[PCPER] The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z Review

[Unknown-One]

Updated:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040898212&postcount=197

Check back regularly

You're maintaining a hall-of-shame for all the instances where people have failed to read in this thread?

You are trying to say that it's better to run hotter--that a constant 80C is better than running the same cards with custom fan curves that force the temps down lower than the 80C target.

No, incorrect. That is not what I'm trying to say. I never said that running cooler in-and-of-itself was a bad thing.

Running cooler is great, just as long as that cooler temperature can be consistently maintained. As an example, you can change the temp target on Nvidia cards to a lower value if you want, but the cooling logic doesn't change (it will still fight as hard as it can to maintain the set temperature, rather than fluctuating all over the place).

I only said that running at a constant temperature (even if it looks a little on the warm side) was better than running in a state where temperatures are allowed to fluctuate up-and-down while the card is under load.

And you are saying this is going to cause the cards to fail more often.
I'm saying it's conjecture on your part.

How is it conjecture when there have been product recalls caused by this exact problem?

How is it conjecture when there are people actively baking their cards to FIX this problem?

 

[DejaWiz]

This popcorn is tasty. Getting a little cold, though. I want to heat it up, but I'm afraid that any thermal cycling that's still well below it's threshold will destroy it and break down the crystalline structure of the butter holding it together. What to do?

Relax everyone, I just unleashed a joke. Nowhere near the joke that Titan Z is because it's double the price and usually slightly slower than the competition's flagship. And that fact will always remain as long as the performance and price fall where they do.

 

[maboblivion]

Every amd card to unknown-one = 8800gtx ...got it

 

[RamonGTP]

Every amd card to unknown-one = 8800gtx ...got it

Thanks for that. I have no doubt once he sees your post, I'll have to update my "Hall of Shame" post

 

[Unknown-One]

Every amd card to unknown-one = 8800gtx ...got it

Huh? What led you to that conclusion? Struggling to see how that makes sense in any way. What does an 8800GTX have to do with any of AMD's current-gen cards?

This popcorn is tasty. Getting a little cold, though. I want to heat it up, but I'm afraid that any thermal cycling that's still well below it's threshold will destroy it and break down the crystalline structure of the butter holding it together. What to do?

Butter does not have a crystalline structure, it's an emulsion of fatty acids and water. Heating it will simply change its viscosity (unless you heat it to the point of burning). You'll also lose some of the water from the emulsion (though this would happen anyway, slowly, at room temperature).

Relax everyone, I just unleashed a joke. Nowhere near the joke that Titan Z

Again, how is the Titan Z a joke?

because it's double the price and usually slightly slower than the competition's flagship.

Again, you've simply restated reasons that the Titan Z's price is a joke. Still hasn't yet explained why you keep saying that the Titan Z itself is a joke.

The performance would fall perfectly in-line with a cheaper card, so price is the issue there too (nobody would have much reason to call anything about this card a "joke" if it came in at $1200, for example, even if it doesn't win every benchmark).

And that fact will always remain as long as the performance and price fall where they do.

To what fact are you referring?

Performance doesn't really have anything to do with it. Doesn't really matter how well it performs, you're not going to justify a $3000 card to most people.
Lowering the price, on the other hand, fixes pretty much everything.

Seems pretty clear that this is a pricing problem, and nothing else.

 

[Ebernanut]

Uh... dude, read the thread. You're going on a nonsensical rant for no reason.

The point I made was that AMD doesn't target 95c, and that their cards will run at lower temperatures if at-all possible. 95c is, therefor, maximum running temperature, not optimal running temperature.

I was disagreeing with someone who made the nonsensical claim that 95c is the temp-target for AMD's recent graphics cards. I even used a "[/sarcasm]" tag and a rolley-eyes smiley to make SURE people wouldn't miss the sarcasm in this post.


What are you getting at? The 295X2 uses a Hawaii GPU... saying "Hawaii" is a pretty broad term that would include any card based on that GPU.


And I'll say it again, if Hawaii was designed to operate at 95c, then the 295X2 reviewed was malfunctioning because it never reached its designed operating temperature.

