2016 TITAN X vs GTX 1080 at BabelTech

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,634
Our friends at BabelTechReviews have gotten their hands on the new 2016 version of the GeForce GTX TITAN X video card and put it through several paces compared to the GTX 1080 and the TITAN X does not disappoint. Of course if you spend $1200 on a video card, "disappointment" is something that should not be on your short list of reactions.
 
I shouldn't be surprised that their benchmarks were basically 15%-25% faster than a 1080 for double the price. I'm just not sure how i feel about that.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
I shouldn't be surprised that their benchmarks were basically 15% faster than a 1080 for double the price. I'm just not sure how i feel about that.
Click to expand...

You should feel good. It's running 1650mhz on average out the box. 200mhz lower than a 1080
 
Ieldra said:
You should feel good. It's running 1650mhz on average out the box. 200mhz lower than a 1080
Click to expand...

It runs slower because it has more transistors to keep in tolerance; not because it is some new revolutionary design that rose from the ashes of Pascal. With that said it is a really nice card and if it fits your budget then go for it.
 
I would imagine the yields have to be low on such a large GPU causing cost to rise. Also its NVIDIA just charging more because they have the high end market. The big question is will there be a 1080 Ti, I feel like this time we may not see it and the next update will be Volta.
 
ir0nw0lf said:
I think the disappointment will come at that point in the future when/if the value of the card tanks hard and those who spent $1200 start crying in their spilled milk over it. :cry:
Click to expand...
Funny statement if you think anyone that spends $1200 on a video card is worried about future resale value.
 
cageymaru said:
It runs slower because it has more transistors to keep in tolerance; not because it is some new revolutionary design that rose from the ashes of Pascal. With that said it is a really nice card and if it fits your budget then go for it.
Click to expand...

Your point?

Mine is that this quite a lot more OC headroom than a 1080, especially on water.
 
Right in line with the 1060, 1070, and 1080. Nvidia has really put together a consistent lineup this time. Consistent performance jumps right up the line, pricing is a bit killer but they've got a popular product with no competition so you can't really expect great prices.
 
ir0nw0lf said:
I think the disappointment will come at that point in the future when/if the value of the card tanks hard and those who spent $1200 start crying in their spilled milk over it. :cry:
Click to expand...

Imagine how the people who spend 250K on a Ferrari and drive it off the lot... instantly losing 50K in value because now it's "used".

Gotta pay to play, its like that with any high end gear. As they say it's good to be the king... and right now nvidia is has the absolute best you can get. That's worth something to those with deep pockets. It's about 400 dollars out of my price range, but I can still be excited for it :)
 
so wait for the TI series and get the 1080ti at half the cost that will match the performance
 
Impressive first showing for Pascal Titan X. Unsure what the two last numbers (368.98) are referring to.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
I shouldn't be surprised that their benchmarks were basically 15%-25% faster than a 1080 for double the price. I'm just not sure how i feel about that.
Click to expand...
I'm reading elsewhere that 1070 SLI may keep up with Titan but cost a lot less.
 
Putz said:
so wait for the TI series and get the 1080ti at half the cost that will match the performance
Click to expand...


This is not going to be the case. 1080ti will be $800 ($900 FE) and be cut (up to) 25% from full pascal on the die. You're looking at a 15% reduction in performance. This is what I think the new 1080ti will be... 15% faster than a 1080.

I don't even know what they are going to do about the VRAM. 12gb?? They can't do 6gb. Maybe they will only go GDDR5 8gbps. (Unlikely)
 
When we can do 4k 60fps on all but the newest games at $300, call me. Otherwise, this is definitely not worth the money they are asking for it. (Not criticizing those who buy one or two, just that I do not agree with those who do buy it.) It is a shame there is no way to see what the on screen results are as far as appearance goes as compared to AMD but I suppose it does not matter for many as long as they get the highest fps and minimum fps they can.
 
ManofGod said:
When we can do 4k 60fps on all but the newest games at $300, call me. Otherwise, this is definitely not worth the money they are asking for it. (Not criticizing those who buy one or two, just that I do not agree with those who do buy it.) It is a shame there is no way to see what the on screen results are as far as appearance goes as compared to AMD but I suppose it does not matter for many as long as they get the highest fps and minimum fps they can.
Click to expand...
Are you really going to start with the IQ thing that has been debunked, again? Most people complaining had limited color range enabled on their monitors.

