GeForce Titan coming end of February

[boxleitnerb]

It's not memory bandwidth since HD7850 can outperform GTX680 in Sleeping Dogs.

Not it cannot. Sontin is right there, look at the numbers. All cards are faster at 5760x1080 than at 2560x1600...yeah right.
And Sleeping Dogs doesn't support MSAA. And yet again: 7870 LE is Tahiti too, and that is not faster than GK104 in Sleeping Dogs. Compute is not the problem here, but raw power - especially for SSAA as all operations have to be performed four times.

Most important:

With all this talk about compute...how would one actually know how extensively a title uses compute operations and how that affects performance on different architectures? Research is all and fine and saying Sleeping Dogs uses DirectCompute as part of their SSAA approach for example. But it is impossible for anyone of us to distinguish if it is raw power or special compute mojo that actually makes the difference. We are not programmers nor do we have the extensive knowledge that GPU architects to.

I find it daring to claim "title A is compute heavy but title B is not/less so". How do you know? You possibly cannot. I would strongly suggest being more careful with these statements and take similarly speced GPUs under consideration when discussing these things, like 7870 LE vs GTX670/680. So as to exclude a seizable difference in raw power as a possible explanation for performance comparisons.

Because then the argument that GCN dominates Kepler in certain games due to compute falls completely on its ass

 

[AdamK47]

$1308...

I started to cry, but they weren't tears of joy.

Where are you seeing this?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Where are you seeing this?

Sorry if it is a re-post
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphi...rst_Picture_and_Another_Benchmark_Result.html

In the link for Jaydip.

 

[blackened23]

I'm not really getting how the Titan fits into nvidia's pricing scheme. The pricetag is a rumor, yet how does this advance price/performance or fit in the big picture compared to the GTX 690?

Let's say that Titan is roughly equal to the GTX 690, which seems a reasonable assumption based on specifications; If the Titan is 1000$, what value does it present over the GTX 690? Sure, someone may say 6GB VRAM. I'm sure everyone here is aware that there is currently no benefit to having that much VRAM due to the current state of PC games, 6GB is far beyond overkill. The only possible way 6GB can present a value is when 4k2 ultra HD gaming takes hold and lets face it -- that is NOT happening this year or next.

So the Titan is the same speed as the 690. At the same cost. Uhhhhh.....someone help me out here. What benefit is nvidia presenting over the 690, we all know 6GB of VRAM is completely useless. On the other hand, the number of users that have purchased 4GB cards out of sheer cluelessness is staggering - I know quite a few that bought 4GB cards for streaming world of warcraft on Twitch. Yeah...ok. Maybe customers just do not know better.

 

[Will Robinson]

Ah yes,the good ol rumor mill...NV fans will lap this one up lol
http://x-surface.tumblr.com/

 

[boxleitnerb]

I'm not really getting how the Titan fits into nvidia's pricing scheme. The pricetag is a rumor, yet how does this advance price/performance or fit in the big picture compared to the GTX 690?

Let's say that Titan is roughly equal to the GTX 690, which seems a reasonable assumption based on specifications; If the Titan is 1000$, what value does it present over the GTX 690? Sure, someone may say 6GB VRAM. I'm sure everyone here is aware that there is currently no benefit to having that much VRAM due to the current state of PC games, 6GB is far beyond overkill. The only possible way 6GB can present a value is when 4k2 ultra HD gaming takes hold and lets face it -- that is NOT happening this year or next.

So the Titan is the same speed as the 690. At the same cost. Uhhhhh.....someone help me out here. What benefit is nvidia presenting over the 690, we all know 6GB of VRAM is completely useless.

Very easy:
No AFR. No microstutter, less input lag, no profiles required, no graphics glitches due to SLI etc.

 

[Keysplayr]

Ah yes,the good ol rumor mill...NV fans will lap this one up lol
http://x-surface.tumblr.com/

Looks like a page out of an employee handbook. Where'd ya get it?

 

[blackened23]

Very easy:
No AFR. No microstutter, less input lag, no profiles required, no graphics glitches due to SLI etc.

