NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Video Card Review @ [H]

Are [H] going to address the fact that they state they used "latest" caps with the13.2 beta drivers?

(12.11 CAP2 are the latest caps and ar NOT meant to be used with the current 13.2 beta drivers. They actually reduce performance in many of the games tested because the overwrite the later optimised profiles built into the drivers.
 
I'll just leave this here:

9RGLXK8.jpg
 
The Ferrari and corvette references were nice. In retrospect, I think they would have helped a bunch in the article, or even now as a subnote to the article. I think people are under appreciating the implications of Nvidia's response. I would rather have the company putting something out there rather than nothing. They get to price it high due to a lack of competition, but we just got a new gold standard for performance.
 
@Kyle and Brent - A favor to ask: Would it be possible for you to gauge CUDA performance by installing the free Octane v1.1 Demo here:

http://render.otoy.com/downloads.php

The benchmark scene 'Octane_Benchmark.ocs' can be found here:

http://render.otoy.com/downloads/OctaneRender_1_0_DemoSuite.zip

To start the bench, right click on the node called 'RenderTarget PT' and select 'Render'.

Underneath the image, on the left-hand corner should be a figure X.XX Ms/sec. For reference a GTX 680 averages 3.01 Ms/sec

Thanks!
 
Rational said:
I am glad there are, when an industry stops releasing such things it is usually the harbinger of bad news.
Click to expand...

I wish they didn't exist because I can't afford them.

Same goes for $500 cards for that matter :D:D
 
I am using this for a cuda card for rendering this is a cheep tesla card with out the ECC ram.

$1000 is a steal the tesla in the studio cost $3000

For you people only playing games with this thing I can seey why you do not want one you do not need it i can push this thing in the viewport of max and maya with ease and fill the 6gb ram it has on it a few high poly sculpts imported from mudbox can drop this thing to it's knees.
 
Last edited:
Who else thinks this Titan release makes way for a 780 on release with a price tag of $800?

I mean.. If they can get $1000+ for this card whats stopping them?
 
This is a pretty slick card. Sure is a great sign of things to come.

I'm still more than happy to drop settings a little for surround gaming on a GTX 690; 2GB of VRAM is beginning to show its limits. I'll be waiting for the next iteration of this card in the 700 series which will hopefully be a much better consumer option.
 
Titan? What about the 7 series? Very few people will pick up this card. Seems to be a "prototypeish" sort of card. Best to wait for a GTX 780, at least the price of that card wont' be $1k.
 
Stoly said:
Is that akin to nvidia giving a $2500 Nvidia Tesla M2090 as a $500 GTX580?
Click to expand...

No, 580 had more cores but its Compute performance was artificially crippled. The Titan's compute performance is not artificially crippled.
 
christpunchers said:
Titan? What about the 7 series? Very few people will pick up this card. Seems to be a "prototypeish" sort of card. Best to wait for a GTX 780, at least the price of that card wont' be $1k.
Click to expand...

you sure? We already have 2 nvidia cards at $1,000 bucks, why not 3?
 
Brent_Justice said:
Exactly, thank you. If we solely based our award on price, perhaps no award would be in order. We judge hardware on its own merit, for the audience it is designed for, and let the enthusiasts, you guys, the DIY'ers, determine its value to you.
Click to expand...

So, a $2000 card 30% faster than Titan would also deserve a gold reward?
 
JLangevin said:
I heard a rumor that CS6 Suite was now taylored to lean more towards OpenCL Integration over CUDA... was that wrong info?
Click to expand...

You're right here. Apple favors openCL and it's wider adoption over the last few years has seen CUDA take a backseat in quite a few applications; CS6 is now one of them

There are always certain applications that favor one over the other, but what's important for the workstation crowd above all else are drivers. As much as people want to claim this is a GPU compute card (in some respects it is), it's extremely limited by the Geforce drivers rather than Quadro drivers. This means that in certain workstation applications a ~$600 Quadro card will outperform this $1000 Titan Geforce.

It's as much as compute card as the GCN 7970 is. The big Kepler Tesla, K20, is a pure GPGPU card with all of the features and support behind it. This, on the other hand, is very much a gaming card that may or may not work well with your application of choice. Just remember that a Quadro will almost always work with your application of choice, and that's the difference here. Titan promises performance for the workstation crowd and probably won't deliver it (what's the point of encroaching on your high margin Quadro/Tesla products?) while the Tesla/Quadro cards offer the drivers and the performance.

Folks who've run professional applications that support GPGPU are well aware of the differences between a Quadro and a Geforce or a Radeon and a Firepro. Sometimes the consumer grade card can work well (Maya is a good example), but often times it sucks ass (Blender, CS6, AutoCAD, and on and on).

It is a nice gaming GPU, but it's about $300 overpriced for the performance it brings.
 
wand3r3r said:
That statement is strange or comes across strangely to say the least. :)

I would rather drive a porsche than a chevy malibu. I would rather have a gtx 680 vs. a gtx 660. (You get the point)
Click to expand...

Heh, I missed that, but yeah. A more accurate question would be, would you rather have a 690 or a single Titan?
 
Brent_Justice said:
I want two of these in my primary gaming system, who wouldn't really?
Click to expand...

