GeForce Titan coming end of February

[blackened23]

So they can make an early premium off 6gb. A 3gb card will probably come later and cost $100 less.

I care nothing about the business aspect, 6GB makes no sense. I'm hoping for a 3GB card, not sure if multiple SKUs are being released however - I guess we'll see as we approach release.

Value added features such as overvoltage would be another wild card that makes it a more attractive buy, can't wait for more info.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Good grief screenshots. New Titan benchmarks:

Shy of the GTX 690 by a bit. Yes, OBR is a complete nvidia fanboy and not very objective, but this benchmark falls in line with previous rumors.

What do the7970 and gtx680 get on air achievable overclocks?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

What do the7970 and gtx680 get on air achievable overclocks?

If that's a 1050 7970, than probably ~+15% for both.

 

[Grooveriding]

OBR most likely sat down at excel and just churned that out for page hits.

Going on die size, transistor count, the likelihood that Titan will be clocked at 832Mhz and will have lesser perf/mm2 characteristics than GK104.. My guess is we will see a card that performs 50% better than a GTX680.

My guess if you added it into these benchmarks it will be averaging 60-65FPS.

 

[tviceman]

I care nothing about the business aspect, 6GB makes no sense. I'm hoping for a 3GB card, not sure if multiple SKUs are being released however - I guess we'll see as we approach release.

Nvidia may not release a 3gb card for the highest end GK110 sku, but there will without a doubt be multiple GK110 based Geforce cards. 1 wafer makes between 100-110 total chips at ~550mm^2. Of those total chips, how many will be good enough for this particular card? Totally guessing, I'd say maybe 25% of the chips would be good enough. That leaves the other 75-80 to be potentially binned. Nvidia will not throw any viable chips away. They had 4 GF110 based Geforce parts, 4 GF114 based Geforce parts, and currently have 4 GK104 based Geforce parts. They will package as many functional chips as they can.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Nvidia may not release a 3gb card for the highest end GK110 sku, but there will without a doubt be multiple GK110 based Geforce cards. 1 wafer makes between 100-110 total chips at ~550mm^2. Of those total chips, how many will be good enough for this particular card? Totally guessing, I'd say maybe 25% of the chips would be good enough. That leaves the other 75-80 to be potentially binned. Nvidia will not throw any viable chips away. They had 4 GF110 based Geforce parts, 4 GF114 based Geforce parts, and currently have 4 GK104 based Geforce parts. They will package as many functional chips as they can.

Think K20, K20X and Quadro. It is entirely possible that there will be only one Geforce-SKU with GK110.

 

[RussianSensation]

Whoever added those huge images above it's really annoying to read this. You have to scrooooooll to far.

Sorry, fixed.

Very much agreed, I can see how some might justify the price -- but from a consumer standpoint few are willing to shell that much out; Going from 900 to 800$ would widen the audience dramatically. I'm still confused as to why these cards are using 6GB VRAM, it is a complete waste with current games.

What happens to all the K20X chips that didn't make the grade for HPC/professional segments? Throw them out? They could possibly release a 3GB GK110 at a later date after milking the market with a more expensive 6GB version. It could also be a marketing thing. Some 6GB 7970s are going for $599-620. If they want to charge way above that price, 6GB would fit nicely with the overall theme of the baddest/fastest single GPU.

P.S. I love when Mathematics + Basic laws of Physics = Getting a lot closer to realistic expectations.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34572401&postcount=432
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34572519&postcount=437

Last edited by RussianSensation; 02-01-2013 at 01:42 PM. "The claim of 50-60% faster than GTX680 at 240-250W is a much more reasonable one. I could buy into the X5300-5500 from Titan."
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34572668&postcount=439

 

[RussianSensation]

Just don't be $900. $800 would still give a fat profit margin for a consumer card while doing a much better job of disrupting the ultra high end vs. the slower "high end" cards.

Even at $800 it won't really affect the high-end GPU market unless someone is going 2-3x SLI/CF. GTX680/690/HD7970GE have been overpriced for a long time now, which is why I don't understand why some people are using their prices to justify the Titan's. HD7970s are dropping to $330, great 670s are $340. For existing GTX680 SLI/ GTX690 / HD7970 CF owners, the Titan might not be enough of an upgrade since they'd lose a bit of $ reselling those cards. A real upgrade for existing high-end owners would logically have to be 2x Titan, which even at $800 a pop, is $1,600! This card will prob. make GTX690 irrelevant which would push its resale values way down.