See how ridiculous that sounds? Yeah, that's because AMD didn't design Hawaii with 95c as its optimal operating temperature (and in fact, the cooling on the 295X2 actively avoids reaching 95c). They wouldn't try to avoid that temperature if the GPU was designed to run at that specific temperature.


Even they say it, "a max of 95c," not "optimal target of 95c that we aim for every time the card is under load"

95c is pretty much the max temperature they consider safe, not the temperature they target, on the 295X2.

Somehow I'm not surprised that your selective reading caused you to focus on "max of 95c" part and completely ignore the "AMD states that the thermal threshold for these GPUs is well above 95c." in the quote, 95c is not the max safe temp like you keep saying. If you really don't understand how 95c is the target temp on the 290x you should read the link I provided because it explains how the clocks change dynamically to try and keep the card at 95c under load, it doesn't just ramp up the fan and throttle speeds to keep temps below 95c it actually raises speeds and lowers fan speeds to reach 95c whenever it can.

Spazturtle simply stated that the Hawaii gpu was designed to run at 95c but the 295x2 runs cooler because of the cooling solution used, your response was to both claim that wasn't correct and insinuate that even it was correct that it would be bad. I handed you evidence on a silver platter that ST was correct and you completely ignored it, not that I'm surprised. I also fail to see how running at a lower operating temp could possibly be a bad thing unless the temp fluctuated wildly as a result but I'm not an electronic engineer so I could be wrong about that.

 

[Unknown-One]

If you really don't understand how 95c is the target temp on the 290x you should read the link I provided because it explains how the clocks change dynamically to try and keep the card at 95c under load

Except I clearly identified that I was talking about the talking about the 295X2, which pretty obviously doesn't try to maintain a stable temperature of 95c. Never reached that temperature in table posted earlier in this thread, even though it easily could have with lower fan speeds.

They've obviously targeted a lower temperature on the 295X2, and are actively avoiding running at 95c.

it doesn't just ramp up the fan and throttle speeds to keep temps below 95c it actually raises speeds and lowers fan speeds to reach 95c whenever it can.

Again, I specified I was talking about the 295X2, which doesn't exhibit this behavior.

Spazturtle simply stated that the Hawaii gpu was designed to run at 95c but the 295x2 runs cooler because of the cooling solution used

If all cards based on Hawaii are designed to run at 95c, then why aren't they running it at 95c on the 295X2 when it easily could attain that temperature by lowering fan speed?

Seems AMD has doesn't consider that an appropriate target in all cases. Like I said in the post you quoted "They [AMD] wouldn't try to avoid that temperature if the GPU was designed to run at that specific temperature."

your response was to both claim that wasn't correct and insinuate that even it was correct that it would be bad.

My response was simply that the 295X2 doesn't target 95c, as it behavior is indicitive of a much lower temperature target (which is fairly obvious, since it never tries to reach a target of 95c).

The only thing I said would be "bad" is if they designed it specifically to run at 95c, and it never got up to running temperature. That would be missing a design goal (IF they had designed it that way, which they didn't).

 

[Relayer]

Uh... dude, read the thread. You're going on a nonsensical rant for no reason.

The point I made was that AMD doesn't target 95c, and that their cards will run at lower temperatures if at-all possible. 95c is, therefor, maximum running temperature, not optimal running temperature.

I was disagreeing with someone who made the nonsensical claim that 95c is the temp-target for AMD's recent graphics cards. I even used a "[/sarcasm]" tag and a rolley-eyes smiley to make SURE people wouldn't miss the sarcasm in this post.

It's no different than you claiming that 80°C is some sought to number for GK110, or that somehow maintaining that temp is any better than maintaining ~60°C like the 295X2 does. The GPU's will still warm and cool. Neither of them will remain a constant temp. While 80° or in Hawaii's situation 95° is considered the max temp target, there's no benefit of any kind for them to run at those temps instead of a lower one.

There is a benefit of getting the temps down and exhausting as much heat as possible out of the case, though. Heat accelerates wear on components. Likewise, all else being equal, lower temps extend the life.