In my opinion, nvidia has to present a better benefit that that. I think actually both sides have been pretty good with getting dual GPU profiles out in a reasonable time frame.

The correct answer here is that nvidia should make the card 3GB and lower the cost to 800$ or less -- 6GB is completely and utterly worthless with the current state of games. Don't you agree? I'm not trying to fight the point, Titan is going to be an awesome card. I do not think 6GB is beneficial, however.

Heck - why not 3GB and 6GB versions. 100$ price differential between the two? You wouldn't agree that this is a great idea? I can't think of a compelling reason to have 6GB VRAM.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Very easy:
No AFR. No microstutter, less input lag, no profiles required, no graphics glitches due to SLI etc.

Outside of this...

Um quad sli "Titans" would be like having 4 690s in the same system :|

Maybe someone wants to do 1600p x 9 in portrait mode :awe:

 

[biostud]

$1308...

I started to cry, but they weren't tears of joy.

Danish prices also include 25% sales tax so mostly when I compare DK prices with US you can divide by 7 or 8, so it's more like $900-1000. The GTX 690 is 6800DKK or $1220.

 

[boxleitnerb]

In my opinion, nvidia has to present a better benefit that that. I think actually both sides have been pretty good with getting dual GPU profiles out in a reasonable time frame.

The correct answer here is that nvidia should make the card 3GB and lower the cost to 800$ or less -- 6GB is completely and utterly worthless with the current state of games. Don't you agree? I'm not trying to fight the point, Titan is going to be an awesome card. I do not think 6GB is beneficial, however.

Heck - why not 3GB and 6GB versions. 100$ price differential between the two? You wouldn't agree that this is a great idea? I can't think of a compelling reason to have 6GB VRAM.

In most cases 3GB will be fine. 6GB could be good for SLI users (2-4 cards) who run 4K+MSAA in newer games, use AA override (in Skyrim that costs 50% more VRAM, from 2GB to 3GB) and/or texture mods.

About the profiles...that is only the tip of the iceberg. CF is still a complete mess regarding smoothness and stuttering. Even Kepler-SLI gets problematic below 50fps or so, depending on the game. Personally I can deal with that and I know what I'm doing, but many just want plug&play. I don't blame them to be honest.

 

[Grooveriding]

I'm not really getting how the Titan fits into nvidia's pricing scheme. The pricetag is a rumor, yet how does this advance price/performance or fit in the big picture compared to the GTX 690?

Let's say that Titan is roughly equal to the GTX 690, which seems a reasonable assumption based on specifications; If the Titan is 1000$, what value does it present over the GTX 690? Sure, someone may say 6GB VRAM. I'm sure everyone here is aware that there is currently no benefit to having that much VRAM due to the current state of PC games, 6GB is far beyond overkill. The only possible way 6GB can present a value is when 4k2 ultra HD gaming takes hold and lets face it -- that is NOT happening this year or next.

So the Titan is the same speed as the 690. At the same cost. Uhhhhh.....someone help me out here. What benefit is nvidia presenting over the 690, we all know 6GB of VRAM is completely useless. On the other hand, the number of users that have purchased 4GB cards out of sheer cluelessness is staggering - I know quite a few that bought 4GB cards for streaming world of warcraft on Twitch. Yeah...ok. Maybe customers just do not know better.

I'm thinking Titan will not be equal to a 690 or 680 SLI. Likely slower by a margin that will be of note, 15-25%. The card will slot in as the fastest single GPU you can buy, and if the rumoured pricing is true, try to make sales at that price point based on that.

The question is more how many of your traditional halo card buyers at the $500-$600 price point will be alienated and choose not to go up to the $900 price that nvidia wants to start charging for their halo card. A substantial 80% markup over the flagship pricing since GTX 280. Even 8800GTX was cheaper, sure the 8800ultra was about the same price, but that card was practically vapour ware and hardly available. The rumoured specs for Titan amount to what the expectation was for GTX 680, a card no one would of thought would sell for $900.