8800GTX (484mm2) = $599 (> 3x faster than 7900GTX)
GTX280 (576mm2) = $649, 1 month later dropped to $499 (60% faster than 8800GTX)
GTX480 (526mm2) = $499 (50% faster than GTX280)
GTX680 (294mm2) = $499 (50% faster than GTX480)
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2011/bericht-grafikkarten-evolution/3/

Titan (550mm2) = $800-900 (60% faster than GTX680)

I hope $800+ is not the future for single-GPU flagships and this is more of a marketing exercise like 8800GTX Ultra was. Otherwise, we might end up at $399-449 level becoming the new "mid-range". :biggrin:

 

[SolMiester]

It is possible that nVidia has inflated the price of Titan in the leaks simply to try and avoid hurting current sales. If they were to say they had GK110 coming at the end of the month and it was $600 who would buy a $400-$500 card now? The point is that we don't really know anything for sure. It's best to wait a few(2?) more weeks.

LOL, this makes a lot of sense...

 

[SolMiester]

nvidia has much stronger marketing than AMD and takes advantage of it heavily. Most people, especially novices/uninformed folks fall prey to this all the time. Most of the parroted market speak seen in forums is a great example of it. On top of that, they have viral marketing, focus groups, and shills that invade many forums to further market their products. Plenty of companies rely heavily on marketing and marketing an image, look at Apple as a great example, I just always find it interesting how easily people are manipulated.

Also, there's plenty of driver problems on both teams, anyone who has owned products from both companies knows this. However, nvidia's drivers, which have literally destroyed cards from overheating and still have game-breaking bugs are amazingly still viewed as "better." For a current example, my friend can't play GW2 on his GTX 680 without reducing some settings because performance is awful; notice how that never got covered in any of the articles on TechReport, but stuttering on AMD's side did? For your reading pleasure: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gtx+680+gw2

Finally, consider the release of Titan. It's going to be faster than the GTX 680 and priced disproportionately so, but I guarantee it will be hailed as the second coming of awesome gaming cards. The 7970 did the same thing against the 6970 with a much better price/performance ratio, but it was lauded by critics despite better improvements. Furthermore on day one it surpassed even overclocked 6970 CF performance but again, no one noticed. I even made a thread about it: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2215295

I don't know if it speaks more about the rising ignorance of the enthusiast community, the poor coverage/review/ignorance of the tech sites they read, or something else. I can't complain because it is ignorance that allows things like bitcoin mining to remain so profitable, but I find it odd that some people don't pick up on these things.

OMG, thanks for the laugh....I dont think a shill could have put a better tirade together...

 

[RussianSensation]

OMG, thanks for the laugh....I dont think a shill could have put a better tirade together...

"Finally, consider the release of Titan. It's going to be faster than the GTX 680 and priced disproportionately so, but I guarantee it will be hailed as the second coming of awesome gaming cards. The 7970 did the same thing against the 6970 with a much better price/performance ratio, but it was lauded by critics despite better improvements. Furthermore on day one it surpassed even overclocked 6970 CF performance but again, no one noticed. I even made a thread about it: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2215295"

MrK6 is actually spot on. It's been a theme around here where people either cannot perform simple mathematics or can't grasp the concept of price/performance (or simply ignore it) when it comes to a certain brand because they are too emotionally attached to that particular brand. They jumped all over HD7970's price but the math shows the Titan is way more overpriced and a far worse value on a price/performance technology curve than HD7970 was vs. 6970. It's not even close.

HD7970 OC $549 ~ HD6970 in CF. Price increase was $549 / $369 or 49%, $180 net increase.

Titan OC $800-900 ~ GTX680 in SLI. Price increase is expected $800-900 / $499 or 60-80%, $300-400 net increase.

Further, as a bonus AMD cards also made $$$ bitcoin mining, while the Titan will most likely be horrible at this task. That means if you blew $1100 on 7970s at launch and live in US/Canada, they are fully paid off. If you spend $800-900 on the Titan, there is no way to subsidize your purchase. That makes the Titan even worse.