 

[Unknown-One]

It's no different than you claiming that 80°C is some sought to number for GK110

Which is true: Nvidia's reference designs do hunt for 80c and try to maintain that level.

or that somehow maintaining that temp is any better than maintaining ~60°C like the 295X2 does.

I never said maintaining a stable temp of 80c was better than maintaining a stable temp of 60c (I said quite the opposite, in fact).

The GPU's will still warm and cool. Neither of them will remain a constant temp.

Already covered that as well. They're kept as stable as is reasonable.

Quoting an earlier post:
"When under load, they maintain a consistent temperature (80c target) by modulating fan speed.
When idle, they maintain a consistent temperature by default (because there's no load)."

Two stable targets allows reasonable flexibility as far as power consumption and lifespan-extension while in an idle condition goes, while also preventing temperature fluctuations under load.

While 80° or in Hawaii's situation 95° is considered the max temp target, there's no benefit of any kind for them to run at those temps instead of a lower one.

Never said lower temperatures weren't beneficial (I said quite the opposite, in fact).

Quoting an earlier post:
"Running cooler is great, just as long as that cooler temperature can be consistently maintained."

There is a benefit of getting the temps down

Yes, I know, I said as much myself.

Heat accelerates wear on components. Likewise, all else being equal, lower temps extend the life.

Except all-else isn't equal if the lower average temperature results in fluctuating temperatures (which accelerate certain detrimental effects).

But yes, all else being equal (a stable higher temp compared to a stable lower temp), the stable lower temp will generally yeild longer component longevity. I never denied that.

 

[Relayer]

Seems pretty clear that this is a pricing problem, and nothing else.

Actually, it's pretty clear that it's more than a pricing problem. They made the wrong card. They would have been better off making a 780 ti X2. They could have priced that @ $1500 and had plenty of people prefer that to the 295X2. As a matter of fact it would have likely forced AMD to drop the price of the 295X2 to compete. Due to nVidia's position in the market place AMD has to offer better bang/$ or lose sales. Instead they got greedy and based it on the Titan and unless they want to reduce the value of Titan Black they are forced to price it outside anything even remotely reasonable. There's no place for a Titan X2 (Titan-Z). It's poor value as a gaming card and as a compute card. Saving one slot in a case or one PCIe slot doesn't justify the premium. Especially considering there's a performance trade off with the reduced clocks. So yes, it is a joke. The joke's on nVidia because the 295X2 caught them completely off guard and they have no answer for it other than to try and avoid the comparison, which judging from this thread, and others around the web, isn't working out so well.

 

[Unknown-One]

Actually, it's pretty clear that it's more than a pricing problem. They made the wrong card. They would have been better off making a 780 ti X2. They could have priced that @ $1500 and had plenty of people prefer that to the 295X2.

The existence of the Titan Z does not preclude the release of a "GTX 780 Ti X2", though. They could still launch such a card.

It would just mean that the higher-end version launched first, which is normal for Nvidia (Titan came out before the 780, as well).

Regardless, a lower-priced Titan Z would also even things out even if they didn't release such a card.

Instead they got greedy and based it on the Titan and unless they want to reduce the value of Titan Black they are forced to price it outside anything even remotely reasonable.

This statement is self-contradictory. How are they greedy if they were "forced" to price it that high? That means they had no choice, greed or not...

There's no place for a Titan X2 (Titan-Z). It's poor value as a gaming card and as a compute card.

Right, and as I said, pricing it at a reasonable level would fix those issues.

Saving one slot in a case or one PCIe slot doesn't justify the premium. Especially considering there's a performance trade off with the reduced clocks.

Depends on your specific use-case. Any number of things (fewer slots than a dual-card setup, no radiator to mount, lower TDP, etc) could sway someone if it were priced appropriately.

But, again, that just circles back around to the price. Lowering the price takes care of the performance trade-off by putting it in the appropriate pricing bracket for its given level of performance from the get-go.

So yes, it is a joke.

Its price is a joke, sure. The Titan Z itself? It still looks like a nice card that would work well for a lot of systems.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

So not maintaining the same temperature is bad. Nice to know how my CPU is probably gonna be dead in a few days based on that.

