The OG Nvidia Titan GPU- how has it held up?

[dmoney1980]

I only ask because of all the unhappy GTX 6 and 7 series owners from recent performance drops. Is the original Titan in the same boat, or is it holding up well? 6gb VRAM helps, but I'd imagine overall it's close to a GTX 970 in modern games...

Thoughts?

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

I'm a 7 series owner and I'm not unhappy and I haven't had any performance drops. These cards are holding up fine, just not as well as one would like if they paid MSRP for them. HINT I didn't, I only paid $240 for my 780 so I may be a bit happier than others...

 

[poofyhairguy]

I only ask because of all the unhappy GTX 6 and 7 series owners from recent performance drops. Is the original Titan in the same boat, or is it holding up well? 6gb VRAM helps, but I'd imagine overall it's close to a GTX 970 in modern games...

Thoughts?

It is pretty close to the GTX 970, but the 970 wins more often than not on newer games.

 

[ocre]

The perpetual "Kepler lost performance" myth regurgitates endlessly in every form.

There was no loss in performance.

With GCN, AMD had more performance left on the table to extract. Then considering the next gen consoles both sport GCN, game engines catering the GCN design, this becomes another factor.

Then nvidia moved on to maxwell and dx12, a whole new world.

There are many factors at play but the truth is.....
Kepler did not loose performance over time.

 

[Zodiark1593]

The perpetual "Kepler lost performance" myth regurgitates endlessly in every form.

There was no loss in performance.

With GCN, AMD had more performance left on the table to extract. Then considering the next gen consoles both sport GCN, game engines catering the GCN design, this becomes another factor.

Then nvidia moved on to maxwell and dx12, a whole new world.

There are many factors at play but the truth is.....
Kepler did not loose performance over time.

This. GCN had more raw compute than comparably priced Nvidia offerings, but were hamstrung by crappy drivers for much too long, much to our (both AMD and Nvidia owners) loss.

Had the drivers actually done a decent job of extracting GCN's performance from the beginning, we'd probably have GTX 970+ performance at sub-$200 prices instead. Not to say Nvidia shouldn't take some of the blame here for abusing the situation as they're equally at fault for doing so.

 

[master_shake_]

the og titan hasn't really done well in terms of longevity.

it is still a good card but has been surpassed in performance even by cards it competed and won against.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Ti_Lightning/23.html

using these graphs we can put the titan ahead of the 780 but behind the 290 in most cases.

giving it an advantage over a 7970ghz/280x a card @ 1080p

but the gap closes pretty quickly at 2560x1440 or 4k.

 

[Mondozei]

The perpetual "Kepler lost performance" myth regurgitates endlessly in every form.

There was no loss in performance.

With GCN, AMD had more performance left on the table to extract. Then considering the next gen consoles both sport GCN, game engines catering the GCN design, this becomes another factor.

Then nvidia moved on to maxwell and dx12, a whole new world.

There are many factors at play but the truth is.....
Kepler did not loose performance over time.

This. GCN had more raw compute than comparably priced Nvidia offerings, but were hamstrung by crappy drivers for much too long, much to our (both AMD and Nvidia owners) loss.

Had the drivers actually done a decent job of extracting GCN's performance from the beginning, we'd probably have GTX 970+ performance at sub-$200 prices instead. Not to say Nvidia shouldn't take some of the blame here for abusing the situation as they're equally at fault for doing so.

This is unqualified nonsense. