NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X Video Card PREVIEW @ [H]

Armenius said:
The TITAN has always been branded and sold in the GeForce GTX line, going back to the original GK110 that did have FP64.
Click to expand...

For as long as NVidia has been around I didn't find anywhere that NVidia ever stated, nor was I under the impression, that FP64 capability in any of their products was a guarantee.
 
I'm in for 2, selling off 3 for my Gigabyte G1 980s and a iphone 5s so not much money outta my pocket. Oh and hopefully I'll get 2 copies of Witcher 3 hehe.
 
Meh -- my crossfire 290's are paid for and humming along nicely, they push my 1440p monitor quite nicely.

I'm more interested in what AMD will fire back with. Not that I'll be buying that either. '

290's with 2500K for the win :)
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
the one thing I've noticed all over the net, is power consumption levels are all over the place, you have some that put it at 40W less than a 290x, and others that put it at 20@ over a 290x.
Click to expand...

Where and how you take your power readings makes a difference. For the record, we take our system wattage power ratings in the games we use for evaluation. We note the highest power draw throughout our testing, playing games. No artificial burn in tests that don't represent real-world usage while playing games.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Where and how you take your power readings makes a difference. For the record, we take our system wattage power ratings in the games we use for evaluation. We note the highest power draw throughout our testing, playing games. No artificial burn in tests that don't represent real-world usage while playing games.
Click to expand...

I understand your statement, I'm also wondering if there is that much of a variance in the quality of the chip, seeing as it's a fairly large chip. I guess we will see when retail cards are out in decent numbers. Usually the number doesn't change that drastically, or if some review systems are more CPU bound than others, causing the cards to run at a less than full level.
 
the lower the resolution you run your games at, the less pronounced Titan X's advantage is over the GTX 980...at 1080p around a 24% increase compared to a GTX 980...so all you 4k gamers enjoy Titan X (and maybe 1440p gamers too)...me, I'm happy at 1200p with my GTX 970
 
I'm quite happy I decided on 2 980's insted. A little more then a single titan and still way faster at 2560x1440.
 
AMD might not have a single GPU answer but for $999 you could buy a 295X2 or two 290X or three 290s and $300-400 of beer.
 
eclypse said:
I'm quite happy I decided on 2 980's insted. A little more then a single titan and still way faster at 2560x1440.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I am keeping my 980 SLI setup as well. Faster than a single X, while costing almost the same.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
the one thing I've noticed all over the net, is power consumption levels are all over the place, you have some that put it at 40W less than a 290x, and others that put it at 20@ over a 290x.
Click to expand...

This is one of those products that makes the buyer scream "who cares?" because of the $1000 price tag, the substantial performance gain over the next best performer 980, the $1000 price tag, the performance per watt compared to all other consumer graphics cards, and the $1000 price tag.
 
ThecknoDecker said:
They say the price is niche... well not that much...
A good GTX980 is around 730,
A Titan X goes around 33% faster and enables 4K gaming truly.
so 730$ + 33% = 970.90
If you have the $$ to have a 4K monitor, the extra 40$ is peanuts.

And for us poor folks we'll have about 25 pounds of peanuts... to enjoy on our sub 4k monitors :)
Click to expand...
I do not know where you found a $730 980 but I'm sure it will be faster than the 980 used in this preview so the 30% gain becomes less.
 
amd come on follow your acronym by making another massive destruction. .......begs for r9 395x2 release2
 
It's pretty damn amazing that this is coming out of a silicon process that's well over 3 years old.
 
ThecknoDecker said:
They say the price is niche... well not that much...
A good GTX980 is around 730,
A Titan X goes around 33% faster and enables 4K gaming truly.
so 730$ + 33% = 970.90
If you have the $$ to have a 4K monitor, the extra 40$ is peanuts.

And for us poor folks we'll have about 25 pounds of peanuts... to enjoy on our sub 4k monitors :)
Click to expand...

