Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-23-2013, 04:17 PM   #251
Lonbjerg
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora's Box View Post
To me its just impressive as to what they are about to do. Increasing single card performance by around 170% from a GTX 680. Definitely interested in getting this card, never been a fan of sli/crossfire.
You mean 70% right?
Lonbjerg is offline  
Old 01-23-2013, 04:24 PM   #252
Elfear
VC&G Moderator
 
Elfear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora's Box View Post
To me its just impressive as to what they are about to do. Increasing single card performance by around 170% from a GTX 680. Definitely interested in getting this card, never been a fan of sli/crossfire.
Current rumors are 680 + 50%. Where are you hearing 70% from?
__________________
4770k@4.7Ghz | Maximus VI Hero | 2x290@1150/1450 | 16GB DDR3 | Custom H20
Elfear is offline  
Old 01-23-2013, 05:15 PM   #253
lopri
Elite Member
 
lopri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,713
Default

This product is a bit too late for me. It would have gotten my money had it been out 6 months ago.

- No games makes me want better graphics. In the past, there were games that made me want to play the way they were meant to be played. Doom 3, Oblivion, Crysis, etc,. There aren't games that are interesting enough to drive me to get more a powerful video card.
- Nerdy interest has faded having played with Kepler and GCN already. I know what they can/cannot do.
- I do not think I will buy a $500+ video card any more. When I can buy a quality tablet for $200~350 which is a complete system, a mere part that costs that kind of money (or double/tripple) no longer interests me. I know these are targeted at completely different audience and serve completely different purposes. But however irrational, the value just doesn't seem to be there anymore to me personally.

Unless there comes a killer game with photo-realistic visuals, I think I am being satisfied with "good enough" graphics. Perhaps I am getting old.
lopri is offline  
Old 01-23-2013, 05:21 PM   #254
Lonbjerg
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lopri View Post
This product is a bit too late for me. It would have gotten my money had it been out 6 months ago.

- No games makes me want better graphics. In the past, there were games that made me want to play the way they were meant to be played. Doom 3, Oblivion, Crysis, etc,. There aren't games that are interesting enough to drive me to get more a powerful video card.
- Nerdy interest has faded having played with Kepler and GCN already. I know what they can/cannot do.
- I do not think I will buy a $500+ video card any more. When I can buy a quality tablet for $200~350 which is a complete system, a mere part that costs that kind of money (or double/tripple) no longer interests me. I know these are targeted at completely different audience and serve completely different purposes. But however irrational, the value just doesn't seem to be there anymore to me personally.

Unless there comes a killer game with photo-realistic visuals, I think I am being satisfied with "good enough" graphics. Perhaps I am getting old.
The problem is that every time there comes a game that pushes hardware...people's E-peen get hurt and they whine about bad coding.
Crysis, ARMA 2, Metro 2033 ect.
Lonbjerg is offline  
Old 01-23-2013, 05:51 PM   #255
SirPauly
Diamond Member
 
SirPauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanovar View Post
Jesus lay off the budds sp,or atleast share it
SirPauly is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:03 AM   #256
Whitestar127
Senior Member
 
Whitestar127's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 207
Default

Maybe I'm alone here, but if it performs 85% of a GTX 690 then I will probably be getting it. Even if it will cost $900. In my currency that is about the same as (maybe a bit more than) some high-end cards from the past, so it's not that bad.
__________________
Intel Core i7-2700K @ 4.4GHz --- GSKILL Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600MHz 1.5v --- Samsung 840 Pro 128MB & 256MB
ASUS P8P67-Deluxe --- ASUS GTX 670 DCII 4GB SLI --- ASUS Xonar Essence STX ---
Corsair HX850W PSU --- Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit --- nVIDIA 337.88 --- Benq XL2411T
Whitestar127 is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:34 AM   #257
Ozegamer
Junior Member
 
Ozegamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1
Default

Is this card actually coming out?
I have been holding off for quite some time, So close to upgrading each month but I wasn't that impressed with the 680 cards, I always figured they were midrange rebadged as the die size just doesn't add up. I know everyone says otherwise but the top cards have usually always been the huge dies.
I have been after something to replace my nuclear reactors(480 SLI), And this card sounds like it is the one. 690 is good but I would rather retain single card solution and add another in a year or two as games need it and they probably will once next gen consoles come out there will be no excuse for crap ports over to pc. These rumours of 50% higher than a 680GTX I am extremely impressed. I was thinking the usual 15-20% but if it is double that I will get this card if it's under $1k. I am sure I am not the only one with 480's that just couldn't justify the move up to a 680, 480's score the same and sometimes slightly higher than a single 680 card. And 690 is just a bit too extreme, Something in between would be perfect.
Ozegamer is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:42 AM   #258
3DVagabond
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posts: 8,062
Default

Someone correct me if I'm calculating this wrong. So, hypothetically the Titan will be 85% of the 690.

From the TPU review of the 690:

The 680 is 69% of the 690 overall. 85% of the 690 will be 23% faster than the 680 average at all resolutions.

At 1080 the 680 is 66% of the 690:

That makes the Titan 29% faster than the 680.

At 1600 the 680 is 59% of the 690:

That makes the Titan 44% faster than the 680.

This is assuming the same amount of CPU overhead. Which might not be the case. Even best case at the least CPU bound resolution the Titan is 44% faster than the 680. At 1080, where a majority play it's only 29% faster.
3DVagabond is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 05:20 AM   #259
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,486
Default

The majority will not buy Titan. Why do you downplay Titan's potential on basis of a CPU bottleneck? Bias?
The 690 is 80-85% faster where it counts when there is no bottleneck. Question is how Nvidia or the source calculated the 690 performance. That remains to be seen.

Last edited by boxleitnerb; 01-24-2013 at 05:26 AM.
boxleitnerb is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 05:27 AM   #260
3DVagabond
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posts: 8,062
Default

I'm presenting figures. How can that possibly show bias? I'm saying that Titan could do better at resolutions where the 690 is CPU bottlenecked because a single GPU uses less CPU than SLI. What does possible sales numbers have to do with anything?
3DVagabond is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 06:22 AM   #261
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,486
Default

Problem is, these figures are not showing the full potential of the 690 due to bottlenecks as I have shown in links to SirPauly.

And most of the people buying Titan will use it properly, i.e. 1440p and above, 3DVision, SGSSAA, newer games etc. 1080p ist not relevant for Titan.
boxleitnerb is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 06:33 AM   #262
Grooveriding
Diamond Member
 
Grooveriding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Toronto, CA
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
Problem is, these figures are not showing the full potential of the 690 due to bottlenecks as I have shown in links to SirPauly.

And most of the people buying Titan will use it properly, i.e. 1440p and above, 3DVision, SGSSAA, newer games etc. 1080p ist not relevant for Titan.
680SLI already creams 2560x1600, 7970GE CF does even more so. One of these single 'Titan' cards will come up short for that resolution, you'll still need two, at which point you'll be over the mark on what you need. I think a single Titan will have a lot of relevance for 1080P by finally delivering a single GPU that handles everything @ 1080P. Of course it is not going to be a card hardly any typical 1080P gamer will buy.

Two of them will wind up being overkill for 2560x1600/1440 as crazy as that sounds. You'll need SGSSAA or triple monitors to get them to flex their muscle.

Nvidia could be on to this as well. AMD/nvidia have to be waking up to the fact there is too much GPU power at this point with no games to push them. So we get $500 300mm2 dies with meagre performance increases and $900 low volume flagships that used to be $500 in the past. Probably makes a lot more sense to go this way. Take the have to have the best regardless of cost segment to the cleaners with 80% mark-ups in the form of $900 flagships and keep selling GK104 for $500.

