GTX Titan (final specs and bench)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
RamonGTP said:
I highly doubt 4K is going to come to desktops anytime soon. It's going to take a couple years at least just for the TV's to become affordable. By the time they come to desktops, a Titan will be worth a fraction of what it will cost, that's assuming the traditional "desktop" still exists.
Click to expand...
yeah I was about to say something similar.
 
cannondale06 said:
yeah I was about to say something similar.
Click to expand...

Don't think games would even support the resolution out of the box with out some special configuration. Not like it would take much either way.

4k doesn't need to come to the PC yet, you could say this will give us better reasons for a >30" screen though.
 
Max Payne 3 can't even run at full specs at 1080p on my SLI 580 system, let alone at 1600p. According to the settings, I'd need at least 8GB of VRAM to run it all on full at 1600p.
 
cannondale06 said:
it is not going to be 90% faster than the gtx680.
Click to expand...

No..... You seem so incredibly sure of that.

680 Specs: 1536 Stream Processors, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs

Titan Specs: 2688 Stream Processeors, 224 TMUs, 48 Rops

Titan: ~ 60% greater than 680 in raw specifications

Assuming that the Titan provides absolutely zero improvements to computing efficiency compared to the 680 then by raw specifications it would perform 60% faster than the 680. That is assuming that the 680 and the Titan function at exactly the same capacity.

As we know.... that is highly unlikely to be true. While it may or may not hit that 90% faster mark, it specifications makes it quite possible. Regardless, even at minimum efficiency, a 60% increase in performance is the biggest leap we've seen in a long time.
 
edifyingkarma said:
No..... You seem so incredibly sure of that.

680 Specs: 1536 Stream Processors, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs

Titan Specs: 2688 Stream Processeors, 224 TMUs, 48 Rops

Titan: ~ 60% greater than 680 in raw specifications

Assuming that the Titan provides absolutely zero improvements to computing efficiency compared to the 680 then by raw specifications it would perform 60% faster than the 680. That is assuming that the 680 and the Titan function at exactly the same capacity.

As we know.... that is highly unlikely to be true. While it may or may not hit that 90% faster mark, it specifications makes it quite possible. Regardless, even at minimum efficiency, a 60% increase in performance is the biggest leap we've seen in a long time.
Click to expand...
if anything 60% better specs would not translate into 60% better performance as things rarely ever scale like that. and you forget clocks which will likely be much lower than what the 680 has so it could only be 50% better overall with those specs.

rumors say it will be a little slower than the 690 which is only about 55-60% faster than the 680 anyway.

you are dreaming if you think it will be anywhere near 90% faster than the gtx680.
 
edifyingkarma said:
No..... You seem so incredibly sure of that.

680 Specs: 1536 Stream Processors, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs

Titan Specs: 2688 Stream Processeors, 224 TMUs, 48 Rops

Titan: ~ 60% greater than 680 in raw specifications

Assuming that the Titan provides absolutely zero improvements to computing efficiency compared to the 680 then by raw specifications it would perform 60% faster than the 680. That is assuming that the 680 and the Titan function at exactly the same capacity.

As we know.... that is highly unlikely to be true. While it may or may not hit that 90% faster mark, it specifications makes it quite possible. Regardless, even at minimum efficiency, a 60% increase in performance is the biggest leap we've seen in a long time.
Click to expand...

To receive an additional 30% performance from just slight architecture improvements is to assume a lot. I don't even think it maintains a full 60% improvement.

I'd like to be proven wrong.
 
edifyingkarma said:
No..... You seem so incredibly sure of that.

680 Specs: 1536 Stream Processors, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs

Titan Specs: 2688 Stream Processeors, 224 TMUs, 48 Rops

Titan: ~ 60% greater than 680 in raw specifications

Assuming that the Titan provides absolutely zero improvements to computing efficiency compared to the 680 then by raw specifications it would perform 60% faster than the 680. That is assuming that the 680 and the Titan function at exactly the same capacity.
Click to expand...

Given the same architecture, effficiency tends to drop when packing in more things, not increase

As we know.... that is highly unlikely to be true. While it may or may not hit that 90% faster mark, it specifications makes it quite possible. Regardless, even at minimum efficiency, a 60% increase in performance is the biggest leap we've seen in a long time.
Click to expand...