Here's what I have.
I got these near release and they have the reference coolers.....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500361&cm_re=gtx_980-_-14-500-361-_-Product

They overclock very well and are just barely north of one Titan X.

If you look at the AnandTech benches, two GTX 980 in SLi will pretty much dominate one Titan X.
So if you look at price, two 980s are still the way to go.:D
 
Two X's ordered from nvidia.com and EK blocks, backplates and RVE Monoblock ordered from EK. Gonna be a fun build!
 
two 980's or 1 amd 295x would be better than this.. I'm still waiting on the 390x myself. It's too bad the Nvidia fangirls are just so blind.
 
LBJM said:
two 980's or 1 amd 295x would be better than this.. I'm still waiting on the 390x myself. It's too bad the Nvidia fangirls are just so blind.
Click to expand...
And if you want to run same settings as the Titan X you will run out of vram in some games. Plus some games dont work all that great with multiple cards and some games dont work at all. IMO If you have around 1000 bucks to spend then Titan X is a better overall choice for high res gaming than 1100 for 980 SLI when everything is considered.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Where and how you take your power readings makes a difference. For the record, we take our system wattage power ratings in the games we use for evaluation. We note the highest power draw throughout our testing, playing games. No artificial burn in tests that don't represent real-world usage while playing games.
Click to expand...

Did you find that this is a good representation of actual power usage/differences? Wouldn't some sort of average power draw during the gaming run be a better representation, and not a random power spike?
 
misterbobby said:
And if you want to run same settings as the Titan X you will run out of vram in some games. Plus some games dont work all that great with multiple cards and some games dont work at all. IMO If you have around 1000 bucks to spend then Titan X is a better overall choice for high res gaming than 1100 for 980 SLI when everything is considered.
Click to expand...

While you may be right, currently the the hardware outpaces the software. Software is poorly written by most developers these days. By the time it makes a difference there will be a better solution than the Titan.
 
Vega said:
Two X's ordered from nvidia.com and EK blocks, backplates and RVE Monoblock ordered from EK. Gonna be a fun build!
Click to expand...

I don't see how you couldn't put this thing under water; a block only adds another 10% to the price, and it's going to be amazing. Super jelly.

That said; I'm waiting to buy a curved 34", 21:9, 1440p, 120hz+ monitor that supports Gsync or free sync. First decent one to market I'll buy, and that will dictate if I buy a Titan or 390x. That simple.

I've waited so long I can wait a little longer.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041491138 said:
The question is how much of a golden review sample it is.
Click to expand...

Going by samples from NVIDIA over the last few years I would suggest our clocks are usually average is not slower. That said, many sites are not pulling in-game clock rates after the card is heat loaded.
 
as tempting as the Titan X is. The 390x will probably be more tempting.

Overall though I am still waiting for a node shrink. Waiting for 14nm finfet and 16nm finfets. Performance isn't there for 3 4k displays, perhaps 1440p screens. I am not going to go from 3x1080 to 3x1440p. I rather go from 3x1080 to 3x4k.

Wonder if my current 290 will last long enough. I suppose I can always grab another and do crossfire for cheap.


Titan X is impressive i'm surprised they didn't increase performance to much more. I feel they left some TDP on the table for increasing clock speeds a bit more. Cannot wait to see how it overclocks and really how far these guys can be pushed.
 
misterbobby said:
And if you want to run same settings as the Titan X you will run out of vram in some games. Plus some games dont work all that great with multiple cards and some games dont work at all. IMO If you have 1000 bucks to spend then Ttian X is a better overall choice for high res gaming than 1100 for 980 SLI when everything is considered.
Click to expand...

if it's vram you want to can buy an 8GB 290X http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150723

Even the Titan X can't beat a 7990 in Farcry 4 with ultra settings at 2560x1440.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9059/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-review/11

Vram of 12GB will matter for future cards that can actually push 4k no single gpu can reach 100fps can at the moment. You'd have to go dual gpu no matter what, 12GB vram is a gimmick on this card I doubt it could use even 8GB.
 