When you aren't peddling promises of AMD getting better with the next API/Driver/Year/Architecture you're trying spin high performance as some kind of misdirection on NV's behalf to distract from 'appearance'. It *appears* to me that you really can't accept that NV is offering cards a full 3/4 tiers above AMD's best right now. It sucks but that's how it is.
 
Ieldra said:
Are you really going to start with the IQ thing that has been debunked, again? Most people complaining had limited color range enabled on their monitors
Click to expand...

That is nice, I am sure you have no idea what you are talking about but go ahead, keep on keeping on. Me, I noticed an immediate difference between AMD and Nvidia on my Samsung 28 inch 4k monitor. (AMD definitely appeared better for what ever reason, such as it is.) The so called debunked you like to say is hardly debunked.

Oh well, I simply said what I said because I DO notice a difference and no, it is not a placebo effect. Now, if you do not have anything but one manufacturer or another, you may never see the difference because you do not know it is there. Also, screen images online will not tell you anything because you are viewing through the monitor you are also gaming on. You would literally need to switch the cards on your own personal machine and see for yourself so there really is no way to test for this online.

Edit: As far as having the limited color range on monitors go, nope, did not happen. :D Look, I am an AMD fanboy and make no qualms about it but, I also have no issue recommending Nvidia to someone or complementing them when they purchase one. I know what I see and there is a definite difference, even on the desktop.
 
bigdogchris said:
I'm reading elsewhere that 1070 SLI may keep up with Titan but cost a lot less.
Click to expand...
Slightly better in raw framerate, but keep in mind the frametimes and compatibility. General rule of thumb is that 2-way SLI needs to be around 20-25% faster to offer close to the same experience as a single card. Tom's review of the Titan X shows frametime variance for the card to be nearly flat across all the games and resolutions they tested.
 
ManofGod said:
That is nice, I am sure you have no idea what you are talking about but go ahead, keep on keeping on. Me, I noticed an immediate difference between AMD and Nvidia on my Samsung 28 inch 4k monitor. (AMD definitely appeared better for what ever reason, such as it is.) The so called debunked you like to say is hardly debunked.

Oh well, I simply said what I said because I DO notice a difference and no, it is not a placebo effect. Now, if you do not have anything but one manufacturer or another, you may never see the difference because you do not know it is there. Also, screen images online will not tell you anything because you are viewing through the monitor you are also gaming on. You would literally need to switch the cards on your own personal machine and see for yourself so there really is no way to test for this online.

Edit: As far as having the limited color range on monitors go, nope, did not happen. :D Look, I am an AMD fanboy and make no qualms about it but, I also have no issue recommending Nvidia to someone or complementing them when they purchase one. I know what I see and there is a definite difference, even on the desktop.
Click to expand...

No, there's no difference unless you're running with limited color range. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, you can't tell by looking at screenshots of the desktop. Big whoop.

You should really try to be original at least, I don't know why NV's success upsets you but if you're going to lash out you should at least be convincing mate.
 
Take the bickering to PM or USE THE IGNORE SYSTEM. The bannings will stop when morale improves.
 
Oops, sorry, did not see your post until after I posted. Was not trying to start a war either, just that I noticed a difference, not really sure why but it is there.

So, when is the [H] review coming?
 
A long long time ago, like in 2008 I was always building to be bleeding edge with my gaming rig. Today I just have a clean build with quality parts and make them last until the paint falls off. My system is finely tweaked and well oiled and my tiring 660ti has done very very well playing the best of games on high settings. This last generation of games have put it to the test and have had me shopping for a new card. I have not honestly been overly impressed with these offerings especially reading threw newegg reviews and looking at the issues with 1080's and 1070's. With all the new architecture not yet mature, VR really just at the beginning stages and games that can handle it. My thoughts are that I will just pick up a 1060 and watch what the future of gaming evolves into. I would do a 1070 but $150 over MSRP gives me pause so I may just wait. I think that what they learn from this generation of cards will lead to some interesting stuff then I will make a new build.
 
My hard limit on price was the Founders Edition price on a 1070 (449 USD). Picked up the ASUS in sig for 439.99 USD which is well below 150 over MSRP (379 USD).