Pray tell, what is it that you "know" that makes this highly unlikely to be true?
 
RamonGTP said:
I highly doubt 4K is going to come to desktops anytime soon. It's going to take a couple years at least just for the TV's to become affordable. By the time they come to desktops, a Titan will be worth a fraction of what it will cost, that's assuming the traditional "desktop" still exists.
Click to expand...

Anyone who buys a TV will have access to 4K resolution. No less than 5 companies companies intend on releasing 4K sets this year. By your logic, you're making the assumption that "desktop" is only form-factor that people utilize for computing and PC gaming. You don't believe that anyone will actually buy a 4K tv this year? Regardless of what is affordable, someone forking 900 out for a card would fork the dough out for a 4K tv. At 4K resolution, you WILL have need of hefty amounts of power. Case and point. Eyefinity and Surround setups. Add an entire extra screen to a 3 x 1080p setup and tell me that you'll breeze through it without a hefty amount of hardware.

So.... just because YOU wont be buying a 4K tv for PC gaming, doesn't mean that there won't be anyone who will
 
edifyingkarma said:
Anyone who buys a TV will have access to 4K resolution. No less than 5 companies companies intend on releasing 4K sets this year. By your logic, you're making the assumption that "desktop" is only form-factor that people utilize for computing and PC gaming. You don't believe that anyone will actually buy a 4K tv this year? Regardless of what is affordable, someone forking 900 out for a card would fork the dough out for a 4K tv. At 4K resolution, you WILL have need of hefty amounts of power. Case and point. Eyefinity and Surround setups. Add an entire extra screen to a 3 x 1080p setup and tell me that you'll breeze through it without a hefty amount of hardware.

So.... just because YOU wont be buying a 4K tv for PC gaming, doesn't mean that there won't be anyone who will
Click to expand...
lol, check back in 10 months and see how many people have bought a 4K tv for pc gaming.
 
edifyingkarma said:
Anyone who buys a TV will have access to 4K resolution. No less than 5 companies companies intend on releasing 4K sets this year. By your logic, you're making the assumption that "desktop" is only form-factor that people utilize for computing and PC gaming. You don't believe that anyone will actually buy a 4K tv this year? Regardless of what is affordable, someone forking 900 out for a card would fork the dough out for a 4K tv. At 4K resolution, you WILL have need of hefty amounts of power. Case and point. Eyefinity and Surround setups. Add an entire extra screen to a 3 x 1080p setup and tell me that you'll breeze through it without a hefty amount of hardware.

So.... just because YOU wont be buying a 4K tv for PC gaming, doesn't mean that there won't be anyone who will
Click to expand...

I never said their isn't a "need" for more power. I disagreed with your assessment that 4K TV's will be the reason for that need, and still do.

How many people do you know that are going to buy a 4K TV this year to use as a gaming monitor? I'll bet its a number not higher than 0
 
cannondale06 said:
lol, check back in 10 months and see how many people have bought a 4K tv for pc gaming.
Click to expand...

Hmm, probably the same people who drop several grand for multi-card setups to run multi-monitor setup like 3 x1080p or 3 x 1600p. The only thing relevant about the entire argument is whether or not ultra high resolutions are EVER used for pc gaming. Hell there are several eyefinity/surround users just on this forum. The question is whether or not a people need lots of computing power to drive high resolution setups in modern games. The answer to that question is yes. So whether people are forking out tons of money for multi-card, multi-monitor, or 4K tv sets for pc gaming, those ultra high resolution setups could benefit from hefty boost in computing performance. If the Titan performs anywhere close to rumored, it is a nice step in that direction. Will I pay 900 for it on release day though, hells no.
 
RamonGTP said:
I never said their isn't a "need" for more power. I disagreed with your assessment that 4K TV's will be the reason for that need, and still do.

How many people do you know that are going to buy a 4K TV this year to use as a gaming monitor? I'll bet its a number not higher than 0
Click to expand...

haha, well you better notch that up one at least, cause I am likely to do just that.
 
Just a thought reading all 13 pages of this thread and the other Titan thread....