Dayaks said:
guru3d had some charts where it was pegging out the TDP limit. It needs some modding' love.
Click to expand...

Brent_Justice said:
Note that our card did exceed the boost clock consistently at 1190 MHz while gaming.
Click to expand...


Sounds like nvidia could be trying to hide a reserve which could be unlocked at a later time, but at a higher TDP if needed. I doubt they would factor in such an inefficiency(?).
 
Yakk said:
Sounds like nvidia could be trying to hide a reserve which could be unlocked at a later time, but at a higher TDP if needed. I doubt they would factor in such an inefficiency(?).
Click to expand...

So before Maxwell you used to be able to OC until the card was unstable. With Maxwell they implemented TDP limits (power usage limits). You generally run into these power usage walls before thermals or instability. They've been very conservative with their TDPs on all Maxwell cards. The 980s for instance IIRC some were at 225W (reference) and others around 300W (Gigabyte). To get the true potential out of them you had to mod the BIOs to lock the voltage and increase the TDP. [H] didn't seem to hit the TDP limit but this was a stock review with no OCing.

Obviously there are risks if you don't know what you are doing when you BIOs mod.

nVidia may pick their clocks based on six sigma or some predicted failure/scrap rate they are trying to obtain.
 
Last edited:
$1000 bucks for a video card is just insane. It may perform well but no video card is worth that. May even have a short reign at the top as well, but we won't know for sure until the new AMD card is out. For now I will be sticking with my 290x that I got at launch.
 
Igroock said:
Agreed. I am keeping my 980 SLI setup as well. Faster than a single X, while costing almost the same.
Click to expand...

Same here. I just wish games would actually launch with working SLI. then I'd be even more satisfied with my purchase.
 
Gideon said:
$1000 bucks for a video card is just insane. It may perform well but no video card is worth that. May even have a short reign at the top as well, but we won't know for sure until the new AMD card is out. For now I will be sticking with my 290x that I got at launch.
Click to expand...

Eh, it's just different priorities. My first PC cost about $5000, and that was in 1982, and we're not even talking a top of the line machine here. Around 1990 I purchased a Roland MT-32 ($500), which is about $900 today, and that was just a sound card. It's mainly that computers and their components have become so cheap now, people aren't use to spending much money on them. If you have a 4k monitor (or two), yes, I think SLI+ Titan X's might be worth it.
 
Well that is a true bummer, though not entirely unexpected to have Titan X better by 'only' this much.

To be honest though, if I was in the market for top-end GPU though, I may still put Titan X in before SLI 980's, because of the huge VRAM. Yes, theoretical performance of SLI 980's is still much higher than a single X, and yes, 4GB still has yet to be seen to be bottleneck in any game that may worth a damn, and yes, I know 290x 8GB exists, but none of these seem to detract me from Titan X compared to 290x 8GB Xfire or 980 SLI setup...

Currently Xfire support is lacking from AMD, severely. Also AMD cards have a history of not being able to play more games than nVidia cards, granted it may partly/wholy be nVidia's proprietary features. SLI also has its own issues that I am currently still getting my head around, although so far none has been deal breaking.

If I already had a 980 SLI, I probably wouldn't change right at this time. I were upgrading now though, Titan X would probably be more tempting than 980 SLI.

It's a Futuring proofing vs Raw performance argument.
 
An unlocked bios will probably unleash the beast further. Super tempted, but at this point I'd rather wait for 14nm/20nm cards (which could take a while).
 
Not satisfied like I was when the original Titan came out back in 13 when I picked up two from Fry's when they got them in. Def gonna stick with my Quadfire setup for another year.

But it def is a sexy card.
 
Currently running SLI 780's (not Ti)...for me I would love to go to a single GPU as the infrequent but annoying multi-card issues will always be there, (currently Dying Light), but overall a pass from me on the Titan X, single 780 can limp by still when it has to...It will be hard to pass whatever the next next gen can do...the money is not significant for me but I am not immune to buyers remorse.

Does anybody want to try to convince me otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top