NV is asking nearly double the price increase AMD asked for a similar level of performance increase, and people are lapping this up as "I would buy it if it was $800 instead of $900". There is no similar outcry from the same people regarding Titan's price increase. NV marketing FTW! :hmm:

If you were NV's management and you saw that your loyal fanbase is not too dissimilar to Apple consumers, paying more and more for your product, what's the takeaway? How would you price flagship Maxwell in 2014? The market is not efficient if the consumers are irrational. In the end that only gives AMD more room to raise prices too and then the average price of GPUs continues to go up.

 

[wand3r3r]

Well said.

 

[chimaxi83]

OMG, thanks for the laugh....I dont think a shill could have put a better tirade together...

Grow up and post something constructive dude. Leave the shill crap on ABT where it belongs.

Anyway, I won't ever pay as much as the rumored prices for a single GPU card, but I hope Nvidia doesn't disappoint. I can enjoy the performance vicariously through the money is no object people who buy this card lol. New cards and their potential is always exciting

 

[tviceman]

HD7970 OC $549 ~ HD6970 in CF. Price increase was $549 / $369 or 49%, $180 net increase.

Titan OC $800-900 ~ GTX680 in SLI. Price increase is expected $800-900 / $499 or 60-80%, $300-400 net increase.

Seriously Russian, I like you tons and you usually make good sense but posts like this really just show you in a really slanted light especially when you claim to be unbiased and partial over and over. Seriously dude. As you can tell from my posts I am not one happy with the rumored MSRP and I've also said I absolutely would not spend that much on a video card, but is it honestly fair to compare a 40nm card with a 28nm card from one company and then 28nm cards exclusively with another company? Absolutely not. I do not care what Nvidia called GK104, it is entirely unlevel, unfair, and purposefully slanted to compare a 40nm chip (cayman) with Tahiti to cast it in a much better light than Nvidia. It's politician spinning and it is inherently BIASED.

NV is asking nearly double the price increase AMD asked for a similar level of performance increase,

And this is where you prove my point. Don't try to drive home what you think by creating entirely unfair situations. It's beyond ridiculous. If you are going to compare Tahiti to cayman, then it is only fair to compare GK110 to GF110. Compare the performance increases and price increases and discuss away at that point.

NV marketing FTW! :hmm:

I honestly see AMD promotions and marketing ads way more than Nvidia. Family got me two PC magazine subscriptions that I had through 2012, each one had AMD GPU ads in them and none had Nvidia ads ever.

 

[OCGuy]

MrK6 is actually spot on. It's been a theme around here where people either cannot perform simple mathematics orcan't grasp the concept of price/performance when it comes to a certain brand because they too emotionally attached to that particular brand. They jumped all over HD7970's price but the math shows the Titan is way more overpriced and a far worse value on a price/performance technology curve than HD7970 was vs. 6970. It's not even close.

HD7970 OC $549 ~ HD6970 in CF. Price increase was $549 / $369 or 49%, $180 net increase.

Titan OC $800-900 ~ GTX680 in SLI. Price increase is expected $800-900 / $499 or 60-80%, $300-400 net increase.

Further, as a bonus AMD cards also made $$$ bitcoin mining, the Titan will most likely be horrible at this task. That means if you blew $1100 on 7970s at launch, they are fully paid off. If you spend $800-900 on the Titan, there is no way to subsidize your purchase. That makes the Titan even worse.

NV is asking nearly double the price increase AMD asked for a similar level of performance increase, and people are lapping this up as "I would buy it if it was $800 instead of $900". There is no similar outcry from the same people regarding Titan's price increase. NV marketing FTW! :hmm:

You pay for the bleeding edge best if there is nothing that is close to it. Highly OCing 7970s does not count, no matter how loud or often it is repeated.

Not everyone bitcoin mines, that is such a niche it makes my head hurt that you would even bring that up. If you do, that is a massive bonus that should be taken into consideration, absolutely.

Also, if there is a low supply of Titan, why would nV give it away if it is going to sell out?


I woud keep the pricing/marketing tactics to the experts instead of the E-experts. AMD finally decided they wanted to turn a profit and would keep a bleeding edge card over-priced if they had one.

And the last time they did (6990), it was $700+, and I saw one for $1000 that came with a sweet little toy gun, which added at least 4% FPS.