 

[Ebernanut]

Except I clearly identified that I was talking about the talking about the 295X2, which pretty obviously doesn't try to maintain a stable temperature of 95c. Never reached that temperature in table posted earlier in this thread, even though it easily could have with lower fan speeds.

They've obviously targeted a lower temperature on the 295X2, and are actively avoiding running at 95c.


Again, I specified I was talking about the 295X2, which doesn't exhibit this behavior.


If all cards based on Hawaii are designed to run at 95c, then why aren't they running it at 95c on the 295X2 when it easily could attain that temperature by lowering fan speed?

Seems AMD has doesn't consider that an appropriate target in all cases. Like I said in the post you quoted "They [AMD] wouldn't try to avoid that temperature if the GPU was designed to run at that specific temperature."


My response was simply that the 295X2 doesn't target 95c, as it behavior is indicitive of a much lower temperature target (which is fairly obvious, since it never tries to reach a target of 95c).

The only thing I said would be "bad" is if they designed it specifically to run at 95c, and it never got up to running temperature. That would be missing a design goal (IF they had designed it that way, which they didn't).

I know you weren't talking about the same thing but it was a direct response to ST's posts which is why I corrected you. No one said that the 295x2 is designed to run at 95c they said that the Hawaii gpu used in the 295x2 is designed for 95c, which is true or the 290x wouldn't target 95c.

I see that you decided to ignore that I proved that 95c is the target temp not the max safe temp, you'll probably try to claim that you're talking about 295x2 even though it was a direct response to a post about Hawaii that you tried to refute(again, your mistake not mine). That also doesn't address you claiming that 95c is the max safe temp even after I provided a quote that said the thermal threshold is much higher.

 

[Unknown-One]

So not maintaining the same temperature is bad. Nice to know how my CPU is probably gonna be dead in a few days based on that.

Reductio ad absurdum.

What suddenly makes this an issue that will manifest in "a few days"? Nobody ever said anything to that effect.

Your CPU likely spends that majority of its time in an idle state, which should be a fairly constant temperature (not only is it steady, it's low). That alone extends its lifespan considerably.

More than a few people noticed a pattern in failure-rates on laptops effected by the GPU recall from a few years ago. The laptops that had been used as desktop replacements (and pretty much left on all the time) ended up lasting longer than the laptops that had seen sporadic use. Seems that the fact that they remained at a constant temperature prevented their solder from deteriorating as rapidly as machines that were powered up and down more often. You can read some about that pattern in the XT5000T thread on these forums, where users began recording when their machines failed-out due to solder going bad.

 

[Unknown-One]

I know you weren't talking about the same thing but it was a direct response to ST's posts which is why I corrected you.

There was nothing to correct, he said "Hawaii" and I specified a single Hawaii-based card (the one actually relevant to this thread) in my response.

No one said that the 295x2 is designed to run at 95c they said that the Hawaii gpu used in the 295x2 is designed for 95c

Correction: Spazturtle said "the target temp of Hawaii is 95c."

Which obviously isn't true (at least not in absolute terms), as not everything that uses Hawaii targets 95c. They certainly don't target 95c on the Hawaii-based 295X2.

They do spec it to run at 95c for extended periods without damaging itself, but that doesn't necessarily mean that 95c is their target running temp.

I see that you decided to ignore that I proved that 95c is the target temp not the max safe temp

Because 95c clearly isn't the target temp on the 295X2, which is the card we we've been actively discussing throughout this thread...

you'll probably try to claim that you're talking about 295x2 even though it was a direct response to a post about Hawaii that you tried to refute(again, your mistake not mine).

I made a direct response to a post about Hawaii and specified a specific Hawaii-based card while doing so, so yes, I was obviously talking about the 295X2 (I said as much).

That also doesn't address you claiming that 95c is the max safe temp even after I provided a quote that said the thermal threshold is much higher.

because it is the max safe temp before the card begins to throttle clockspeeds (lowering the core clock prevents damage to the chip by helping to reduce temperatures. Lower core speeds also tend to be stable at higher temperatures, so throttling also serves to trade performance for stability).

