NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X Video Card PREVIEW @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,629
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X Video Card PREVIEW - The TITAN X video card has 12GB of VRAM, not 11.5GB, 50% more streaming units, 50% more texture units, and 50% more CUDA cores than the current GTX 980 flagship NVIDIA GPU. While this is not our full TITAN X review, this preview focuses on what the TITAN X delivers when directly compared to the GTX 980.
 
Very nice indeed! I'm looking forward to the full monty. OCUK start selling them at 14:00 UK time tomorrow...

Fixed, thanks for the extra eyes. - KB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dayum.gif
 
Good lord!

Since this is still Maxwell, I'm going out on a ledge and assuming that there are no significant new features? Simply a maxed out version of the maxwell we already know?
 
Is the board layout the same as the 980? Would an aftermarket cooler compatible with a 980 work on this bad boy?
 
Zarathustra[H];1041490903 said:
Is the board layout the same as the 980? Would an aftermarket cooler compatible with a 980 work on this bad boy?
Click to expand...

I'd say pretty unlikely since the ref 980 was 5 phase and this is 6. EK is supposed to have a block out in a week or two IIRC.
 
With regard to the performance right now, do we have figures for how the original Titan has improved between launch and now?
 
I know it is unlikely it will, but if this thing supports mixed rotation mixed resolution Surround, like we were promised from the AMD Omega drivers with an R9 285 (but doesn't seem to work, at least yet) I would go out and buy this thing the second it hits the market.
 
So compared to GTX980, double the price, 50% more hardware, 1/3 more performance. Yup, a bargain. [/sarcasm]

BTW, shouldn't we call this card GTX990 and not Titan now that DP/fp64 is gone as this is now nothing but a GTX gaming card?
 
Not sure how I feel about slapping an award on a product based on a preview.
Kind of disappointed by the gains too. Although I suppose 4K gaming just isn't feasible yet anyway.
 
Ph.D said:
Not sure how I feel about slapping an award on a product based on a preview.
Click to expand...


That was 100% my call, not Brent's. As always, we share all our data with you so you can come to your own conclusions if you do not agree with ours.
 
Ph.D said:
Not sure how I feel about slapping an award on a product based on a preview.
Kind of disappointed by the gains too. Although I suppose 4K gaming just isn't feasible yet anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they've already done part of the complete review, it just isn't completely edited/finished yet.
 
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit:eek::eek:

The damn GPU has almost as much RAM as my entire system......

Anyway.....$1000.

So what I'd like to see is one TitanX vs two GTX 980, pretty close to the same as far as dollars go.:D:D

Thank you. You can send that GPU to my house when you get bored with it.
 
They say the price is niche... well not that much...
A good GTX980 is around 730,
A Titan X goes around 33% faster and enables 4K gaming truly.
so 730$ + 33% = 970.90
If you have the $$ to have a 4K monitor, the extra 40$ is peanuts.

And for us poor folks we'll have about 25 pounds of peanuts... to enjoy on our sub 4k monitors :)
 
Wolfkin said:
BTW, shouldn't we call this card GTX990 and not Titan now that DP/fp64 is gone as this is now nothing but a GTX gaming card?
Click to expand...

Even with the fact, Huang mentioned the Titan X still processes faster without it.

" Huang said a 16-core Intel Xeon would take 43 days to process the data. The original GeForce Titan would take six days and its replacement, last year’s GeForce Titan Black, would take five days. The new Titan X can do the same task in about 1.5 days"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2898...-1000-titan-x-the-most-advanced-gpu-ever.html
 
Wolfkin said:
BTW, shouldn't we call this card GTX990 and not Titan now that DP/fp64 is gone as this is now nothing but a GTX gaming card?
Click to expand...

Hence the name:
GeForce GTX Titan X

It's even in the thread title and everything.
 
Wolfkin said:
So compared to GTX980, double the price, 50% more hardware, 1/3 more performance. Yup, a bargain. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Price and performance have never scaled linearly. Not once in the history of GPU's. This is - in part - due to pricing models in thee industry, but also in part due to the level of difficulty in producing top end performance.

There are always limiting returns as you increase things. Double the ram rarely results in double the performance. Double the cores rarely results in double the performance. That doesn't mean that they don't cost double as much.

The more you spend on a GPU the less return you get as expressed in raw performance for every incremental dollar spent.

For some this is worth it, for others not.

Having unreasonable expectations of price scaling linearly with performance is - however - silly.
 
BroHamBone said:
Even with the fact, Huang mentioned the Titan X still processes faster without it.

" Huang said a 16-core Intel Xeon would take 43 days to process the data. The original GeForce Titan would take six days and its replacement, last year’s GeForce Titan Black, would take five days. The new Titan X can do the same task in about 1.5 days"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2898...-1000-titan-x-the-most-advanced-gpu-ever.html
Click to expand...