People seem to forget the gap between and 8800GT and a bleeding edge 8800GTX, which were the only game in town at the time.

These are companies with shareholders, catering to a very niche market, most of which do not post on forums. One of them is barely afloat, and quality PC games are under fire from many angles.

If AMD can come out with a factory card that is close and causes nV to drop the price of Titan, which we still don't really have real reviews on, then great! I will again thank them for showing why competition is awesome. I just hope they don't take a loss doing so, with the price/performance king that was 4870/4970 because that would be suicide.

 

[SolMiester]

MrK6 is actually spot on. It's been a theme around here where people either cannot perform simple mathematics or can't grasp the concept of price/performance (or simply ignore it) when it comes to a certain brand because they are too emotionally attached to that particular brand. They jumped all over HD7970's price but the math shows the Titan is way more overpriced and a far worse value on a price/performance technology curve than HD7970 was vs. 6970. It's not even close.

HD7970 OC $549 ~ HD6970 in CF. Price increase was $549 / $369 or 49%, $180 net increase.

Titan OC $800-900 ~ GTX680 in SLI. Price increase is expected $800-900 / $499 or 60-80%, $300-400 net increase.

Further, as a bonus AMD cards also made $$$ bitcoin mining, while the Titan will most likely be horrible at this task. That means if you blew $1100 on 7970s at launch and live in US/Canada, they are fully paid off. If you spend $800-900 on the Titan, there is no way to subsidize your purchase. That makes the Titan even worse.

NV is asking nearly double the price increase AMD asked for a similar level of performance increase, and people are lapping this up as "I would buy it if it was $800 instead of $900". There is no similar outcry from the same people regarding Titan's price increase. NV marketing FTW! :hmm:

If you were NV's management and you saw that your loyal fanbase is not too dissimilar to Apple consumers, paying more and more for your product, what's the takeaway? How would you price flagship Maxwell in 2014? The market is not efficient if the consumers are irrational. In the end that only gives AMD more room to raise prices too and then the average price of GPUs continues to go up.

Ignoring MrK6's obvious rehearsed statement, which was my point, why do you suppose Titan will be bad at mining?, is it not the DP that makes AMD so good at it?. As for $/Perf, the fat lady hasn't sung yet...I think some people are jumping too far ahead of themselves for both positive and negative reasoning.....Interesting how we have an approaching new GPU release and the usually suspects are beside themselves with the negative commentary...Actually, it both very funny and frustrating....LMAO

 

[RussianSensation]

I do not care what Nvidia called GK104, it is entirely unlevel, unfair, and purposefully slanted to compare a 40nm chip (cayman) with Tahiti to cast it in a much better light than Nvidia. It's politician spinning and it is inherently BIASED.And this is where you prove my point. Don't try to drive home what you think by creating entirely unfair situations. It's beyond ridiculous. If you are going to compare Tahiti to cayman, then it is only fair to compare GK110 to GF110. Compare the performance increases and price increases and discuss away at that point.

It's not biased because it's not about 40nm vs. 28nm but about how much of a price increase was being asked in a given time-frame for a given level of performance increase. The price/performance technology curve applies to everyone, doesn't matter what chips are compared. Time vs. price vs. performance is what matters.

So you are going to make me make an extra post to prove the same point using NV's GPU history?
Ok here.

GF110 GTX580 40nm $499, Nov 9, 2010
GK110 Titan 28nm $800-900, Feb 2013 (more than 2 years)

vs.

HD6970 40nm $369, Dec 14, 2010
HD7970 28nm $549, Dec 22, 2011 (launched Jan 9, 2012) (way less than 2 years apart).

^^^ Who delivered worse price/performance and a much higher price increase? You are saying it's not NV?

Looking at NV delivering large increases in performance without raising the price to stupid levels, how is this different from 8800GTX --> GTX280/285 --> GTX480/580?

Grooveriding already hit the point on the head when he earlier said NV is effectively raising the price from their $499-649 level to $800-900.

You pay for the bleeding edge best if there is nothing that is close to it. Highly OCing 7970s does not count, no matter how loud or often it is repeated.

Why was HD5870 $369 even though it destroyed GTX285 for 6 months? Should that card have been priced at $599-649 then?

