titan x or not

extrememachine · 5 Nov 2015 at 20:14

Looking to replace my rig with titan x's , is this wise or not?
I also heard there would be revisions of the 980 ti with a 12gb frame buffer; Is this true or not?

Simon Belmont · 5 Nov 2015 at 20:16

extrememachine said:
Looking to replace my rig with titan x's , is this wise or not?
I also heard there would be revisions of the 980 ti with a 12gb frame buffer; Is this true or not?

On 980Ti 12gb. Not going to happen. Only Titan X. Do you really need 12gb vram though? Not really.

Pascal's just around the corner.

I stand corrected because of the Black Ops 3 Vram issue.

kefan77 · 5 Nov 2015 at 20:21

wait it out till next gen comes.

straxusii · 5 Nov 2015 at 20:55

980ti, only go tx if you are gaming at 4k and are buying 2+

pmc25 · 5 Nov 2015 at 20:59

straxusii said:
980ti, only go tx if you are gaming at 4k and are buying 2+

If you're buying 2+ and gaming at 4K then NVIDIA is significantly slower (and much more expensive) than AMD.

At this stage of its life cycle, it's pointless getting a TX or any number of them.

You're much better off getting a Fury of some description or 980Ti, then waiting until next year. If you're determined to spend money, 'economise' by getting a couple of 2x vanilla Fury ... it'll be way cheaper than TX, significantly cheaper than 980Ti and still massively faster in most situations than your existing setup.

extrememachine · 5 Nov 2015 at 22:02

Around the corner how?
Last time I heard the 1st revisions of pascal gpu's would come out in Arpil 2016.
That's a long wait.

trawetSluaP · 5 Nov 2015 at 22:11

I'd say no.

Get a quick 980 Ti and it will out perform a Titan X anyway (unless you need the 12GB memory).

extrememachine · 5 Nov 2015 at 22:41

That 12gb frame buffer is paramount as I only game at 4k.
Would probably only be able to afford 2 atm.

Kaapstad · 5 Nov 2015 at 22:47

pmc25 said:
If you're buying 2+ and gaming at 4K then NVIDIA is significantly slower (and much more expensive) than AMD.

At this stage of its life cycle, it's pointless getting a TX or any number of them.

Have you used both setups ?

4 TXs are the best option @2160p

Not only are they consistantly faster than Fury Xs or 980 Ti's in games but that massive 12gb frame buffer really does come in handy at the resolution with multiple cards

Although the 980 Ti is better value for money than a TitanX, for longevity I personally would still go with the TitanX even as a single card option.

Small Pascal when it arrives will make 6gb cards obsolete but this won't apply to 12gb TitanXs. It will only be with the arrival of big Pascal that the TitanXs will be outclassed on the frame buffer size.

OP if you are looking to buy one or two cards the 980 Ti is still the best all round option and won't be much slower than Small Pascal when it arrives. Only look at TitanXs if you want to run multiple cards @2160p.

extrememachine · 5 Nov 2015 at 23:18

Kaapstad said:
Have you used both setups ?

4 TXs are the best option @2160p

Not only are they consistantly faster than Fury Xs or 980 Ti's in games but that massive 12gb frame buffer really does come in handy at the resolution with multiple cards

Although the 980 Ti is better value for money than a TitanX, for longevity I personally would still go with the TitanX even as a single card option.

Small Pascal when it arrives will make 6gb cards obsolete but this won't apply to 12gb TitanXs. It will only be with the arrival of big Pascal that the TitanXs will be outclassed on the frame buffer size.

OP if you are looking to buy one or two cards the 980 Ti is still the best all round option and won't be much slower than Small Pascal when it arrives. Only look at TitanXs if you want to run multiple cards @2160p.

looking to buy 2 for now and a third later on, but everywhere I have looked I am unable to see the EVGA titan x Hydro Copper in stock.

TheMorningStar · 5 Nov 2015 at 23:29

At this point you are better off waiting for next gen especially if you are wanting 3 of them. Unless your earning over £100k a year, In which case **** it, go for it man.

SGTMASON · 5 Nov 2015 at 23:30

I love my Titan X's... Wouldn't have any other cards currently available over them...

pmc25 · 6 Nov 2015 at 00:51

Kaapstad said:
Have you used both setups ?

4 TXs are the best option @2160p

Not only are they consistantly faster than Fury Xs or 980 Ti's in games but that massive 12gb frame buffer really does come in handy at the resolution with multiple cards

Although the 980 Ti is better value for money than a TitanX, for longevity I personally would still go with the TitanX even as a single card option.

