AMD R9 390X, Nvidia GTX 980 Ti and Titan X Benchmarks Leaked

TaintedSquirrel said:
6 months from now when the 980 Ti launches:


The cycle continues.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but I would never (as of my current mindset) go Titan series. The hypothetical 980Ti does have a nice enough boost in performance with a sane price jump from the core 980. At least, that's how I see it right now. Any opinions on 980 vs 980Ti vs TitanX?
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Were people expecting a single Titan X to beat 980 SLi? Because that sounds far-fetched.
Click to expand...
Yes, if you look back at all the fanboy estimates they were predicting 50%+ better performance than a single 980. So do the math.
I knew it was about 30% faster than a 980, which Kyle confirmed.
 
Yeah so basicly if your willing to blow a grand on your graphics card.. buy the 980 SLI insted and it will be faster.

Though yeah.. if ya got 2k burning a hole in your wallet, then grab a Titan X SLI set up.
 
eclypse said:
Yeah so basicly if your willing to blow a grand on your graphics card.. buy the 980 SLI insted and it will be faster.

Though yeah.. if ya got 2k burning a hole in your wallet, then grab a Titan X SLI set up.
Click to expand...

There's a certain simplicity and convenience to one gpu, a smaller psu, and no sli quirks.
 
Everyone needs to settle down until someone BIOs mods it (and preferably waterblock). It's TDP limited like crazy right now. SETTLE DOWN FOLKS.
 
Dayaks said:
Everyone needs to settle down until someone BIOs mods it (and preferably waterblock). It's TDP limited like crazy right now. SETTLE DOWN FOLKS.
Click to expand...

Not everyone thats gonna buy a titan x going to bios mod a $1000 card. So those things should be irrelevant.
 
xorbe said:
There's a certain simplicity and convenience to one gpu, a smaller psu, and no sli quirks.
Click to expand...


I guess but 2 is always cooler looking then 1 card hehe. Have not run into a single sli problem yet and the max draw from the wall on load was 560 watts. Water pump and 14 fans and 3 hard drives. Crazy low!!

When I had quad 7970s 2-3 years ago I was pulling g close to 800+ watts on ea p/s! Had 2 1600 watt ultra power supplies.
 
$1000 for a GPU, buying a better third-party heatsink should be no problem. Custom loop or even G10 + CLC.
 
Pretty much. If you can afford a $1000 GPU, you should be able to easily dish out another $1000 or more for a custom loop.
 
From the reviews I would assume the new AMD card when released is going to smoke the Titan X.
 
PRIME1 said:
Yes but the 290x actually gaming is 10db higher which is a lot. I can't imagine anyone buying a 290x and crippling it's performance by running it in quite mode.
Click to expand...

that is ACTUALLY gaming unless you set it to uber mode. or you know, like most people, buy a custom AIB cooled card.
 
PRIME1 said:
Yes but the 290x actually gaming is 10db higher which is a lot. I can't imagine anyone buying a 290x and crippling it's performance by running it in quite mode.
Click to expand...

10db higher is just noisier, 290X reference in quiet mode is WAY too noisy. Same goes with Titan X and the coil whine in Titan X would drive me crazy.

40db+coil whine on the Titan X. Thats painful if you try to make a quiet PC.
 
I guess we can confirm the leaks from the very first post are FAKE.
4K numbers are too high; 1600p too low; power numbers are too low.

edit: Checking other sources, power usage to be pretty close to Chiphell's.
 
Last edited:
I love it when a high end enthusiast part launches and the jealousy and hating begins.

If you cannot fathom dropping 1k on a card, it isn't for you. Bleeding edge is expensive.
 
Igroock said:
Yes, if you look back at all the fanboy estimates they were predicting 50%+ better performance than a single 980. So do the math.
I knew it was about 30% faster than a 980, which Kyle confirmed.
Click to expand...

Nobody predicted 50% across the board. However, the card does vary from 30-50% based on who's review you read which makes it a very solid upgrade over 980.
 
5150Joker said:
Nobody predicted 50% across the board. However, the card does vary from 30-50% based on who's review you read which makes it a very solid upgrade over 980.
Click to expand...

actually most people assumed 50%, since 50% more cores, 300% more memory, and about 30% memory bandwidth increase.
 
5150Joker said:
Nobody predicted 50% across the board. However, the card does vary from 30-50% based on who's review you read which makes it a very solid upgrade over 980.
Click to expand...