It will still sell out I bet, but I don't think it will be as available or plentiful in quantities as the official X80 cards have been traditionally. If there are the sort of quantities available like the GTX 680 has and if it does cost $900, it almost certainly will be a card that quickly sees price drops. Doubtful there are as many buyers willing to spend $900 for a single GPU card as there are willing to spend $500, an already small niche.

 

[Crap Daddy]

I don't understand what's the problem with the price. This card has no equal, nothing on the market will come even close. It's a premium card probably in limited supply and Nvidia can ask a premium price. This is no 700 series card. Of course there are cheaper alternatives to reach the performance of Titan but you have to live with the downside of SLI and crossfire. There are single cards which will probably surpass the Titan but they are also two GPU products as the 690 and the 7970 dual cards out there. This has to be a big marketing show, fastest card in the Universe and I am certain enthusiasts will buy it.

 

[2is]

I'm not really getting how the Titan fits into nvidia's pricing scheme. The pricetag is a rumor, yet how does this advance price/performance or fit in the big picture compared to the GTX 690?

Let's say that Titan is roughly equal to the GTX 690, which seems a reasonable assumption based on specifications; If the Titan is 1000$, what value does it present over the GTX 690? Sure, someone may say 6GB VRAM. I'm sure everyone here is aware that there is currently no benefit to having that much VRAM due to the current state of PC games, 6GB is far beyond overkill. The only possible way 6GB can present a value is when 4k2 ultra HD gaming takes hold and lets face it -- that is NOT happening this year or next.

So the Titan is the same speed as the 690. At the same cost. Uhhhhh.....someone help me out here. What benefit is nvidia presenting over the 690, we all know 6GB of VRAM is completely useless. On the other hand, the number of users that have purchased 4GB cards out of sheer cluelessness is staggering - I know quite a few that bought 4GB cards for streaming world of warcraft on Twitch. Yeah...ok. Maybe customers just do not know better.

I don't know a single person who would not want a single GPU that's as fast as a dual GPU setup.

 

[Kippa]

Ok so lets say this new Nvidia card is the dogs bollocks (british for meaning very good), what games are currently realistically maxing out your current gfx card to warrant getting the upgrade? If there were quite a few games that were killing the current batch of gfx card then I could see the point in upgrading. I just don't see them.

 

[moonbogg]

Very easy:
No AFR. No microstutter, less input lag, no profiles required, no graphics glitches due to SLI etc.

Yep. If the Titan was as fast as the 690 and at the same price, noone would even consider the 690. SLI is ok when you have no other option to get the performance you want, but it is not a prefered solution. Then again, any time you get a more powerful card you'll just want two of those anyway, so whatever. I have made two cards the standard for me since my geforce 6800GTs, and now i'm stuck like this.

 

[CakeMonster]

If its true that it will take at least 10 months for the next generation to arrive, the Titan will be just fine at any price point. Only the hardcore enthusiasts will get it but it will be a real alternative and it will serve as a great marketing tool hinting at "alien" technology or whatever.

But if there is another generation coming sooner, it will be a complete dog once better tuned cards that are "half" a generation ahead will give almost the same performance at half the power cost and half the price.

 

[MrK6]

Ok so lets say this new Nvidia card is the dogs bollocks (british for meaning very good), what games are currently realistically maxing out your current gfx card to warrant getting the upgrade? If there were quite a few games that were killing the current batch of gfx card then I could see the point in upgrading. I just don't see them.

This is a card for high-end configurations. 2560x1600/1440, multi-monitor, 1080p @ 120Hz, etc. Skyrim with mods can bring my 7970 @ 1.3GHz below 30FPS when I'm in the grasslands (lots of grass + self-shadowing + SSAO).

 

[Kippa]

Fair enough. For me I just play at 1920 x 1200 and most of my games are fine on a standard 7970.

 

[Silverforce11]

Jeezus.. $700 would be stretching it already but over $1000???!

I'd buy it (~$700) but couldn't justify it to the missus for that pricetag..