Why do some of you get so homotional when new cards are about to be released? Take joy in the fact we get new tech instead of arguing and trying to force opinions. Zen a bit and relax. You'll live longer.
 
limperatlinks said:
Kyle wasn't just speaking for himself, reviewers still dont have cards, and retail channels dont have cards yet, with only the higher ups even having a eta. Their is no way this card will be on the shelves on Monday, I can guarantee that.
Click to expand...
well this may explain why reviewers dont have the cards but it does look like the 18th will be the paper launch day. http://videocardz.com/39536/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-to-be-released-on-february-18th


GeForce GTX Titan Release Date

The GTX Titan will be launched in a very limited quantity, only some reviewers will get the cards. Actually, each of them will receive three cards for 3-way SLI review. Card will be paper-launched on February 18th, while first reviews should appear a day later, which is normal for NVIDIA — they usually release cards on Tuesdays and Thursdays.



and they are also claiming it will likely be 55-60% faster than the 680 which sounds about right to me.
 
RamonGTP said:
Lets open that case back up...

GeForce 4 Ti4600 was the fastest single GPU of its time.
9800Pro/XT Was the fastest single GPU of its time
x1900/1950xtx: Fastest single GPU of their time
8800GTX/Ultra: Fastest single GPU's of their time
HD5870: Fastest single GPU of its time

There's probably more i'm missing. What do these have in common? None of them were anywhere near $900
Click to expand...

Yes, a Ti4600 is EXTREMELY POWERFUL right now. DEFINITELY a better deal. :rolleyes:
 
cannondale06 said:
well this may explain why reviewers dont have the cards but it does look like the 18th will be the paper launch day. http://videocardz.com/39536/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-to-be-released-on-february-18th


GeForce GTX Titan Release Date

The GTX Titan will be launched in a very limited quantity, only some reviewers will get the cards. Actually, each of them will receive three cards for 3-way SLI review. Card will be paper-launched on February 18th, while first reviews should appear a day later, which is normal for NVIDIA — they usually release cards on Tuesdays and Thursdays.



and they are also claiming it will likely be 55-60% faster than the 680 which sounds about right to me.
Click to expand...

Ahh...so PAPER launch on the 18th. Damn it. I wonder how long after that until it is released to the public.
 
EPOQ said:
Ahh...so PAPER launch on the 18th. Damn it. I wonder how long after that until it is released to the public.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that pretty much seals it for me. I'm just going to get a GTX 680 Signature and see what the 780 brings later this year.
 
cannondale06 said:
well this may explain why reviewers dont have the cards but it does look like the 18th will be the paper launch day. http://videocardz.com/39536/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-to-be-released-on-february-18th


GeForce GTX Titan Release Date

The GTX Titan will be launched in a very limited quantity, only some reviewers will get the cards. Actually, each of them will receive three cards for 3-way SLI review. Card will be paper-launched on February 18th, while first reviews should appear a day later, which is normal for NVIDIA — they usually release cards on Tuesdays and Thursdays.



and they are also claiming it will likely be 55-60% faster than the 680 which sounds about right to me.
Click to expand...

Yay, paper launches...
 
cannondale06 said:
if anything 60% better specs would not translate into 60% better performance as things rarely ever scale like that. and you forget clocks which will likely be much lower than what the 680 has so it could only be 50% better overall with those specs.

rumors say it will be a little slower than the 690 which is only about 55-60% faster than the 680 anyway.

you are dreaming if you think it will be anywhere near 90% faster than the gtx680.
Click to expand...

Actually there are cases where the 690 can be 90%+ faster than a 680. But it has to do more with SLI scaling than anything.

Titan won't have to deal with SLI since its a single GPU, its more about raw horsepower, and optimizations. So I can see Titan being faster than GTX690 in games that don't scale that well with SLI, but not necesarilly 90% faster than 680
 
i got a feeling it will be sold out if the qty is very limited and than show up on ebay a few days later for 2x the price.
 
WorldExclusive said:
lol

You're acting like the Titan doesn't exist. Your decision to buy a 680 should have been made months ago.
Click to expand...

I am currently without a video card and as of right now the Titan does not exist. Meaning, I can't buy one and the prospect of the Titan being a paper launch put the nail in the coffin.

