• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Titan X

Totally missed that one..

Wonder how 4GB 960's in SLI would compare to a single 970...
 
DASHlT said:
They said the same thing about the Original Titan, and still 6gb isn't needed.
Click to expand...


That is not correct. One member here - Baasha, I think - ran 3x 4K moitors with Titans and ran out of VRAM. And IIRC he wasn't using particularly high quality settings.

And let's not forget the possible qualitative improvements in textures at lower resolutions. Skyrim showed what could be done. Now take that up to 11 with 4K support.
 
Quartz-1 said:
That is not correct. One member here - Baasha, I think - ran 3x 4K moitors with Titans and ran out of VRAM. And IIRC he wasn't using particularly high quality settings.

And let's not forget the possible qualitative improvements in textures at lower resolutions. Skyrim showed what could be done. Now take that up to 11 with 4K support.
Click to expand...

So you are telling me 6gb isn't enough for 12k?

How many people run 12k monitor's? Maybe 100 overall in the world. Then yes, and a VERY EXTREME situation 6gb isn't enough.

So you are right 6gb of memory isn't enough for 12k. I think we should make everyone go with 12k from now on and just ignore 4k and 5k and 8k resolutions!

Thank you Basha!
 
Since 6GB isn't enough, thats why there is 12GB on Titan X.

Until someone decides to run 24K.
 
A lot of developers also have mutli screen setups so I could see them wanting 12 GB vram. In any case, since when is more a bad thing?
 
If rumors are true, the new Titan will cost $999-1300, if that is in fact true then I HIGHLY doubt it will be 40-50% faster than a 980. Its just not the way Nvidia does business. IMO the Titan will be 30% faster at most given the price (price was semi confirmed by a distributor). If the Titan was 50% faster than a 980 then you can bet your ass they would charge $2k+ for it. Not only for exclusivity, but being that it has no competition as of right now.
 
Igroock said:
If rumors are true, the new Titan will cost $999-1300, if that is in fact true then I HIGHLY doubt it will be 40-50% faster than a 980. Its just not the way Nvidia does business. IMO the Titan will be 30% faster at most given the price (price was semi confirmed by a distributor). If the Titan was 50% faster than a 980 then you can bet your ass they would charge $2k+ for it. Not only for exclusivity, but being that it has no competition as of right now.
Click to expand...

Well prepare to be wrong if you think it'll just be 30%.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Agreed, original Titan was 33% over the 680 for $1000.
Going by these numbers: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan/27.html

50% for $1,300 definitely possible.
Click to expand...
I am going off of Titan Z price/performance. I just dont see how Nvidia can offer a 50% boost in performance for half the price of its predecessor (Z). Thats what I was referring to when I said its not the way NVidia does business. Hell if they do then more power to them, especially after the 970 fiasco.

IMO it would be rather stupid to offer a 50% boost for half the cost of the Z. Nvidia knows they can charge a hefty premium for such a boost in speed, which is why I think the people who are "guessing" the price are wrong, or Nvidia just decided to be really generous and give X practically away. I doubt its the latter.
 
This is hilarious, it use to be "Nvidia why don't you give us more VRAM like AMD" when the 600 and 700 series came out, now with this titan x its all like, "Nvidia, why so much VRAM?". The internet never ceases to amaze me...:confused:
 
Igroock said:
I am going off of Titan Z price/performance. I just dont see how Nvidia can offer a 50% boost in performance for half the price of its predecessor (Z). Thats what I was referring to when I said its not the way NVidia does business. Hell if they do then more power to them, especially after the 970 fiasco. IMO it would be rather stupid to offer a 50% boost for half the cost of the Z. Nvidia knows they can charge a hefty premium for such a boost in speed, which is why I think the people who are "guessing" the price are wrong, or Nvidia just decided to be really generous and give X practically away. I doubt its the latter.
Click to expand...

Logic is not good here. Z is based on old architecture. The only comparison which is logical is with the 980. 980 has fantastic performance based on a cut down chip. Now the full chip is coming with price proportionally higher but not that high as Z since saving is due to better architecture. The place of Z is now in museum. A card with dual X GPUs would be the present equivalent of Z and could carry price in its range.
 
Stev3FrencH said:
This is hilarious, it use to be "Nvidia why don't you give us more VRAM like AMD" when the 600 and 700 series came out, now with this titan x its all like, "Nvidia, why so much VRAM?". The internet never ceases to amaze me...:confused:
Click to expand...

They did give people more ram. Thats why there was 4gb 670/680/770's. and 3gb of the 780/780ti's.

The reason they didn't go 6gb with the 780/780ti's is it would of made Titan useless for gaming at the $1000 price point.

Remember Nvidia marketed the Titan with 6gb as a high end gaming video card. Not as a compute video card.

Thats why people bitched about having more memory on the 780/780ti's. No one wanted to spend $1000 on a card that was slower then a 780ti just to have 6gb of memory.
 
DASHlT said:
They did give people more ram. Thats why there was 4gb 670/680/770's. and 3gb of the 780/780ti's.

The reason they didn't go 6gb with the 780/780ti's is it would of made Titan useless for gaming at the $1000 price point.