Just because the card wont crash-and-burn at higher temperatures doesn't mean you arent well out of optimal running range.

 

[cybereality]

I don't know why I am drawn into this thread. I just can't look away...

 

[Relayer]

The existence of the Titan Z does not preclude the release of a "GTX 780 Ti X2", though. They could still launch such a card.

It would just mean that the higher-end version launched first, which is normal for Nvidia (Titan came out before the 780, as well).

Regardless, a lower-priced Titan Z would also even things out even if they didn't release such a card.


This statement is self-contradictory. How are they greedy if they were "forced" to price it that high? That means they had no choice, greed or not...


Right, and as I said, pricing it at a reasonable level would fix those issues.


Depends on your specific use-case. Any number of things (fewer slots than a dual-card setup, no radiator to mount, lower TDP, etc) could sway someone if it were priced appropriately.

But, again, that just circles back around to the price. Lowering the price takes care of the performance trade-off by putting it in the appropriate pricing bracket for its given level of performance from the get-go.


Its price is a joke, sure. The Titan Z itself? It still looks like a nice card that would work well for a lot of systems.

If you would read what I said in it's entirety instead of breaking it up out of context you might improve your comprehension. As it is your response doesn't show you understand anything I said. Unless, of course, you are purposely pulling apart the post to obscure the context?

 

[Unknown-One]

As it is your response doesn't show you understand anything I said.

How does that work when I responded to every point?

Unless, of course, you are purposely pulling apart the post to obscure the context?

I pulled it apart to make sure I covered every point adequately.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

Reductio ad absurdum.

What suddenly makes this an issue that will manifest in "a few days"? Nobody ever said anything to that effect.

Your CPU likely spends that majority of its time in an idle state, which should be a fairly constant temperature (not only is it steady, it's low). That alone extends its lifespan considerably.

More than a few people noticed a pattern in failure-rates on laptops effected by the GPU recall from a few years ago. The laptops that had been used as desktop replacements (and pretty much left on all the time) ended up lasting longer than the laptops that had seen sporadic use. Seems that the fact that they remained at a constant temperature prevented their solder from deteriorating as rapidly as machines that were powered up and down more often. You can read some about that pattern in the XT5000T thread on these forums, where users began recording when their machines failed-out due to solder going bad.

Thanks for proving my point. This isn't something that will matter in any way unless you keep the same GPU for a long time(5+ years). And it doesn't make sense to compare it to a laptop either since a laptop is carried around and sees much more movement/abuse than a desktop.

 

[Ebernanut]

There was nothing to correct, he said "Hawaii" and I specified a single Hawaii-based card (the one actually relevant to this thread) in my response.


Correction: Spazturtle said "the target temp of Hawaii is 95c."

Which obviously isn't true (at least not in absolute terms), as not everything that uses Hawaii targets 95c. They certainly don't target 95c on the Hawaii-based 295X2.

They do spec it to run at 95c for extended periods without damaging itself, but that doesn't necessarily mean that 95c is their target running temp.


Because 95c clearly isn't the target temp on the 295X2, which is the card we we've been actively discussing throughout this thread...


I made a direct response to a post about Hawaii and specified a specific Hawaii-based card while doing so, so yes, I was obviously talking about the 295X2 (I said as much).


because it is the max safe temp before the card begins to throttle clockspeeds (lowering the core clock prevents damage to the chip by helping to reduce temperatures. Lower core speeds also tend to be stable at higher temperatures, so throttling also serves to trade performance for stability).

Just because the card wont crash-and-burn at higher temperatures doesn't mean you arent well out of optimal running range.

Way to cherry pick the one ambiguous comment by ST where he was correcting his original statement about 97c being the target temp to 95c. The original two comments were:

So NVIDIA's chip is designed to run at 80C and AMDs chip is designed to run at 97C

The NVIDIA chips ends up running higher then 80C and the AMD chip ends up running around 60C, I say AMD win by a fucking mile here.

Nope try again, the Hawaii GPU is designed to run at 97C.