Maybe I'm being impatient but I have a fully built PC minus the video card that has been sitting for weeks. I'm done waiting.
 
DASHlT said:
Hey blame newegg for my $3000 account limit, which I just paid off :)

P.S. I got a feeling newegg will limit it 1 per customer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the limit one per customer deal sucks too - what if you want more than one for SLI? EVGA limited all customers to one 680 per household for a long time because of people pulling this shit, and it was a pain for anyone who wanted more than 1 card for legitimate reasons.
 
DASHlT said:
Hey blame newegg for my $3000 account limit, which I just paid off :)

P.S. I got a feeling newegg will limit it 1 per customer.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping they allow 2 per customer so I can get my SLI on.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Yes, a Ti4600 is EXTREMELY POWERFUL right now. DEFINITELY a better deal. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Clueless GoldenTiger is clueless.

All the GPU's i listed were top tier GPU's during their generation, and they were all less than $900. All but one of them, a LOT less. The Titan is overpriced, the math supports this and to argue against it is retarded. The good news is it's not something anyone "needs" not even for high end gaming. Those who can make use of it's power are likely running 1600p and/or surround gaming and the price tag will be a secondary concern.
 
kraken0698 said:
I am currently without a video card and as of right now the Titan does not exist. Meaning, I can't buy one and the prospect of the Titan being a paper launch put the nail in the coffin.

Maybe I'm being impatient but I have a fully built PC minus the video card that has been sitting for weeks. I'm done waiting.
Click to expand...

So you're going to intentionally make a bad decision because of impatience? I can understand if you're buying a $200 card to bridge the gap between the 600 and 700 series.
Paying $500 on a year old card now will not bring you the most value. It's better to wait another week or so for the more superior card.
 
WorldExclusive said:
So you're going to intentionally make a bad decision because of impatience?
I can see if you're buying a $200 card to bridge the gap between the 600 and 700 series. Paying $500+ on a year old card now will not bring you the most value. It's better to wait another week or so for the more superior card.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a bad decision. Honestly, spending $900+ on a Titan would have been a worse decision.

The 680 is a great card and will be plenty for me. I don't need a Titan. I can take the $400+ I saved and spend it elsewhere.
 
kraken0698 said:
I don't think it is a bad decision. Honestly, spending $900+ on a Titan would have been a worse decision.

The 680 is a great card and will be plenty for me. I don't need a Titan. I can take the $400+ I saved and spend it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Wise thinking.
 
kraken0698 said:
I don't think it is a bad decision. Honestly, spending $900+ on a Titan would have been a worse decision.

The 680 is a great card and will be plenty for me. I don't need a Titan. I can take the $400+ I saved and spend it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Kinda knew you were going to do that in the first place.
Doesn't take much for someone to convince themselves not to spend $900 on a video card. :D

I spent $350 for my 660s. If the Titan isn't faster than a 690, I have the same performance for a lot less.
 
RamonGTP said:
All but one of them, a LOT less.
Click to expand...

Oh, and which card was it that was similarly priced? Oh yeah, the 8800 Ultra, a halo product just like Titan.

The Titan is overpriced, the math supports this and to argue against it is retarded.
Click to expand...

You're not comparing apples to apples. Technically, the 680 still is the top end of the line if you're comparing normal, full production volume cards (which all but the 8800 GTX/Ultra were in your list).

Titan is a limited production, limited release product. It's an outlier. It's not part of the regular production stream. To compare it to full production volume cards is what's retarded.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Kinda knew you were going to do that in the first place.
Doesn't take much for someone to convince themselves not to spend $900 on a video card. :D

I spent $350 for my 660s. If the Titan isn't faster than a 690, I have the same performance for a lot less.
Click to expand...

I normally go for the absolute top of the heap when buying video cards but even I have limits. ;)
 
kraken0698 said:
I normally go for the absolute top of the heap when buying video cards but even I have limits. ;)
Click to expand...

I had a 680 at launch. Awesome card, but I got out of gaming for about 5 months right after.
I just rebuilt my PC with a 660 to save money. Thought about the Titan, but then another 660 came up for sale and said why not.

I don't have a multi-monitor setup or even a 30". I couldn't justify a Titan purchase right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top