FWIW I think you'll be happy with the 1060 if you're not planning on going 1440 max details anytime soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AK0tA
like this
AK0tA said:
A long long time ago, like in 2008 I was always building to be bleeding edge with my gaming rig. Today I just have a clean build with quality parts and make them last until the paint falls off. My system is finely tweaked and well oiled and my tiring 660ti has done very very well playing the best of games on high settings. This last generation of games have put it to the test and have had me shopping for a new card. I have not honestly been overly impressed with these offerings especially reading threw newegg reviews and looking at the issues with 1080's and 1070's. With all the new architecture not yet mature, VR really just at the beginning stages and games that can handle it. My thoughts are that I will just pick up a 1060 and watch what the future of gaming evolves into. I would do a 1070 but $150 over MSRP gives me pause so I may just wait. I think that what they learn from this generation of cards will lead to some interesting stuff then I will make a new build.
Click to expand...


Stop gaming then if you're gonna wait to see where it goes. It changes every couple years. Playing the wait and see game is never ending
 
Armenius said:
Kyle will probably buy two and put them in his own personal machine to replace the Mitans ;).
Click to expand...

Yes. Kyle has the itch. The itch to upgrade from itan to itan, let's call it itis.

Jokes aside, it's an awesome card, but the price is steep. As a frivolous gaming purchase it's a hard sell to me, there are a great many things I'd rather do with the cash. Having said that, if I had the cash to spare I would buy it in the bat of an eye, just to toy with it. Then I would play counterstrike, that's all I play really :p

That's basically what I did with my 980ti! I've benchmarked it more than I've played demanding games
 
DPI said:
meh, you're paying in SLI headaches.
Click to expand...

Also worth noting this card when overclocked is almost twice as powerful (on paper) as a single overclocked 1070, so even when mgpu scaling is working well this thing will be matching it I expect. Combination of the fact that the 1070 is now a 25% cut and that the damned card overclocks basically the same as GP104 :p Insane eh ?
According to PCPer this runs at around 1650mhz on average under load (throttling). This means once you improve the cooling (either max fan or waterblock) and raise the power limits you're looking at almost a 25% OC and that's just 2ghz. We already have one user here running 2100mhz, which is nuts. This is 980Ti level headroom my friends

This is a very good purchase for long term 1440p. In the short term you can run high refresh rates in demanding games (provided the games aren't CPU limited) and in the future you'll play 1440p just fine for years.
 
i am curious to know if anyone started a group buy on paypal what sort of discount could one get if 500 units were bought from nvidia
 
Ieldra said:
According to PCPer this runs at around 1650mhz on average under load (throttling). This means once you improve the cooling (either max fan or waterblock) and raise the power limits you're looking at almost a 25% OC and that's just 2ghz. We already have one user here running 2100mhz, which is nuts. This is 980Ti level headroom my friends

This is a very good purchase for long term 1440p. In the short term you can run high refresh rates in demanding games (provided the games aren't CPU limited) and in the future you'll play 1440p just fine for years.
Click to expand...

Yep, Nvidia really knocked it out of the park again with this card. But then for the enthusiast pricepoint and fact it's a halo/flagship card, one would expect that.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
I shouldn't be surprised that their benchmarks were basically 15%-25% faster than a 1080 for double the price. I'm just not sure how i feel about that.
Click to expand...
How can these numbers be so different? Hardware Canucks got 30-50%

The NVIDIA TITAN X 12GB Performance Review - Page 18

If we’re talking about real-world gameplay performance, the TITAN X is able to provide framerates that are simply mind boggling. We’re talking about 30% to 50% higher than a GTX 1080 Founders Edition
 
rinaldo00 said:
How can these numbers be so different? Hardware Canucks got 30-50%

The NVIDIA TITAN X 12GB Performance Review - Page 18

If we’re talking about real-world gameplay performance, the TITAN X is able to provide framerates that are simply mind boggling. We’re talking about 30% to 50% higher than a GTX 1080 Founders Edition
Click to expand...
I don't know. I just went through all their data and from what the provide the performance delta is always 30-35%. I don't know what Hypergreatthing is referring to, but all the reviews I've seen so far puts it right around 30% faster on average.
 
I think at this point most of us understand fully that the Titan cards are not worth the dollar value put on them. And yet many of us (myself included) accept this reality and still buy the card because it is the "best" card on the market. It's just like anything, there are still way too many people out there willing to fork out the money despite it not being worth it (again, myself included) to ever boycott nvidia into being less shitty and pricing this thing lower, or releasing a card actually worthy of the price tag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top