Your response to the first comment was:

Uh, no, AMD does not design their cards to run at 97c, AMDs cards throttle at 97c. Their cooling is set up to AVOID 97c.

NVIDIA actually designs their cards with an 80c operating temperature in-mind. The fan intentionally runs slowly so the card gets up to its 80c operating temperature when under load. They don't avoid 80c, they aim for it.

This allows lower fan speeds for longer periods of time. And keeping the temps as close to 80c as possible means less thermal cycling (thermal cycling is what leads to solder failure over time).

In this post you don't specify 295x2 and you claim that AMD cards throttle at that temp rather than target it which is completely false. Apparently this also where you start your tangent about solder which is also nonsense but I can't be arsed to bother explaining that one to you as well, not that you would pay attention anyway.

 

[PcZac]

I'm surprised this thread isn't locked and there's no deleted posts, silly arguments have being going on for 13 pages.

 

[Unknown-One]

Way to cherry pick the one ambiguous comment by ST where he was correcting his original statement about 97c being the target temp to 95c.

Ambiguous? He was removing ambiguity by specifying that 95c was what he thought constituted the "temperature target"

I used his LEAST ambiguous post. He corrected his temperature value and clarified his terms there.

In this post you don't specify 295x2 and you claim that AMD cards throttle at that temp rather than target it which is completely false.

Uh, what are you talking about? AMD cards do throttle at 97c. What was said in that post was true.

Apparently this also where you start your tangent about solder which is also nonsense

Hardly nonsense, as the two research papers posted on the topic plainly show. It's a real problem with real research put behind it.

And, again, it's a real-enough problem to have caused product recalls and threads about people fixing it by re-flowing varies electronics to bring them back to life...

Thanks for proving my point. This isn't something that will matter in any way unless you keep the same GPU for a long time(5+ years).

Except it's something that has already mattered enough to cause product recalls... I hardly see how your point is proven here.

And it doesn't make sense to compare it to a laptop either since a laptop is carried around and sees much more movement/abuse than a desktop.

I mentioned laptops because there's a lot of data about this problem from laptops.

That said, the same solder issue has caused the failure of desktop graphics cards, so it's still a perfectly relevant subject. Just look at all the people bringing dead cards back to life by baking them, this problem obviously isn't restricted to laptops.

 

[Relayer]

I'm surprised this thread isn't locked and there's no deleted posts, silly arguments have being going on for 13 pages.

That's only because you commented and it added the 14th page! It's all your fault, you... you... FLAME FANNER you!!!

Thanks for stopping by and giving me someone to blame. +1

 

[Relayer]

Except it's something that has already mattered enough to cause product recalls... I hardly see how your point is proven here.


I mentioned laptops because there's a lot of data about this problem from laptops.

That said, the same solder issue has caused the failure of desktop graphics cards, so it's still a perfectly relevant subject. Just look at all the people bringing dead cards back to life by baking them, this problem obviously isn't restricted to laptops.

That was caused by shit solder.

I also wasn't aware that nVidia recalled any of those. I thought they simply denied, denied, denied until there was a class action suit against them? Then settled for what ended up being pennies on the dollar. I wasn't really around at that time though. I could be mistaken.

 

[Unknown-One]

I'm surprised this thread isn't locked and there's no deleted posts, silly arguments have being going on for 13 pages.

Well, things have remained (fairly) civil. I'm surprised some of the brazen personal-insult-only posts didn't get wiped out, but aside from that...

 

[Unknown-One]

That was caused by shit solder.

Which is rather close to the same shit solder we use today.

Ever since going lead-free, solder has been many times more susceptible to this problem (some mixtures more than others). The removal of lead makes the alloy less ductile by default.

I also wasn't aware that nVidia recalled any of those. I thought they simply denied, denied, denied until there was a class action suit against them? Then settled for what ended up being pennies on the dollar.

The class action suit culminated in actual product recalls.

 

[PcZac]

The arguments have been mostly going in circles, it's funny to me that some people are so against the idea that some people might consider this card a valid option for very specific circumstances.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

The arguments have been mostly going in circles, it's funny to me that some people are so against the idea that some people might consider this card a valid option for very specific circumstances.