This card could release just with the 'Titan' moniker and no other iterations of it with the GK104 continued to be sold as is. I think that is the most likely scenario here if this price point is accurate.
__________________
3930K 4.8Ghz | RIVE | 16GB 2133 Dominator Platinum | 780ti SLI | Evo 500GB Raid 0 | Dell U3011 | EVGA 1300W PSU
under custom water
Grooveriding is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 06:58 AM   #263
tviceman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,664
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grooveriding View Post
680SLI already creams 2560x1600, 7970GE CF does even more so. One of these single 'Titan' cards will come up short for that resolution, you'll still need two, at which point you'll be over the mark on what you need. I think a single Titan will have a lot of relevance for 1080P by finally delivering a single GPU that handles everything @ 1080P. Of course it is not going to be a card hardly any typical 1080P gamer will buy.

Two of them will wind up being overkill for 2560x1600/1440 as crazy as that sounds. You'll need SGSSAA or triple monitors to get them to flex their muscle.

Nvidia could be on to this as well. AMD/nvidia have to be waking up to the fact there is too much GPU power at this point with no games to push them. So we get $500 300mm2 dies with meagre performance increases and $900 low volume flagships that used to be $500 in the past. Probably makes a lot more sense to go this way. Take the have to have the best regardless of cost segment to the cleaners with 80% mark-ups in the form of $900 flagships and keep selling GK104 for $500.

This card could release just with the 'Titan' moniker and no other iterations of it with the GK104 continued to be sold as is. I think that is the most likely scenario here if this price point is accurate.
Some good points indeed. GK104 *should* get an update even if it's only through node process / yield improvements as nvidia has already started branding some mobile products with 700 series names. Nvidia will likely pair it up with 6.4-6.6ghz vram and increase boost clocks to 1100-1150mhz to get a 10% performance increase while staying within the same tsp.
tviceman is online now  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:51 AM   #264
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,486
Default

groove, my main point was that you cannot and should not judge performance with the brakes engaged, so to speak.
boxleitnerb is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:31 AM   #265
MrK6
Diamond Member
 
MrK6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
groove, my main point was that you cannot and should not judge performance with the brakes engaged, so to speak.
What makes you think NVIDIA's not? I didn't see any figures about titan being xx% faster than a GTX 680, but rather 85% of a GTX 690. Everyone else is just assuming they're letting the GTX 690 stretch its legs. If this is incorrect, then nvm.
__________________
My "For Sale" Thread
| Cooler Master CM 690 II Advanced with custom water cooling | Seasonic X650 | Core i5-2500K @ 5.0GHz | Gigabyte Z68XP-UD4 | 2x4096MB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 @ 2134MHz 10-11-10-30 | 256GB Samsung 830 | 2x 2TB Samsung EcoGreen F4 in RAID 1 | Gigabyte HD 7970 @ 1300MHz/1750MHz | Dell 30" 3007WFP-HC |
[6950 -> 7970 Overclocking User Review] [5850 -> 6950 Mini-Review]
MrK6 is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:38 AM   #266
SirPauly
Diamond Member
 
SirPauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
Problem is, these figures are not showing the full potential of the 690 due to bottlenecks as I have shown in links to SirPauly.
Thanks again, for the links -- was using ComputerBase as an over-all gauge:

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/g...rce-gtx-690/4/
SirPauly is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:48 AM   #267
MrK6
Diamond Member
 
MrK6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirPauly View Post
Thanks again, for the links -- was using ComputerBase as an over-all gauge:

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/g...rce-gtx-690/4/
The problem might be that you're using an article that's 10 months old. More recent data will give a more accurate picture: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/V..._Black/28.html