~50% seems to be the figure when overclocked (against a stock 980). Of course, overclocks can vary immensely and are never guaranteed.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
actually most people assumed 50%, since 50% more cores, 300% more memory, and about 30% memory bandwidth increase.
Click to expand...

Who's most? I saw 30-40% from most, everyone predicted 50% more transistors which isn't the same thing. I don't think anyone was naive enough to think there'd be a 50% linear increase, especially w/the clocks that low. When this thing is OC'd back to up GM204 levels, it does get much closer to the magical 50% mark though. I am very disappointed in the cooler though, NVIDIA was obviously lazy and didn't bother redesigning it. In that regard AMD going with AIO is a wise choice.
 
Last edited:
I was hoping for 40-50% which my lower bound wasn't too far off. I still think with a good bios and cooler you can get closer especially if it's truely voltage unlocked. Stock clocks are pretty low and I saw at least one site hitting 1416 boost OCed and the TDP limit. I don't think we know what these cards can really do quite yet.

LordEC had a very detailed analysis which predicted 30-35% IIRC. I agreed with him but still hoped for higher. :)
 
Last edited:
Patiently awaiting the 6gb x80/980 ti that ends up being cheaper and faster because of more oc headroom. Let's get to this beta testers, the faster these cards are bought the faster they will hit the used market and force a response from amd
 
Dayaks said:
LordEC had a very detailed analysis which predicted 30-35% IIRC. I agreed with him but still hoped for higher. :)
Click to expand...

LoL. Pretty funny to go through my speculation from back in Nov to now.

LordEC911 said:
It would have to be a minimum of 30% faster for it to make any sense.

There are far too many variables to call it one way or another.
If GM200/210 was on 28nm, they would be pushing close to the reticle limit, +600mm2.
With a die that size one would typically expect clocks to be lowered a decent amount compared to GM204. If they are able to keep clocks in the same neighborhood as GM204, that would go a long way.
It would also depend on if they go compute lite or not though I doubt they would go that route.

I agree that I don't think it is likely we see GM200/210 on 28nm, I personally think they will wait for 16FinFet or 16FinFet+ and we see a 400-500mm2 beast in 2H '15.
Click to expand...
They went GPU-lite with removing DP and 16FinFet got pushed back to Q3 '15 mass production rather than early Q2 '15.

LordEC911 said:
That is a terribad article. There should be about 50% more SMMs than GM204.
Math isn't Anton's strong suit...
Click to expand...
Yay.

LordEC911 said:
250w Nvidia TDP = +300w real world TDP.
AMD 300w TDP = ~250w Nvidia TDP
Click to expand...
Amazing.

Recent stuff:
LordEC911 said:
The ~50% increase in transistors means next to nothing about performance, it just means that they have a 600-620mm2 GPU on their hands.

The 50% increase in actual specs is what can be used to determine performance.
That means peformance will be ~40% better than the GTX980.

Now clockspeed, the larger you make a GPU, the more variables there are with voltage and speed. You typically don't clock as high as the smaller GPUs in the family. Obviously Maxwell 2 has made some significant strides in the clockspeed department but I would expect a ~10% decrease in clocks compared to GTX980.

So 30-35% over GTX980 seems about right.
That leaves room for a GTX980Ti to be ~15% better than GTX980.
Click to expand...

LordEC911 said:
It could definitely reach up to 40-50% better in some situations but IMO, on average, it will be a bit lower than that since scaling is never 100%.
Unless there was some glaring bottleneck in GM204 that they resolved in GM200/210... But I think most of us believe that GM204 is a very well balanced GPU.
Click to expand...

LordEC911 said:
50% more means perfect scaling of specs and similar clockspeeds to GTX980.
I doubt a 600-620mm2 GPU is going to clock the same as a 400mm2 one.
Click to expand...


Then GTX960Ti:
LordEC911 said:
GTX960Ti is based on GM204...
Click to expand...

LordEC911 said:
A $249-$279 192bit GM204 should be coming within a couple weeks of Titan X.
Click to expand...
 
5150Joker said:
Nobody predicted 50% across the board. However, the card does vary from 30-50% based on who's review you read which makes it a very solid upgrade over 980.
Click to expand...