Personally I don't have an issue with it. It's not something I would buy, but I'm not going to dismiss it just because it's not for me. That said, I also find some of the justifications some people use hilarious. It would be much easier if people just said either "I love AMD so fuck the Titan Z" or "I love Nvidia so fuck the 295x2", because that's pretty much what this thread is.

 

[trungracingdev]

The arguments have been mostly going in circles, it's funny to me that some people are so against the idea that some people might consider this card a valid option for very specific circumstances.

I don't think anyone is against that idea. Just that those very particular circumstances hit a very very small % of gamers.

Everyone pretty knows the Titan Z is a fail product because of its insane price. If the Titan Z was released for ~$1,500, it wouldn't have received so much backlash.

Some people just aren't willing to accept that nvidia can fail so miserably.

The one fool keep trying to separate the price from the product but reality is, the main reason people would not consider the purchase of a Titan Z is the price. Yes it's that bad!

You can't buy the Titan Z without eating its $3,000 price tag.

 

[Brackle]

The arguments have been mostly going in circles, it's funny to me that some people are so against the idea that some people might consider this card a valid option for very specific circumstances.

I gave up when someone tried to say the PCB on a video card temp can easily raise temps in case.

Like that isnt the case with ANY video card LOL.

Ugh now im bumping the thread again....sigh

 

[PcZac]

Everyone pretty knows the Titan Z is a fail product because of its insane price. If the Titan Z was released for ~$1,500, it wouldn't have received so much backlash.

It's a niche product, and not exclusively a gaming product. A failed product is a product that really has no point, no market, or doesn't work. That isn't the case with the Titan Z. Price is something that can change, doesn't matter to some people, and only part of the product. But still, I feel it's good that Nvidia is getting backlash for marketing this as a "gaming" card.

 

[Brackle]

It's a niche product, and not exclusively a gaming product. A failed product is a product that really has no point, no market, or doesn't work. That isn't the case with the Titan Z. Price is something that can change, doesn't matter to some people, and only part of the product. But still, I feel it's good that Nvidia is getting backlash for marketing this as a "gaming" card.

TO be fair if you ask me I think the 295x2 is overpriced as well. When you can get 2 290x's for $1000.

It's just Nvidia is trying to ripoff people even more then AMD is.

 

[trungracingdev]

It's a niche product, and not exclusively a gaming product. A failed product is a product that really has no point, no market, or doesn't work. That isn't the case with the Titan Z. Price is something that can change, doesn't matter to some people, and only part of the product. But still, I feel it's good that Nvidia is getting backlash for marketing this as a "gaming" card.

You know how bad it is when Nvidia refuses to send reputable hardware sites like [H] and Anandtech testing samples. It was delayed and later released without fanfare. There's no reason to add insult to injury.

 

[Relayer]

It's a niche product, and not exclusively a gaming product. A failed product is a product that really has no point, no market, or doesn't work. That isn't the case with the Titan Z. Price is something that can change, doesn't matter to some people, and only part of the product. But still, I feel it's good that Nvidia is getting backlash for marketing this as a "gaming" card.

It's not even a good compute proposition. What budget minded CUDA dev is going to pay a $1000 price premium for this card? Saving one slot in their case doesn't make sense. Get a proper case instead. They're cheap. Way way cheaper than any savings from this card. That's before you even factor in the loss in performance. There's even a reliability factor in favor of the dual card solution. One goes down and you can still work with the other. Your one $3000 card goes down (because it fit into some little case you have for some reason) and you are stopped dead. There is no market for this card. None.

 

[RamonGTP]

Your CPU likely spends that majority of its time in an idle state, which should be a fairly constant temperature (not only is it steady, it's low). That alone extends its lifespan considerably.

As does the GPU, even more so actually. So he has a point, and you helped reinforce it.

 

[Bluesun311]

My CPU is constantly up and down from 30 to 50C. It tops out 75-80C in IBT right now, since I have a new furnace in the case. I mean GPU. I don't expect it's going to up and suddenly stop being stable tomorrow but it could happen.