Small Pascal when it arrives will make 6gb cards obsolete but this won't apply to 12gb TitanXs. It will only be with the arrival of big Pascal that the TitanXs will be outclassed on the frame buffer size.

OP if you are looking to buy one or two cards the 980 Ti is still the best all round option and won't be much slower than Small Pascal when it arrives. Only look at TitanXs if you want to run multiple cards @2160p.

Not a single review has shown better scaling in almost any games at all above 1440p for 2+ cards for the TX over FX. Most show a huge advantage for the FX. As far as 12GB frame buffer being important? Just LOL ...

Uncle Petey · 6 Nov 2015 at 00:55

You do realise that he has 4 of each and is therefore in a better position to know the score than you?

SGTMASON · 6 Nov 2015 at 01:04

Yep... Epic fail there...

And @4k on ultra with multiple cards you can run over the 6GB mark very easily

TheMorningStar · 6 Nov 2015 at 01:24

pmc25 said:
Not a single review has shown better scaling in almost any games at all above 1440p for 2+ cards for the TX over FX. Most show a huge advantage for the FX. As far as 12GB frame buffer being important? Just LOL ...

The Fury Xs are interesting to look at in crossfire. Especially in 2 card situations where they reliably scale above 100%. I'm guessing this is down to a memory limitation, a limitation that is removed in multi card setups due to the way AMD can now mix what's in the vram on each card, so not exact duplicates on each.

It could be some other bottleneck on the cards responsible for this but the vram seems the most plausible. It certainly makes them much more desirable in multi card setups over a Titan X.

I'm really hoping we see more unified memory features, in a truer sense in future cards, with the production shrink if we are lucky. I'm sure that sharing memory over cards will add latency, even over PCIe 3.0 but it could still equate to better overall performance.

Kaapstad · 6 Nov 2015 at 01:38

SGTMASON said:
Yep... Epic fail there...

And @4k on ultra with multiple cards you can run over the 6GB mark very easily

Very easy to get over 8gb

Watchdogs
GTA V
Shadows of Mordor

the above are all very VRAM hungry maxed @2160p and future releases are not going to get any better.

Kaapstad · 6 Nov 2015 at 01:50

TheMorningStar said:
The Fury Xs are interesting to look at in crossfire. Especially in 2 card situations where they reliably scale above 100%. I'm guessing this is down to a memory limitation, a limitation that is removed in multi card setups due to the way AMD can now mix what's in the vram on each card, so not exact duplicates on each.

C/F still works exactly the same way as it has always worked with the Fury Xs, the memory on the cards is still mirrored, DX11 is DX11.

The real question is not why C/F scaling on some occassions is so good but why is single card performance so bad. You can not get out more than the 2x100% you get from two single cards.

TheMorningStar said:
It could be some other bottleneck on the cards responsible for this but the vram seems the most plausible. It certainly makes them much more desirable in multi card setups over a Titan X.

Titan Xs are definately more desireable for high resolution work than Fury Xs but it is an unfair comparrisson as it is a 800 v 500 pound card.

If you argued Fury Xs were better value for money it would be a fair comment.

Dicehunter · 6 Nov 2015 at 02:02

Kaapstad said:
Have you used both setups ?

4 TXs are the best option @2160p

Not only are they consistantly faster than Fury Xs or 980 Ti's in games but that massive 12gb frame buffer really does come in handy at the resolution with multiple cards

Although the 980 Ti is better value for money than a TitanX, for longevity I personally would still go with the TitanX even as a single card option.

Small Pascal when it arrives will make 6gb cards obsolete but this won't apply to 12gb TitanXs. It will only be with the arrival of big Pascal that the TitanXs will be outclassed on the frame buffer size.

OP if you are looking to buy one or two cards the 980 Ti is still the best all round option and won't be much slower than Small Pascal when it arrives. Only look at TitanXs if you want to run multiple cards @2160p.

A single Titan X and a single 980 Ti are on par with the 980 Ti surpassing the Titan X most of the time as it has higher clocks etc...most reviews have shown this.

I'd only use a Titan X when doing 4K and then I'd run a minimum of 2 for the higher amount of memory.

At this moment in time the Titan X really is irrelevant for anything under 4K as a 980 Ti does surpass it.

SGTMASON · 6 Nov 2015 at 02:34

Yeah, these arguments/comparisons crop up time and time again...

I look at it this way...

If ALL graphics cards, be it 780ti's, 980ti's, Fury X's, Nano's, Titan X's etc etc... Were the same price?

What would 99.9% of people buy?