Remember Nvidia marketed the Titan with 6gb as a high end gaming video card. Not as a compute video card.

Thats why people bitched about having more memory on the 780/780ti's. No one wanted to spend $1000 on a card that was slower then a 780ti just to have 6gb of memory.
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure those higher VRAM cards were not "reference" Nvidia cards, but AIB partners giving people what Nvidia wasn't out of the gate.
 
Z is not the predecessor of X either, it was vanilla Titan.

Z is two Titans bolted onto the same PCB.

Just in the same way that 295x will not be the predecessory of 390x, 290x is.
 
Stev3FrencH said:
Im pretty sure those higher VRAM cards were not "reference" Nvidia cards, but AIB partners giving people what Nvidia wasn't out of the gate.
Click to expand...

No, the ONLY 6gb that was released later was the Titan Black. Otherwise AIB were not allowed to make 6gb 780/780ti's.

If you do research, you will only see Titan/Titan black as 6gb cards.

Maybe at the EOL of the 780ti's Nvidia allowed them.
 
DASHlT said:
No, the ONLY 6gb that was released later was the Titan Black. Otherwise AIB were not allowed to make 6gb 780/780ti's.

If you do research, you will only see Titan/Titan black as 6gb cards.

Maybe at the EOL of the 780ti's Nvidia allowed them.
Click to expand...

I don't need you to tell me to do research, I am well aware that the Titan and Titan Black were the only 6gb cards from Nvidia. And you are correct in assuming that the 780 and 780ti's might be allowed to have 6gb versions at EOL from AIB, but not because Nvidia configured them as such, (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487040). But my statement still stands, Nvidia did not allow as much VRAM, now that they are offering 12gb people are saying it's too much. I just find it ironic is all.
 
This thing will certainly cost 1k+. I hope they do it the way they did last time and release cut down versions that are just as fast for cheaper.
 
One can never have too much VRAM. Running out GPU horsepower feels natural. Running into a VRAM wall before then feels terrible. It's like system RAM in the sense that some people just totally overdo it because they don't want to ever worry about it.
 
DASHlT said:
So you are telling me 6gb isn't enough for 12k?
Click to expand...

Well, he said someone running at 6k (what three 4k monitors would be) ran out of memory at 6GB, so I'd say 6GB is nowhere near enough for 12k.
 
DASHlT said:
So you are telling me 6gb isn't enough for 12k?

How many people run 12k monitor's? Maybe 100 overall in the world. Then yes, and a VERY EXTREME situation 6gb isn't enough.

So you are right 6gb of memory isn't enough for 12k. I think we should make everyone go with 12k from now on and just ignore 4k and 5k and 8k resolutions!

Thank you Basha!
Click to expand...

3x 4k is 3/4 of 8k, not 12k, to keep the aspect ratio if you double height you must double length leading to 4 times the area. 12k would be the equivalent of 9 4k displays in a wall.
 
titanx_90_3.jpg


creative_voodoo2_12mb_03.JPG


12MB at the time was too much. Now 12GB is too much. One day, 12TB will be too much.

Meanwhile, it's more of the same™ I think.

What if you put the next gen chip in with 12GB ... would it make sense then?
 
exdriver said:
*img*

*img*

12MB at the time was too much. Now 12GB is too much. One day, 12TB will be too much.

Meanwhile, it's more of the same™ I think.

What if you put the next gen chip in with 12GB ... would it make sense then?
Click to expand...

12meg then wasn't too much.
 
Trimlock said:
12meg then wasn't too much.
Click to expand...

I agree.

At the time, though, people would say that. And now they still say it and if I had to guess they'll keep saying it.

Is 12GB too much? Better too much than too little here. Over the life of the card, say five years, probably not.

Is $1300 too much? It is for me.
 
exdriver said:
I agree.

At the time, though, people would say that. And now they still say it and if I had to guess they'll keep saying it.

Is 12GB too much? Better too much than too little here. Over the life of the card, say five years, probably not.

Is $1300 too much? It is for me.
Click to expand...

I will agree ... $1300 it's too much!
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Nvidia needs all the Titan hype they can get before Fiji crushes them... It was a calculated move to get the card out there before they get sidelined by a $600 GPU.

This will be the Titan Z vs 295 X2 all over again.
Click to expand...

Except Titan X has 50% better specs than the 980 and the 390x has 45% better specs than than the 290X. The chance of the 390X being faster than Big Maxwell is quite slim.
 
390x is a totally different audience with only 4GB of VRAM IMO.

The ref 980 is 24.x% faster than a custom cooled 290x according to the [H] OC vs OC review. If the Titan X is 40% faster than the 980 it'll be 74% faster than the 290x (OC vs OC). The 390x would have to make a hell of a jump. Never mind it's real competition is the non-DP GM200 (980ti?).
 
Last edited:
Dayaks said:
390x is a totally different audience with only 4GB of VRAM IMO.

The ref 980 is 24.x% faster than a custom cooled 290x according to the [H] OC vs OC review. If the Titan X is 40% faster than the 980 it'll be 74% faster than the 290x (OC vs OC). The 390x would have to make a hell of a jump. Never mind it's real competition is the non-DP GM200 (980ti?).
Click to expand...