 

[Brackle]

My CPU is constantly up and down from 30 to 50C. It tops out 75-80C in IBT right now, since I have a new furnace in the case. I mean GPU. I don't expect it's going to up and suddenly stop being stable tomorrow but it could happen.

Well considering you have a Haswell which is known to get very hot (although yours is delidded), and only an H55 cooling it. Those temps sound about right

Get a better cooler on the CPU and you should get better temps.

 

[Bluesun311]

Well considering you have a Haswell which is known to get very hot (although yours is delidded), and only an H55 cooling it. Those temps sound about right

Get a better cooler on the CPU and you should get better temps.

Not really complaining about the temps. I've got the snot overclocked out of it and it's at 3.5Ghz or 4.6Ghz nothing else. The voltage drops but it's constantly back and forth because that's what all haswells do whether or not they are overclocked or at stock. They bounce high temp to low very fast. I really don't think it's a big deal and neither do the engineers at Intel with warranty coverage to worry about.

TO be fair if you ask me I think the 295x2 is overpriced as well. When you can get 2 290x's for $1000.

It's just Nvidia is trying to ripoff people even more then AMD is.

2 290x's are air cooled and not crossfire friendly. How much does it cost to build a custom loop for them? How much better would TWO NZXT brackets and 2 MORE H55s look/work?

I could be wrong but sometimes when people say "overpriced" they really mean "out of my range"

It was out of my range, too--but I bought one anyway because it's very user friendly. I already have a single 2.5 slot 290x and I was not about to try to cram another one in. This is the "easy button" for 290x crossfire. Of course it's overpriced a little bit... but as you say, not like the new "niche" products Nvidia is putting out.

 

[Brackle]

Not really complaining about the temps. I've got the snot overclocked out of it and it's at 3.5Ghz or 4.6Ghz nothing else. The voltage drops but it's constantly back and forth because that's what all haswells do whether or not they are overclocked or at stock. They bounce high temp to low very fast. I really don't think it's a big deal.

Wow that sucks.....Guess Im just too use to my Sandy Bridge. Never bounces in temps like that.

Either way a 4.6ghz haswell overclock is nothing to sneeze is thats for sure.

 

[Unknown-One]

As does the GPU, even more so actually. So he has a point, and you helped reinforce it.

What point would that be, exactly?

I said MYSELF that consistently low temperatures (like those experienced while idle) would extend component lifespan, so the only point I'm reinforcing is my own...

The issue is, under load, older graphics cards would only increase fan speed in response to higher temperatures (so the card HAD to run hotter to get a higher fan speed to kick in). This effectively means fluctuations in load lead DIRECTLY to fluctuations in thermals. This is bad.
The new temperature-target system fixes this problem. As soon as the card isn't idle (or very close to idle), it's hunting for 80c and will try to stay there. This means no more CONSTANT thermal cycling as soon as gaming load is placed on the card.

Everyone pretty knows the Titan Z is a fail product because of its insane price.

How exactly is it a fail product when there isn't anything wrong with the product, though?

That's the one thing nobody seems to be able to answer. The price is too high (this is well established), but what's actually wrong with the product?

Some people just aren't willing to accept that nvidia can fail so miserably.

They failed miserably at appropriate pricing, sure.

But again, the hardware works just fine, so nothing there has failed.

The one fool keep trying to separate the price from the product but reality is, the main reason people would not consider the purchase of a Titan Z is the price.

Right... that's what I've been saying from the start, that the Titan Z's price is the problem (you even call it the MAIN problem). But that doesn't change the fact that there's nothing wrong with the Titan Z itself.

I gave up when someone tried to say the PCB on a video card temp can easily raise temps in case.

Which it can, especially when we're talking about a card like the 295X2, which has a giant metal plate with cooling fins attached to the PCB (which gets up to 60c)...

Like that isnt the case with ANY video card LOL.

With a normal blower cooler, PCB, VRM, and RAM heat picked up by said cooling plate would be sent out the back of your case.

With the R9 295X2, there's no directed airflow (the on-card cooler vents on all sides), so all of that PCB, VRM, and RAM heat will end up inside of your case.

Key distinction.