GeForce Titan

[Gregster]

I am wondering about being Bottlenecked now if I get two of these

How does your 2 690's cope Kaap?

 

[gbgt2]

But still 2 x 7970s will pwn it then? and be much cheaper.

Personally I would not consider 3 or 4-way SLI or CrossFireX because of heat, scaling, etc, so I'm always interested in the fastest cards for 2-way SLI or CrossFireX. 2 x Titans should (unless the rumours are completely wrong so far) beat 2 x 7970s, and be the fastest setup possible for 2-way. £1500 (?) is a lot to spend on graphics cards, but then I just spent that on a set of tyres for my car so it doesn't seem so bad in comparison!

 

[weehamish]

That is a silly statement. That is like saying "but 2 560Ti's are faster than a 680". The Titan is a single GPU, not dual, so 4 Titans will Pawn 8 7970's....

The price will be a go for some (and maybe me).

No yours is a silly comment i said its a single card lol its not silly its fact :\

 

[Bacon?]

Yes well done it is a single card.... now go have a cookie.

Greg I swear you love spending money

 

[opethdisciple]

Smells a bit like.... oh wait what's that?!!

I'll believe it when i see it on this one. Seems a bit off.

Brilliant!

 

[Kaapstad]

I am wondering about being Bottlenecked now if I get two of these

How does your 2 690's cope Kaap?

In gaming its not a problem

I always have my CPU @4.0ghz and providing I am using ultra settings with everything maxed there is no bottleneck. The few times I have had a go with BF3 I get a min of 110 fps @1600p and max I think of about 180 - 190 fps without a bottleneck.

When I play Civ 5 again with everything maxed I get between 200 and 400 fps on a huge map. What is strange though is with a pair of HD 7970s I get between 100 and 200 fps in Civ 5, I find people often say you can not tell the difference between 100 - 200 and 200 - 400 fps but the truth is the game is playing noticablely a lot faster on the GTX 690s. On the HD 7970s the game seems to really chug.

The point I am making is with a pair of Titans you will use all the GPU muscle they have got and things will just seem smoother and faster.

Where I do get a bottleneck is on benchmarks with the vram memory bus when the fps start approaching 400. The 256 bit bus is there to deal with the output of one GTX 670/80 when running quad sli the bus has to deal with 4 times the data (The memory on all cards in sli has to be doing the same) and just does not cope very well. There is one test on 3dmark vantage where my 690s manage about 406 fps when I run my HD 7970s on the same test they manage over 700 fps.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Beserk, what a jump in performance, Nvidia have made massive leaps here. [if this is true]

There is no leap, leaps come with a huge change in efficiency, IE a 7970 offering roughly twice the performance per watt of a 5870, and come with a new process unless you have a ridiculously poorly made gpu and then make a good one on the same process, this hasn't happened in, forever.

Intel can make a 16 core that clocks higher if they want, it will just be 600mm2 and take 500W under load, its doable, but yields will be in the toilet, it will cost a bomb, be loud as hell, and no one will want one, put the same 16 cores into a 200mm2 three years down the line using 100W with high yields and low price, and everyone will want one.

Titan isn't a giant leap forward, its just a core no one else is willing to make, not that "can't" be made, and made really very very easily. Its not hard to make a 7999 that is 550mm2, +50% performance, it will just use 350-400W, cost a bomb, drop yields hugely causing the massive price increase, be a pain to cool and almost no one would buy one.

Nvidia still has the professional market to subsidise stupid high cost chips, if this were a gaming only part, the volume of sales compared to the cost of tape out and design would make it a huge loss, with insane prices on professional cards, it instead makes a profit and they just sell off the worse cores to consumers for even more profit.

Ultimately I think it will look "meh" giving the core size and price at stock, IF, and its a big if, there is voltage control, a decent waterblock, a great radiator(or several) clocked up to 680gtx overclocks it would be behemoth of a card performance wise... would be a huge shame if they voltage lock it in so it can't hit 680gtx speeds(stock or overclocked speeds), I can understand if stock speeds are low, I wouldn't want to deal with the noise of any air cooling with that thing at 680gtx overclocked speeds.

It's a shame really, I don't know why AMD/Nvidia get so wrapped up in this blower fans and 300W limit, the power "limit" is arbitrary and means nothing, blower heatsinks are poor by design, AMD/Nvidia should be putting out 400-450mm2 gaming only cards in the £300-400 bracket, no DP, pure performance, proper heatsinks, damn the power just great cards. As long as idle power is low, I don't care

 

[DarrenM343]

I think this is a refresh wth a few extras (384bit thingy, more memory) and the Titan will be the refreshed GTX 690 .
The word TITAN makes me think it probably won't be a single chip card, as that will probably struggle to beat the current 690. Why would you release a TITAN that isn't actually the most powerful GC you make?

