 1998 ?

Probably the Riva TNT.

Deathspank · 02-08-2012, 13:54 | posts: 1,293 | Location: Wolverhampton/England

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xzibit

No thanks, outdated PhysX, High energy consumption, cheap VRMs, like on 590.
But if one 680 or 780

will have 3GB VRAM and will be cheap, I'll think about it

Darren There are no problems now with AMD drivers. All is fine.

im rolling around in stitches about that amd driver comment. all the people i game with that use amd gfx are sick to death of the amd driver support so your either a super fanboy or you have your own personal amd driver team.

Darren Hodgson · 02-08-2012, 13:59 | posts: 9,721 | Location: England

Quote:

Originally Posted by amieneel

U have been using nvidia cards since 1998 ?? Would like to know, which nvidia gpu u used in the year of 1998 ?

It was a Riva TNT. It was an upgrade from a crappy ATI card which came with my very first PC which I bought from (eurgh!) PC World. Oh those were the days when I was much more naive and less knowledgeable about PCs.