HD7970 was $549 and delivered 41% higher performance over 6970 right off the bat for a $180 price increase. Titan is 60% faster than GTX680 (supposedly) and price goes $300-400. The timeframe between HD6970's launch and 7970's launch is less by almost a full year compared to the timeframe between GTX580 and the Titan's launch. That means NV is delivering less performance increase over time and for a higher price level increase. Similarly, GTX680 gave 35% more over GTX580 without raising the price at all. Why aren't the same people who criticized 7970's price (I did) so vocally not saying a word about the Titan's price increase?

Also this is an enthusiast forum, why does overclocking not count all of a sudden? I even said HD7970 OC replaced HD6970 CF and Titan OC is probably going to be nearly as fast as GTX680 SLI. The difference is NV is asking nearly double the price increase to have 1 single GPU perform as fast as 2 previous flagship ones. Therefore the same outrage that followed HD7970's price increase should be here as well because NV appears to have increased the flagship price from historical $499-649 levels to $800-900!

 

[SolMiester]

Grow up and post something constructive dude. Leave the shill crap on ABT where it belongs.

Anyway, I won't ever pay as much as the rumored prices for a single GPU card, but I hope Nvidia doesn't disappoint. I can enjoy the performance vicariously through the money is no object people who buy this card lol. New cards and their potential is always exciting

WTF do you think I was saying...FW!

 

[SolMiester]

It's not biased because it's not about 40nm vs. 28nm but about how much of a price increase was being asked in a given time-frame for a given level of performance increase. The price/performance technology curve applies to everyone, doesn't matter what chips are compared. Time vs. price vs. performance is what matters.

So you are going to make me make an extra post to prove the same point using NV's GPU history?
Ok here.

GF110 GTX580 40nm $499, Nov 9, 2010
GK110 Titan 28nm $800-900, Feb 2013 (more than 2 years)

vs.

HD6970 40nm $369, Dec 14, 2010
HD7970 28nm $549, Dec 22, 2011 (launched Jan 9, 2012) (way less than 2 years apart).

^^^ Who delivered worse price/performance and a much higher price increase? You are saying it's not NV?

Looking at NV delivering large increases in performance without raising the price to stupid levels, how is this different from 8800GTX --> GTX280/285 --> GTX480/580?

Grooveriding already hit the point on the head when he earlier said NV is effectively raising the price from their $499-649 level to $800-900.



HD7970 was $549 and delivered 45% higher performance over 6970 right off the bat for a 49% price increase. Titan is 60% faster than GTX680 (supposedly) and price goes up 60-80%. The timeframe between HD6970's launch and 7970's launch is less by almost a full year compared to the timeframe between GTX580 and the Titan's launch. That means NV is delivering less performance increase and for a higher price level. Similarly, GTX680 gave 35% more over GTX580 without raising the price at all. Why aren't the same people who criticized 7970's price (I did) criticizing the Titan's price?

How can we judge this $/perf on rumours?...if 680 is 35% better than 580 and Titan is a further 60% better than 680 we have almost 100% better perfo over the 580 at less than twice the price!...but its just guess work...

 

[Grooveriding]

The last thing you want to bring into this is comparing GK110 Geforce to GF110 Geforce. It's looking like Titan is going to wind up being 80% faster than a GTX580 was, exactly where you would of expected GTX680 to have come in, but it in ended up coming less than half of that. Because then you'd bring up that 8800GTX, GTX 280, GTX 280, GTX 480 GTX 580 and GTX 680 all came in for about $500(the 8800GTX was $600), except the GTX 680 delivered half the performance increase over the past node's flagship that the 8800GTX, GTX 280 and GTX 480 did. The 8800GTX was about a 100% increase and still didn't carry such a huge price as $900.

It's a lot more interesting to discuss just how well this Titan will realistically perform. The price discussion is relevant because nvidia is pulling an 80% markup, if this $900 price is accurate, over what they have in the past for the same performance increase. You can't sugarcoat it, it's an 80% price increase for the same performance increase.

Talking about the close performance and price difference of 8800GT vs 8800GTX is not relevant. The 8800GTX was out for well over a year before the 8800GT showed up, I think 18 months.