Actually yea, they did. I predicted 30% at most and got flamed on left and right. This is in comparison to the 980 of course.
 
schizrade said:
I love it when a high end enthusiast part launches and the jealousy and hating begins.

If you cannot fathom dropping 1k on a card, it isn't for you. Bleeding edge is expensive.
Click to expand...

I don't see any jealousy and hating, because this isn't a bleeding edge card. The original titan was bleeding edge, but there is nothing special about this card apart from the 12GB of vram. It's not worth $999, and the only reason it's priced that way is because the Nvidia card that is released in June to go against the 390/x will be priced somewhere between the Titan-x and the 980.

And people will rush out and buy that card because they will be saying look, Titan-x performance for cheaper.
 
xorbe said:
Yeah, someone claimed 980 SLI performance and beyond.
Click to expand...

There will always be fan boys who claim ridiculous numbers. As long as there's no competition for a market, NVidia will never create a card that's significantly faster than the previous generation. 30% is faster, sure, but if it was a single card which performed as well as SLI, I guarantee you that this would be a highly sought after video card, rather than one targeting a niche audience.

That's why, as an NVidia user, I want AMD to succeed. I want competition. AMD lead to faster and cheaper Intel processors. They helped NVidia create faster and cheaper video cards. A monopoly is the worst thing possible from the consumer standpoint.
 
Nytegard said:
That's why, as an NVidia user, I want AMD to succeed. I want competition. AMD lead to faster and cheaper Intel processors. They helped NVidia create faster and cheaper video cards. A monopoly is the worst thing possible from the consumer standpoint.
Click to expand...

This guy totally gets it. :)
 
I'm not really impressed with the Titan X's performance, and those Chiphell leaks claiming it was 50% faster than the GTX 980 was bullshit, as I expected it would be. An average of 20-30% faster than GTX 980 is ok considering the fact NVIDIA is stuck on the same 28nm node, but I guess because of it there wasn't much they could do. Though that 12GB of VRAM will be helpful though.
 
ChronoDetector said:
I'm not really impressed with the Titan X's performance, and those Chiphell leaks claiming it was 50% faster than the GTX 980 was bullshit, as I expected it would be. An average of 20-30% faster than GTX 980 is ok considering the fact NVIDIA is stuck on the same 28nm node, but I guess because of it there wasn't much they could do. Though that 12GB of VRAM will be helpful though.
Click to expand...

20%? The avg is about 35% in most reviews with some as high as 50%+ in certain games. When OC'd it stays above 970 SLI most of the time and even catches or surpasses 980 SLI. How can that not be impressive? Especially on that weak ass cooler. This card is crying for a bios mod + water cooling to stretch it's legs.
 
But 6+8 pin means 300W board power limit no? Wouldn't power limit you more than anything in this case, especially since at stock it's already a 250W card?

Though I guess you could run the thing out of spec ala 295X2 style...
 
n=1 said:
But 6+8 pin means 300W board power limit no? Wouldn't power limit you more than anything in this case, especially since at stock it's already a 250W card?

Though I guess you could run the thing out of spec ala 295X2 style...
Click to expand...

Yeah the 300W will limit it somewhat but right now the cooler is doing the most damage with it hitting 84C right away at default voltage. It just can't cope with what this card is designed to do. It's too bad, I wish NVIDIA had gone all out and made this with 2 x 8 pins, beefier cooling, 1.2v default voltage and higher clocks. Bet we'd see 40-45% across the board easily but who knows, maybe the 980 Ti will accomplish that if the 390X turns out to be competitive. Kinda wish I'd kept one of my 980s and just waited it out until summer.
 
5150Joker said:
20%? The avg is about 35% in most reviews with some as high as 50%+ in certain games. When OC'd it stays above 970 SLI most of the time and even catches or surpasses 980 SLI. How can that not be impressive? Especially on that weak ass cooler. This card is crying for a bios mod + water cooling to stretch it's legs.
Click to expand...
Sorry what? Thats BS.

Here is an AnandTech review for you. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9059/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-review
I suggest you click though all the games to see for yourself. 980 SLI is always ahead of the Titan, sometimes even by 30FPS in certain games. So I dont know what you are talking about.

And you shouldnt be peddling for different BIOS and watercooling, because I bet you were one of those people who was shitting all over 290/x cooler when it first came out. You get what you get. All reviews will be based on what is given, dont try to imagine a fantasy cooler that will make the card so fast that it will fly into space...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top