Or indeed Nvidia have made a huge step in a relatively short time (680's were out what just under a year ago?) and have indeed built a single chip card that will beat a 690 and will do it for <£800. But TITAN also makes me think big, hence two chips.

 

[straxusii]

Oh dear God please stop with these rumours suggesting that it is faster than a 690...

It is 100% guaranteed to be faster than a 690 . . .

















In a game with no SLI support

 

[straxusii]

Titanic might be more apt if Nvidia charge $899 for this single card.

It could be the card that sinks Nvidia

That would make it £685 with VAT in the UK, nasty!

 

[Yaayuh!]

Plus the EU boning we get on components anyway, would put it over £700

 

[Boomstick777]

That would make it £685 with VAT in the UK, nasty!

Yeah, I think priced like that this GPU is for only for people with very deep wallets.

The biggest problem I can see with it is that the top single card from the new gen always has performance comparable to the previous gens dual card. What we are seeing with Titan is no different, the performance of Nvidia's next top high end single card should be around 690 level and come in at $499 not $899.

For example the HD 7970 has 95% performance and sometimes more than the previous gens top dual card the GTX 590. Look here - http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/516?vs=618

Can't help feel that this is Nvidia's way of fleecing the consumer even more especially after the GTX 680, right now the GTX 680 has less performance than the HD 7970 but costs a fair bit more. Nvidia's pricing right now is mental..

I guess Titan will just be more of the same.. Question is will the HD 8970 come along a bit later and offer similar performance for a fraction of the cost.. For most people it'll be worth waiting rather than rushing out and buying a Titan..

 

[Gregster]

Cheers Kaap for the insight and very funny Straxusii

@ Boomstick, how do you see it as "fleecing"? Surely if the consumer buys it, he is fleecing himself? There is no reason for anyone to buy this card and anybody who buys it knows full well they are paying a fortune for it.

Were the AMD guys who bought a 7970 on launch "Fleeced"?

 

[Boomstick777]

@ Boomstick, how do you see it as "fleecing"? Surely if the consumer buys it, he is fleecing himself? There is no reason for anyone to buy this card and anybody who buys it knows full well they are paying a fortune for it.

Were the AMD guys who bought a 7970 on launch "Fleeced"?

I see it as fleecing as basically with the 'Titan' you're getting the full Kepler part that should have been launched last year in place of the midrange re-badged GTX 680. Not only that but they are rumored to charge $899 for it.. Really that is a ridiculous price for a single GPU.

With regard to the 7970 prices, there were many that said AMD were fleecing people at launch and some even went as far to say AMD caused Nvidia to inflate prices, HD 7970 launched at £400 and offered performance similar to GTX 590 (£600). Now AMD give you more performance for less cost.. HD 7970 £289 > GTX 680 £350..

Nvidia guys will always defend Nvidia's prices, and say the extra few hundred pounds is worth it for Physx etc. Imho, $899 for a single GPU is madness.. I would be interested at $499, so I'll hang on until I can get a decent price

 

[Gregster]

I see it as fleecing as basically with the 'Titan' you're getting the full Kepler part that should have been launched last year in place of the midrange re-badged GTX 680. Not only that but they are rumored to charge $899 for it.. Really that is a ridiculous price for a single GPU.

With regard to the 7970 prices, there were many that said AMD were fleecing people at launch and some even went as far to say AMD caused Nvidia to inflate prices, HD 7970 launched at £400 and offered performance similar to GTX 590 (£600). Now AMD give you more performance for less cost.. HD 7970 £289 > GTX 680 £350..

Nvidia guys will always defend Nvidia's prices, and say the extra few hundred pounds is worth it for Physx etc. Imho, $899 for a single GPU is madness.. I would be interested at $499, so I'll hang on until I can get a decent price

But nobody has to buy it... It isn't a loaf of bread or a pint of milk that we need to survive. It is a luxury and like any luxury, they can charge what they want and it would be down to the consumer if he chooses to buy it or not.

Do Ferrari fleece their customers or do their customers choose to spend a fortune?

HD7970 launched at the cheapest price of £479 and the 680 launched at the cheaper price of £429 (£50 cheaper). The 680 performed better in games till the launch of the Ghz GPU and even then I maintain it was the 12.11 drivers that made the 7970 the faster card out of the 2 (and they were released almost a year after launch). So as far as Nvidia's mid range 680, it was a pretty decent mid range card if it beat AMD's best offerings

I do love short memorys

 

[Boomstick777]

It never did beat it though matey, the HD 7970 came clocked very low at stock, the GTX 680 came with auto overclocking. When overclocked the regular 7970 beat the GTX 680. The HD 7970 Ghz beat the GTX 680 at stock.. All this while costing less. Nvidia is overpriced there is no other way of looking at it. The Titan will just be more of the same, there will always be those that justify Nvidia's pricing, that's also why Nvidia can keep doing so.. Ironic really . The smart money is on AMD right now. For those not so smart there is the 'Titan'.