Yup, people are way overestimating AMD's ability. I don't see them coming out on top with 390X vs NVIDIA's Titan X and future GM200 cards.
 
5150Joker said:
Yup, people are way overestimating AMD's ability. I don't see them coming out on top with 390X vs NVIDIA's Titan X and future GM200 cards.
Click to expand...

You and the rest are the problem. You just WANT AMD to fail, which will only hurt you. The fact that people like you discount AMD thinking they cant do a damn thing is sad. The moment AMD fails is the moment youll see how much competition there really is. Nvidia products are a byproduct of competition. You look like the guy that just cant wait for $1000 price tags on 970/980 level of performance. Sad really.
 
Igroock said:
You and the rest are the problem. You just WANT AMD to fail, which will only hurt you. The fact that people like you discount AMD thinking they cant do a damn thing is sad. The moment AMD fails is the moment youll see how much competition there really is. Nvidia products are a byproduct of competition. You look like the guy that just cant wait for $1000 price tags on 970/980 level of performance. Sad really.
Click to expand...

If I am included in "the rest" I was going for more realistic. I'd love AMD to provide a better value solution. I do not think they'll win the FPS race but time will tell.

I had 7970 trifire. I put a 270x in a relative's computer a year ago. I'll buy AMD if it makes sense.
 
Dayaks said:
If I am included in "the rest" I was going for more realistic. I'd love AMD to provide a better value solution. I do not think they'll win the FPS race but time will tell.

I had 7970 trifire. I put a 270x in a relative's computer a year ago. I'll buy AMD if it makes sense.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I don't think anyone wants AMD to fail, but we should be talking realistic here. I can see the 390x being around 980 equivalent easily, I might even believe it'll beat it by say 15%, but each percentage higher makes it exponentially more unbelievable. If the Titan X is 50% faster than the 980 right now, it would definitely be near impossible to believe the 390x could be anywhere close to that level. I hope AMD makes me eat those words, but the chances of that happening are probably as good as winning the powerball IMHO.
 
Igroock said:
You and the rest are the problem. You just WANT AMD to fail, which will only hurt you. The fact that people like you discount AMD thinking they cant do a damn thing is sad. The moment AMD fails is the moment youll see how much competition there really is. Nvidia products are a byproduct of competition. You look like the guy that just cant wait for $1000 price tags on 970/980 level of performance. Sad really.
Click to expand...

Settle down little fella. Realistically it doesn't seem probable the 390x will outrun the Titan X but that doesn't mean anyone wants AMD to fail. If it hits even 90% of Titan X performance at $600 it will have succeeded.
 
LurkerLito said:
Agreed, I don't think anyone wants AMD to fail, but we should be talking realistic here. I can see the 390x being around 980 equivalent easily, I might even believe it'll beat it by say 15%, but each percentage higher makes it exponentially more unbelievable. If the Titan X is 50% faster than the 980 right now, it would definitely be near impossible to believe the 390x could be anywhere close to that level. I hope AMD makes me eat those words, but the chances of that happening are probably as good as winning the powerball IMHO.
Click to expand...

I doubt it will be 50% faster than the 980. Probably more along the lines of 35-40%. From the rumored specs of the 390x, it will crush the 980 by a good margin. It is very possible the 390x will even beat the Titan X in performance after all it is rumored to use HBM memory so it will have vastly superior memory bandwidth.

5150Joker said:
Settle down little fella. Realistically it doesn't seem probable the 390x will outrun the Titan X but that doesn't mean anyone wants AMD to fail. If it hits even 90% of Titan X performance at $600 it will have succeeded.
Click to expand...

This, the 390x doesn't have to beat the Titan x, it just has to offer a solid value. It will be faster than the 980 which is currently the high end go to card. 1300$ is some big $$ for a gpu and that alone will turn most folks off from it. Like I said though the 390x could very well just be faster than the Titan X.
 
ebduncan said:
I doubt it will be 50% faster than the 980. Probably more along the lines of 35-40%. From the rumored specs of the 390x, it will crush the 980 by a good margin. It is very possible the 390x will even beat the Titan X in performance after all it is rumored to use HBM memory so it will have vastly superior memory bandwidth.


This, the 390x doesn't have to beat the Titan x, it just has to offer a solid value. It will be faster than the 980 which is currently the high end go to card. 1300$ is some big $$ for a gpu and that alone will turn most folks off from it. Like I said though the 390x could very well just be faster than the Titan X.
Click to expand...

But the real competitor to the 390x will be the non-DP GM200 (980ti?) nVidia will definitely have it ready by June I would think.

What I hope to see is if you are into single card, high refresh rates (where HBM will really shine), the 390x will be the card to get. The circumstances where 4GB will really be beneficial is only really high refresh (144 Hz) IMO. Down the road a 8GB HBM card should destroy GDDR5, if nVidia is still using GDDR5 that is, since at 8GB bandwidth becomes much more important.

But again, a lot of speculation.
 
Anyone else not getting this? can't ever see myself paying this much for a card like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top