If you have the best card, yes you can charge what you want and those who want the best will pay for it. This is no different than what AMD did with the 7970 -just a significantly larger markup-, they reduced prices once the 680 came out and changed the landscape. $900 is going to change just who those buyers that want the best are and will pay for it. It's enough of a markup that some people who bought $500 cards will not be able to budget for it and others who did will not see video cards as a luxury worth $900, but as one that is worth $500.

As far as the forum landscape goes we all know why there is a lot less crying about the rumoured price. The crying at 7970s launch was done by a particular forum segment who no one would expect to cry about this rumoured $900 nvidia price. There is no whining here about the rumoured price, just pointing out that this is a massive 80% markup over the past price charged for similar performance gains.

 

[ICDP]

As you can tell from my posts I am not one happy with the rumored MSRP and I've also said I absolutely would not spend that much on a video card, but is it honestly fair to compare a 40nm card with a 28nm card from one company and then 28nm cards exclusively with another company? Absolutely not.

Lets not make this into something it isn't, manufacturing process has nothing to do with price/perf arguments. We can argue all day about this but that is the most important fact to remember. Nothing changes the fact that the rumoured price is extortionate. We should not be expected to pay double the price for lest than double the performance of the current fastest single GPU.

Titan at a guess may be ~40-45% faster than the HD 7970 GE and it will be more than twice the price if it costs 900$. No way anyone can claim that is worth the price being rumoured.

 

[RussianSensation]

It's a lot more interesting to discuss just how well this Titan will realistically perform. The price discussion is relevant because is pulling an 80% markup, if this $900 price is accurate, over what they have in the past for the same performance increase. You can't sugarcoat it, it's an 80% price increase for the same performance increase.

Exactly. If GTX680 never even existed we'd have 2006 8800GTX ($599) --> 2008 GTX 280 ($649--> $499 1 month later) --> 2010 GTX480/580 refresh ($499) --> 2013 "Real" GTX680 ($800-900).

NV is doing this because they conditioned the market with $1K GTX690 for almost a year. It's a brilliant marketing strategy. It's also a way for NV to pass on 28nm wafer costs to consumers while maintaining > 50% gross margins. Also think about this. Over time GPUs should get much cheaper for a similar level of performance or faster at a similar price level. GTX690 launched for $1K a long time ago. When HD5870 came out for $369, it traded blows with both $499 HD4870X2 and GTX295. When HD7970 came out, it traded blows with HD6950 in CF and an OC 7970 traded blows with HD6970s. NV is saying "Ya you can have near GTX670 SLI performance in a single card (or Titan OC ~ GTX680 SLI) but it's going to cost you $800-$900 almost 1 year later." How does that make any sense? When 1Ghz 7970s are selling for $379 now, a GTX680 is NOT a $499 card anymore. Current prices of 680s/690s can't really be used as a fair indicator of their true value. We used the exact same logic when we labelled HD7970 overpriced at launch because GTX580's market price of $449 wasn't really reasonable at the time. I think most of us agreed that $440-450 580s were overpriced by December 2011 even before 7970 launched.

 

[sontin]

And yet the perf/$ improvement over The GTX580 was much better with the GTX680 than it was with the 7970 over the 6970.

So, if you need someone to blame send a letter to AMD.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Humm seems history is being changed.

 

[OCGuy]

Groove I am sure you are not as obtuse as you seem to sound, although I must remind everyone we are talking about rumours here.

These are facts, not opinion. If you disagree, let me know:

1. Price points are made by the financial people, not marketing.

2. You can never say card "X" is exactly 50% faster than card ""y". (Too many variables, and those flat percentages people like to give out are pulled out of thin air. Different cards perform differently with different games.)


So the conclusion is obvious: Initial pricing is not done by percentages of performance. It is done by ROI, number of units, and the projected number of units sold at a theoretical price-point in a target timeframe. Marketing may add a bleeding-edge tax if they are the first one to the market with a new card.

The goal of a company that turns a profit isn't to to sell a card that needs to sell at $600 or more in order to profit from the years of development, for $500. That company would constantly have bankruptsy and buy-out rumours if that were the case.

If they put a card up for $999, and it doesn't sell fast enough, or competition releases a similarly performing product for $699, the price will drop to compensate.

If Titan is the only new-kid on the block until the refreshes later this year, they will sell out as fast as they are put up. Frankly I think demand may be high, and the supply may be low, so "selling out" may not even be that big of a feat.