 

[Gregster]

It never did beat it though matey, the HD 7970 came clocked very low at stock, the GTX 680 came with auto overclocking. When overclocked the regular 7970 beat the GTX 680. The HD 7970 Ghz beat the GTX 680 at stock.. All this while costing less. Nvidia is overpriced there is no other way of looking at it. The Titan will just be more of the same, there will always be those that justify Nvidia's pricing, that's also why Nvidia can keep doing so.. Ironic really . The smart money is on AMD right now. For those not so smart there is the 'Titan'.

Yes it did. The 680 was faster than the 7970 and even clock for clock, the 680 was the faster (Me and PGI did a BF3 comparison to prove it). It was only when the 12.11 drivers were released did the 7970 start winning in most games.

I love all this "When overclocked, the regular 7970 beat the 680" but what you are failing to see is the overclock of the 680. You can't just overclock one card and then compare.

I have told you how the 7970 was £50 more at launch than the 680 and yet you still cling onto Nvidia ripping people off

As for "The smart money is on AMD right now", I couldn't agree more and the smart money would buy 7950's but we are not talking about "Smart money".

AMD users will buy Titans if half the rumours are true and Nvidia users will buy Titans if half the rumours are true. You are looking with blinkers and only seeing it from your perspective. You feel it is fleecing (still) but again I say, it isn't a necessity, it is a luxury and no one needs to buy it if they feel it is too expensive.

Look at the big picture.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/555?vs=508

Check out those benchmarks and you will see Nvidia win in far more games than AMD.

 

[Boomstick777]

Not sure why you gave a link to the older HD 7970 VS the GTX 680?

Like I already said AMD launching a low clocked part and Nvidia launching an auto overclocking part made the GTX 680 look more favorable. When both cards are overclocked the HD 7970 is faster..

Nvidia are expensive right now, I don't know why you would say otherwise tbh..

You can pick up a HD 7970 for around £289 the cheapest GTX 680 is around £360. The 7970 has better performance, hence smart money is on AMD right now..

If the Titan comes in at $899 it'll be ridiculous..

Here's a more fair comparison, http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/555?vs=618 and that is without CAT 12.11, and still low clocked, most 7970's can reach 1150 - 1200..

 

[pgi947]

Lets face it, if the rumors of the performance gains from Titan are true, Nvidia can pretty much charge what ever they want as it will have no competition (that we know of). Exactly as AMD did upon the launch of the 7900 series, as the only competition they had from the green team at the time was the GTX580. Its a non-argument that the 7970/50 carried a massively inflated price at launch.

Prices on the 600 series IS creeping down, fairly sure I saw a GTX670 FTW for ~£270 the other day, thats 98% of a 680 for £30 more then a 7950.

And yep, me and Gregster did some 7970 vs 680 clock for clock BF3 benches, pre 12.11 the 680 was the clear winner, post 12.11 it was near enough neck and neck, no clear winner so it would be unfair to call the 7970 the out-right winner.

Edit: gimmie 10 mins greg I'll try fish out the graphs I did for pre and post 12.11 with matched clocks.

Here you go:

 

[Gregster]

Not sure why you gave a link to the older HD 7970 VS the GTX 680?

Because you said the 680 never did beat it though matey. I have just proved it did...Please read what you type.

Like I already said AMD launching a low clocked part and Nvidia launching an auto overclocking part made the GTX 680 look more favorable. When both cards are overclocked the HD 7970 is faster..

Of course and I haven't said anything to the contrary?

Nvidia are expensive right now, I don't know why you would say otherwise tbh..

Please show me where I have said that Nvidia are cheap? On launch, the 680 was cheaper than the 7970 was on launch. Sorry if you don't like this fact but I am telling you the truth.

You can pick up a HD 7970 for around £289 the cheapest GTX 680 is around £360. The 7970 has better performance, hence smart money is on AMD right now..

I said the smart money was on AMD right now. You have 2 7970's but the smart money would have bought 2*7950's. At least try and be consistent.

If the Titan comes in at $899 it'll be ridiculous..

I guess you won't be buying one then

Here's a more fair comparison, http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/555?vs=618 and that is without CAT 12.11, and still low clocked, most 7970's can reach 1150 - 1200..

You are showing me something that I have agreed with. You are still derping on about an overclocked 7970 but fail to mention any overclocking of a 680. At least look at it fairly and from a neutral point of view and not one sided.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in this thread. You obviously have no intention of buying and are just trying to justify your 7970's in an Nvidia thread. Pretty desperate.

Edit:

Cheers Paul, I remember holding the title for a day I think it was