The GTX 690 is 60% faster than a GTX 680 at 1080p and 74% at 1600p. This equates to a Titan being 36% faster than a GTX 680 at 1080p and 48% faster at 1600p, assuming a linear correlation. This is more in line with what would expect from the raw numbers already calculated in this thread (~35% higher shader power, ~35% higher memory bandwidth).
__________________
My "For Sale" Thread
| Cooler Master CM 690 II Advanced with custom water cooling | Seasonic X650 | Core i5-2500K @ 5.0GHz | Gigabyte Z68XP-UD4 | 2x4096MB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 @ 2134MHz 10-11-10-30 | 256GB Samsung 830 | 2x 2TB Samsung EcoGreen F4 in RAID 1 | Gigabyte HD 7970 @ 1300MHz/1750MHz | Dell 30" 3007WFP-HC |
[6950 -> 7970 Overclocking User Review] [5850 -> 6950 Mini-Review]
MrK6 is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 09:23 AM   #268
Homeles
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrK6 View Post
The problem might be that you're using an article that's 10 months old. More recent data will give a more accurate picture: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/V..._Black/28.html

The GTX 690 is 60% faster than a GTX 680 at 1080p and 74% at 1600p. This equates to a Titan being 36% faster than a GTX 680 at 1080p and 48% faster at 1600p, assuming a linear correlation. This is more in line with what would expect from the raw numbers already calculated in this thread (~35% higher shader power, ~35% higher memory bandwidth).
Sorry, where were those numbers calculated? And let me guess, they were based on the faulty assumption that the card will have the same clocks as the K20X?

GTX 680 was clocked 35% higher than K10, and so has pretty much every high end consumer card vs. high end workstation card ever. It's absolutely silly to assume the 780 won't be clocked higher.
Homeles is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 09:34 AM   #269
n0x1ous
Golden Member
 
n0x1ous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeles View Post
Sorry, where were those numbers calculated? And let me guess, they were based on the faulty assumption that the card will have the same clocks as the K20X?

GTX 680 was clocked 35% higher than K10, and so has pretty much every high end consumer card vs. high end workstation card ever. It's absolutely silly to assume the 780 won't be clocked higher.
Have to agree on the clocks. I expect 850-900 mhz
__________________
i7 3770k @ 4.5 | H100 w/ NF-F12 | GTX 780 SLI | Z77-UD5 | 16GB Dom 1600 | HX1000 | 650D | 8.1 Pro x64

FX8350 @ 4.8 | H100i w/ NB-PL2 | R9 290 CF | CHVF-Z|16GB Dom GT 1866| AX860| Air 540 | 8.1 Pro x64
n0x1ous is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 09:44 AM   #270
MrK6
Diamond Member
 
MrK6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeles View Post
Sorry, where were those numbers calculated? And let me guess, they were based on the faulty assumption that the card will have the same clocks as the K20X?

GTX 680 was clocked 35% higher than K10, and so has pretty much every high end consumer card vs. high end workstation card ever. It's absolutely silly to assume the 780 won't be clocked higher.
It's irrelevant since the performance target is what's already been mentioned. It could be clocked at 2GHz, it doesn't really matter since the rumor states 85% the performance of a GTX 690.

I would actual hope it was at lower clocks to get that kind of performance as that can leave more head room for overclocking (which may be moot if the lock down the voltage again). If K20X is already at a 235W TDP, higher clock speeds might require NVIDIA to really push the power envelope, at which case this card won't do much to differentiate itself from what we already have. A 7970 @ 1.3GHz+ is already 75-80% the speed of a GTX 690 in many games. K20X giving slightly more performance at a lower power consumption is nice, but it's just an evolutionary step instead of a leap, especially considering it's coming out more than a year later. Also, for $900 it will be a poor buy, even for $600 it's nothing special, especially since you can't mine bitcoins effectively to offset the cost.
__________________
My "For Sale" Thread
| Cooler Master CM 690 II Advanced with custom water cooling | Seasonic X650 | Core i5-2500K @ 5.0GHz | Gigabyte Z68XP-UD4 | 2x4096MB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 @ 2134MHz 10-11-10-30 | 256GB Samsung 830 | 2x 2TB Samsung EcoGreen F4 in RAID 1 | Gigabyte HD 7970 @ 1300MHz/1750MHz | Dell 30" 3007WFP-HC |
[6950 -> 7970 Overclocking User Review] [5850 -> 6950 Mini-Review]
MrK6 is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:09 AM   #271
SirPauly
Diamond Member
 
SirPauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrK6 View Post
The problem might be that you're using an article that's 10 months old. More recent data will give a more accurate picture: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/V..._Black/28.html

The GTX 690 is 60% faster than a GTX 680 at 1080p and 74% at 1600p. This equates to a Titan being 36% faster than a GTX 680 at 1080p and 48% faster at 1600p, assuming a linear correlation. This is more in line with what would expect from the raw numbers already calculated in this thread (~35% higher shader power, ~35% higher memory bandwidth).
My original point was, over-all, I don't think the GTX 690 is 80 percent faster than the GTX 680.
SirPauly is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:15 AM   #272
SirPauly
Diamond Member
 
SirPauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrK6 View Post
even for $600 it's nothing special, especially since you can't mine bitcoins effectively to offset the cost.
I think for 600 dollars would provide some nice gaming value if offered -- if performance is close to a GTX 690 with default clocks. At times, high-end sku's provide some value to me -- 9700Pro -- X1900XTX -- 8800 GTX!
SirPauly is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:25 AM   #273
moonbogg
Diamond Member
 
moonbogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grooveriding View Post
680SLI already creams 2560x1600, 7970GE CF does even more so. One of these single 'Titan' cards will come up short for that resolution, you'll still need two...
Yup, no doubt about it. For Far Cry 3, a 690 or two 670's is good for pulling about 60fps average....at 1080p. Any less performance than that and you start to suffer at 1080p if you want the game maxed or almost maxed. This Titan card will be a 1080p card for graphics intense games I hate to say. You will infact need two of them for 1440 or 1600p and 2 grand is reaching pretty far for a GPU setup.
I'm not saying it just cause I have them, but at this point (if you like nvidia) I still say two 670's will be the better option and will be about the same price as this Titan card. Paying 2 grand for cards only to see them equalled in a year or so by cards costing half as much really hurts if you don't have money coming out of your ears, or no brains in between them. If you got cash to burn, then hell, grab three of them.
__________________
3930K @ 4.3 - 16GB DDR3 @ 1600 - 2X GTX 670 SLI(2GB) - SAMSUNG 830 SSD - 1920X1080 @ 120HZ - WINDOWS 8.1
moonbogg is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:37 AM   #274
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,486
Default

With the state of 20nm being even more dire than 28nm was at the beginning (or so I hear), don't hold your breath. I bet we won't see anything significant until Q3 2014.
boxleitnerb is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:41 AM   #275
MrK6
Diamond Member
 
MrK6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirPauly View Post
My original point was, over-all, I don't think the GTX 690 is 80 percent faster than the GTX 680.
Ah, then I misunderstood. I agree though, I don't believe it is unless you run multi-monitor resolutions to really crush the GPU's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirPauly View Post
I think for 600 dollars would provide some nice gaming value if offered -- if performance is close to a GTX 690 with default clocks. At times, high-end sku's provide some value to me -- 9700Pro -- X1900XTX -- 8800 GTX!
To me it's the same argument I had with myself last year getting a 7970 - I imagined I could overclock to match or outperform 6970 CF, which it did. If Titan can overclock as well as it's siblings, it should be able to make up the last 15% and catch the GTX 690/GTX 680 SLI. However, I also knew I could make back my $550 by mining bitcoins, something that I don't see being the case here. If a lot of this changes (especially the bitcoins), I'll pick one up definitely.
__________________
My "For Sale" Thread
| Cooler Master CM 690 II Advanced with custom water cooling | Seasonic X650 | Core i5-2500K @ 5.0GHz | Gigabyte Z68XP-UD4 | 2x4096MB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 @ 2134MHz 10-11-10-30 | 256GB Samsung 830 | 2x 2TB Samsung EcoGreen F4 in RAID 1 | Gigabyte HD 7970 @ 1300MHz/1750MHz | Dell 30" 3007WFP-HC |
[6950 -> 7970 Overclocking User Review] [5850 -> 6950 Mini-Review]
MrK6 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.