Everyone praises the Titan because it is great enough that we can finally do away with SLI problems.....then in the next sentence they say "I WANT 2 TITANS IN SLI"

Is that sane?
 
It seems that Titan@1.1ghz comes real close to GTX690. Impressive.
 
When you do the secondary review, could you do a quick 3D single card test with a couple games? Nephew wants to know what kinda of 3D performance he can get out of one of these cards.
 
More often than not it seems like they use the hardware in their own personal machines if they like it enough.
 
Personally had I known this type of card was coming down the pipe, I would have held off on buying the four 670's I have.

I'm in the minority of the minority. Gaming at 7680x1600 is a challenge most times. If I get the money pulled together (by selling old hardware) I may jump on four of these. If the 700 series is out instead, that's probably what I'll get.

I'd rather buy these over 690's. I can only put two 690's in a system, but I can put four of these in eventually and have the best performance possible.

That's what the GTX Titan is meant for. If you aren't doing big surround, then stick with 690's...
 
Last edited:
LigTasm said:
Thats a whole lot of butthurt from people that can't/won't afford these. I don't cry myself to sleep because I can't get a lambo, why does it bother people so much when its a graphics card? 30-40% improvement at stock clocks is pretty damn good considering Intel sells boatloads of practically the same CPU for both $500 and $1000. If you would rather pay cheaper prices for two 680's/7970's then just do it and pretend this doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

And the fact that they got that kind of increase on the same process, while also maintaining power and noise levels, is very impressive.
 
clayton006 said:
Personally had I known this type of card was coming down the pipe, I would have held off on buying the four 670's I have.

I'm in the minority of the minority. Gaming at 7680x1600 is a challenge most times. If I get the money pulled together (by selling old hardware) I may jump on four of these. If the 700 series is out instead, that's probably what I'll get.
Click to expand...

What kind of scaling are you seeing with the fourth card?
 
For some reason I am reminded of the release of the GeForce 2 Ultra, which was a crazy high-end video card when it arrived for the staggering cost of $500. With inflation, I think that would be about $668 today. I could see $699 for this card, but I have no idea how much it costs to make.

Nice performance and thanks for the review, though I'm certainly not in the market for one.
 
rinaldo00 said:
Everyone praises the Titan because it is great enough that we can finally do away with SLI problems.....then in the next sentence they say "I WANT 2 TITANS IN SLI"

Is that sane?
Click to expand...

theirs many of us who never have issues with sli.
 
This is what kills me and this gets lost in pages of talking

580 - 384 bit - $500
680 - 256 bit - $500
Titan - 384 bit - $1000

Titan was suppose to be the 680, 680 was suppose to be the 660 ti

Premium building materials and 3gigs of RAM do NOT equal $500

This is a gouge, the smart people agree.

The people that have vested interests do not agree

The people that don't know the facts above have no valid opinion.

If your spending $1000 to use this as compute your cheap because if your making money off this card you would have already gotten a Tesla.

It kills me that people are pussyfooting around the facts, I 100% agree this is just some move by Nvidia to gouge the customer especially when they call it the "TITAN" and not a numbered SKU
 
Meeho said:
What kind of scaling are you seeing with the fourth card?
Click to expand...

Really depends on the game. Skyrim makes good use, so does Sleeping Dogs. Far Cry 3 makes good use (single screen, as my resolution is too much for surround and that game). Actually Dead Space 3 is only 100% 60fps at my resolution with 4-way installed. If I take one out its still very playable, but not a smooth as the 4-way setup.

Borderlands 2 can benefit from the 4th card, physx puts a hurting on it though. Batman Arkham City as well. I use adaptive vsync so I can't tell you how far up they are going past 60fps, but I'll tell you that a lot of games that I play will use that 4th card.

I also can't wait for Ivy Bridge-E so I can get more CPU behind these cards....
 
Meh. Stupidly overpriced fail card by Nvidia.

Bring it down to the $600-700 range where it belongs based on its performance, and then we can talk :)
 
LigTasm said:
Thats a whole lot of butthurt from people that can't/won't afford these. I don't cry myself to sleep because I can't get a lambo, why does it bother people so much when its a graphics card? 30-40% improvement at stock clocks is pretty damn good considering Intel sells boatloads of practically the same CPU for both $500 and $1000. If you would rather pay cheaper prices for two 680's/7970's then just do it and pretend this doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I could not have said it better or agree more!
 
mt2e said:
This is what kills me and this gets lost in pages of talking

580 - 384 bit - $500
680 - 256 bit - $500
Titan - 384 bit - $1000

Titan was suppose to be the 680, 680 was suppose to be the 660 ti

Premium building materials and 3gigs of RAM do NOT equal $500

This is a gouge, the smart people agree.

The people that have vested interests do not agree

The people that don't know the facts above have no valid opinion.

If your spending $1000 to use this as compute your cheap because if your making money off this card you would have already gotten a Tesla.

It kills me that people are pussyfooting around the facts, I 100% agree this is just some move by Nvidia to gouge the customer especially when they call it the "TITAN" and not a numbered SKU
Click to expand...

Careful,instead of recognizing common sense,someone may accuse you of being to poor to afford one. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Just because I can buy them doesnt mean they are worth the price.


they are gouging the market because there are many butthurt people out there who can and will buy it out of sheer stupidity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top