-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Titan V announced £2700 15TF 12nm Volta
- Thread starter straxusii
- Start date
Soldato
Well that's hardly surprising considering how close NVIDIA play things to the chest at the moment. Even AIB partners haven't got a clue what they're <NVIDIA> doing half the time.
Soldato
Someone has started benchmarking their one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/7iq5tk/just_got_a_titan_v_this_morning_ask_me_to/
The game uses a standard benchmark anyone can run and these are the scores with my GTX1080FE and RX470 in March when I ran it in a system with an IB Core i7:
http://i.imgur.com/VTrgkpU.jpg
They have a Core i7 8700K. This is the Hexus review of the GTX1080TI:
http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2017/6/92d6714e-8205-4f1c-b921-15bbbd59475c.png
Its at Ultra settings too but with a Core i7 7700k.
So basically a GTX1080 will get around 50~55FPS,and a GTX1080TI around 70~75FPS.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/7iq5tk/just_got_a_titan_v_this_morning_ask_me_to/
The game uses a standard benchmark anyone can run and these are the scores with my GTX1080FE and RX470 in March when I ran it in a system with an IB Core i7:
http://i.imgur.com/VTrgkpU.jpg
They have a Core i7 8700K. This is the Hexus review of the GTX1080TI:
http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2017/6/92d6714e-8205-4f1c-b921-15bbbd59475c.png
Its at Ultra settings too but with a Core i7 7700k.
So basically a GTX1080 will get around 50~55FPS,and a GTX1080TI around 70~75FPS.
My mildly clocked Titan xp vs his Titan V https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/14380727/fs/13567507, not exactly impressive.
Soldato
Soldato
I like cards like these, as much performance as they can offer! Obviously I don't like the cost, but it's not aimed at me.
Don't really understand any of the pro application benchmarks, as I'm not a user of these apps. I'd love to see some proper gaming benchmarks from a trusted site though!
On a similar topic, I'd really like to see gaming benchmarks for the Vega FE with current drivers.
Don't really understand any of the pro application benchmarks, as I'm not a user of these apps. I'd love to see some proper gaming benchmarks from a trusted site though!
On a similar topic, I'd really like to see gaming benchmarks for the Vega FE with current drivers.
Man of Honour
The question I am asking myself after seeing some of these early benchmarks is why is Volta performing worse than Pascal on a core by core and clock by clock basis.
I know this Volta Titan has a lot of stuff that is useless for gaming but it still has 5120 cores compared to the 3840 on a Pascal Titan, why are the Volta cores not performing?
Is Volta a less efficient architecture than Pascal on a core by core basis, I would find this hard to believe.
I know this Volta Titan has a lot of stuff that is useless for gaming but it still has 5120 cores compared to the 3840 on a Pascal Titan, why are the Volta cores not performing?
Is Volta a less efficient architecture than Pascal on a core by core basis, I would find this hard to believe.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2016
- Posts
- 529
Seems right Kaap. The card isn't designed for gaming. They added nearly 10B transistors to the 1080ti's 12B, and it looks like most were thrown at double precision floats and tensor cores.
The efficiency of CUDA cores is probably an artefact of drivers that are optimised for compute workloads.
The efficiency of CUDA cores is probably an artefact of drivers that are optimised for compute workloads.
Man of Honour
Has anyone got one yet?
Permabanned
Im hoping U get one first
Don't be silly, when has Kaap ever got "one" of a card ^^Im hoping U get one first
Associate
Mine comes in tomorrow. Going to do a bunch of overclock benchmarks vs my Xp.
Soldato
The same reason Vega10 is beaten by the GP102 in performance/mm2 and performance/watt in gaming. The GP102 is primarily FP32 focussed which is great for things like gaming. Vega has higher FP16 and FP64 compute which is not really useful for gaming currently,hence all that functionality is transistors doing nothing just making the chip bigger and drawing more power which means clockspeeds are an issue,and then AMD as a result needs to push the clockspeed to compete,which causes power consumption to go up massively. Look at Vega56 clockspeeds and that is really the sweet spot for the Vega10 design currently.
If you look at the Titan V it has massively higher FP16 and FP64 performance,but not massively higher FP32 performance,since all that extra functionality draws extra power and produces more heat which means Nvidia has to keep base and boost clockspeeds lower,otherwise power consumption might end up being beyond the sweet spot which leads to more heat being produced. Another thing people have missed is that they have apparently cut the number of stacks of HBM2 down to 3,and the HBM2 clockspeed has been dropped too - so this has been down to keep power consumption and TDP within a more acceptable level,and devote more of the available TDP to the core,so it can boost higher,which you can see as the commercial version of this card has lower core clockspeeds but massively more bandwidth available.
Edit!!
Once it is manually overclocked it should end up being faster - I think clockspeeds are probably the main issue here.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Soldato
Guru3D is slow,this chap has actually run more benchmarks:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/7iq5tk/just_got_a_titan_v_this_morning_ask_me_to/
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
No surprise that a compute focused card is only so..so.. in gaming... compared to a stripped out gaming specific build like gp102.
Same thing with Vega, will be interesting to see the compute benchmarks against Vega FE for this thing / 3k better buy you a lot of grunt over the FE.
Same thing with Vega, will be interesting to see the compute benchmarks against Vega FE for this thing / 3k better buy you a lot of grunt over the FE.
Soldato
Man, this is definitely strictly a pure compute card. Using all my resolve to pass this by. Ludicrous price for (most of) our usage.
Going off recent/medium history, the 2080 Ti (or 1180 Ti, whichever) will have the same FP32 cores, but the FP64 and Tensor cores stripped out.
If Nvidia's block diagrams are to scale then each type of core takes up 1/3 of the space assigned to all the cores. i.e. getting rid of the FP64 and Tensor cores will cut out 2/3 of the die space assigned to cores (not quite 2/3 overall, as there's other components than just cores). That seems too much though, as it'd imply 5120 FP32 cores could fit in less than 500mm^2.
That aside, going for pure FP32 and on this improved 12nm process it seems plausible it'll hit the same ~2 GHz clocks as Pascal, in which case we're talking ~20.5 Tflops for the 2080 Ti card. Around ~50% higher than a 1080 Ti.
Indeed, a massive proportion of the die is for FP64 and Tensor cores, which neither help gaming.
The GP102 equivalent will be much smaller, cheaper, and run at higher clocks.
Might even have faster memory too, since it may have GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, which'll do 672-768 GB/s, depending on if it's 14 Gbps or 16 Gbps modules.
If Nvidia's block diagrams are to scale then each type of core takes up 1/3 of the space assigned to all the cores. i.e. getting rid of the FP64 and Tensor cores will cut out 2/3 of the die space assigned to cores (not quite 2/3 overall, as there's other components than just cores). That seems too much though, as it'd imply 5120 FP32 cores could fit in less than 500mm^2.
That aside, going for pure FP32 and on this improved 12nm process it seems plausible it'll hit the same ~2 GHz clocks as Pascal, in which case we're talking ~20.5 Tflops for the 2080 Ti card. Around ~50% higher than a 1080 Ti.
Indeed, a massive proportion of the die is for FP64 and Tensor cores, which neither help gaming.
The GP102 equivalent will be much smaller, cheaper, and run at higher clocks.
Might even have faster memory too, since it may have GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, which'll do 672-768 GB/s, depending on if it's 14 Gbps or 16 Gbps modules.