 

[f1sherman]

Jeezus.. $700 would be stretching it already but over $1000???!

Hardly stretching.

Nvidia has only recently exited 28nm supply nightmare and has done that with delayed launches and rocksteady prices for high-end.
20nm is needed to beat this badboy, yet there are no hints of mere refresh from AMD/NV in sight.

At $700 for 50% over GTX 680 this card would never be in stock.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Hardly stretching.

Nvidia has only recently exited 28nm supply nightmare and has done that with delayed launches and rocksteady prices for high-end.
20nm is needed to beat this badboy, yet there are no hints of mere refresh from AMD/NV in sight.

At $700 for 50% over GTX 680 this card would never be in stock.

Not if AMD releases something, the 680 is already considerably overpriced. There will be a massive gap in Nvidia's product line both in performance and price if this is a single card release and no refresh for the foreseeable future.

I would imagine we'll see more price drops from AMD if they can't respond right away, the 680 is already overpriced and should be priced closer to the 7950/7970 (non ghz, which is kind of overpriced vs the 7950), which is currently between $280 and $350 last I checked, meaning assuming AMD reduced prices slightly again the 680 *should* drop around $300, making the Titan a 50% gain in performance, for a ~135% markup...


But then this is Nvidia... The GTX 580 is still $300 to $600 on Newegg.



Honestly the more I think about it the less sense all of this makes. A single big card will devalue the heck out of their current lineup, and for what? A few limited release sales... I dunno, seems stupid.. Nvidia isn't exactly stupid.

 

[Elfear]

I don't understand what's the problem with the price. This card has no equal, nothing on the market will come even close. It's a premium card probably in limited supply and Nvidia can ask a premium price.

Besides the limited supply isn't the above true of any new next-gen card? When the 8800GTX entered the market there was no equal yet we didn't get a $1000 price tag. When the 7970 entered the market there was no equal and we didn't get a $1000 price tag. Seems like a very bad precident to charge exorbitant prices every time a new faster card enters the market.

Granted if Nvidia is only going to make 100 Titans to claim the fastest GPU on earth, I can see them charging an arm and a leg. We saw that with the 6800 Ultra Extreme, 512MB 7800GTX, and 8800 Ultra cards. Kind of a cheap way of grabbing the fastest title IMO but there are surely some users who would pay $1000 for Titan.

 

[blackened23]

Besides the limited supply isn't the above true of any new next-gen card? When the 8800GTX entered the market there was no equal yet we didn't get a $1000 price tag. When the 7970 entered the market there was no equal and we didn't get a $1000 price tag. Seems like a very bad precident to charge exorbitant prices every time a new faster card enters the market.

I can understand the pricetag from a performance perspective, by all accounts the performance will be unprecedented; however, the main thing in my mind is the value comparison with the GTX 690. If they perform the same, cost the same, what gives? I really don't think MS is a big problem with the 690 (I actually don't consider it a problem whatsoever, I haven't found 690 users complaining about MS..), so while some may cite that as an issue, I think nvidia needs to make a differentiation. Based on rumors, the pricetag can vary between 900 and 1300$ (Not sure on this yet, although I DO NOT think it will be anywhere close to 1300$..) yet GTX 690 and Titan offer the same performance and price. Why would anyone get a 690 if Titan is the same price and vice versa (again, I don't consider MS to be an issue with the 690).

Let's say Titan is 899.99 US and performs the same as the GTX 690. Okay, so what happens to the 690 price? I'm just puzzled by how Titan fits into the current scheme of products.

 

[f1sherman]

Not if AMD releases something, the 680 is already considerably overpriced. There will be a massive gap in Nvidia's product line both in performance and price if this is a single card release and no refresh for the foreseeable future.

Massive gap could easily be filled by releasing cut down versions ala K20/K20x.

But it's not like it will be huge seller anyway, so why even bother
What's currently filling this massive gap between 680 and 690?

What I'd want to know is... Are they doing this on purpose - creating new Ultra-high-end, or have they been forced by 28nm woes.
Most likely combination of both.