That's because that example is using FP32, which this card is great at. It is only FP64 that this card is not so great at.
 
Do we have any word when these will be hitting Amazon/Newegg... Or are we just playing the f5 waiting game?
 
I think I'll just wait for the 980Ti with 8gb. After the last TITAN literally being undercut after a few months by the 780Ti, I'm more hesitant this time around.

That, and my TITAN SC in SLI scores just as high if not higher in some cases than a 980 SLI config.
 
Enough with the value complaints ... it's just like the typical top gaming laptop is almost twice as expensive as the next model down (like 980M+4860 vs 970M+4720).
 
Put me in the not really impressed club. Those performance gains aren't that substantial to me. Maybe it's my old age making me more skeptical and harder to impress. :confused:
$799 would be reasonable. :D
 
Kyle/Brent--I noticed on the Nvidia site that they recommend minimum 24GB system ram and 48GB suggested--what were you all running on the test rig? Any idea what that is all about? How would it affect performance to use less ram? Thanx.
 
tordogs said:
Kyle/Brent--I noticed on the Nvidia site that they recommend minimum 24GB system ram and 48GB suggested--what were you all running on the test rig? Any idea what that is all about? How would it affect performance to use less ram? Thanx.
Click to expand...

Just had a note from another member checking the Titan X manual--said the ram numbers on the Nvidia site were a misprint--manual says 2-4 GB suggested.
 
$1000 and dipped below 30 FPS on FC4 @1440P was a bit shocking, although in fairness it was not that often

I thought something looked off though, in the 980 review it did better than the titan in FC4 at ultra settings but that 1.9 patch REALLY killed performance then because prior review has the 980 with same setting just killing performance

Soft shadow, hbao+, god ray, simulated fur etc.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/01/07/far_cry_4_video_card_performance_review/4#.VQiN4i6Fk8o
 
tordogs said:
Kyle/Brent--I noticed on the Nvidia site that they recommend minimum 24GB system ram and 48GB suggested--what were you all running on the test rig? Any idea what that is all about? How would it affect performance to use less ram? Thanx.
Click to expand...

It was run on our 4.8GHz/1600MHz 16GB system. And no, none of the scenarios we used it in utilized system RAM available to it.
 
Interesting preview.

So, with 50% more streaming units, 50% more texture units, and 50% more cores; actual game iimprovements at 4K only ends up being +/- 33%.

Even with gameworks we are looking at a best case scenario of +/-33% for this card. Is there potentially a bottleneck somewhere?
 
Yakk said:
Interesting preview.

So, with 50% more streaming units, 50% more texture units, and 50% more cores; actual game iimprovements at 4K only ends up being +/- 33%.

Even with gameworks we are looking at a best case scenario of +/-33% for this card. Is there potentially a bottleneck somewhere?
Click to expand...

guru3d had some charts where it was pegging out the TDP limit. It needs some modding' love.
 
Wolfkin said:
So compared to GTX980, double the price, 50% more hardware, 1/3 more performance. Yup, a bargain. [/sarcasm]

BTW, shouldn't we call this card GTX990 and not Titan now that DP/fp64 is gone as this is now nothing but a GTX gaming card?
Click to expand...

DejaWiz said:
Hence the name:
GeForce GTX Titan X

It's even in the thread title and everything.
Click to expand...
The TITAN has always been branded and sold in the GeForce GTX line, going back to the original GK110 that did have FP64.
 
shad0w4life said:
$1000 and dipped below 30 FPS on FC4 @1440P was a bit shocking, although in fairness it was not that often

I thought something looked off though, in the 980 review it did better than the titan in FC4 at ultra settings but that 1.9 patch REALLY killed performance then because prior review has the 980 with same setting just killing performance

Soft shadow, hbao+, god ray, simulated fur etc.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/01/07/far_cry_4_video_card_performance_review/4#.VQiN4i6Fk8o
Click to expand...

You cannot compare performance in regards to Soft Shadows with earlier releases of FC4. The latest 1.9.0 patch in FC4 changed Soft Shadows and they are now a performance killer. Image quality has been improved in regards to Soft Shadows. The tests today, were shown with Soft Shadows turned ON, Enhanced Godrays, HBAO+ and Simulated fur on patch 1.9.0. These are the highest possible in-game settings in FC4 and are very demanding now.
 
the one thing I've noticed all over the net, is power consumption levels are all over the place, you have some that put it at 40W less than a 290x, and others that put it at 20@ over a 290x.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Note that our card did exceed the boost clock consistently at 1190 MHz while gaming.
Click to expand...

The question is how much of a golden review sample it is.

General release will tell.

I'm betting these things will be pretty damned awesome fitted with a water block :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top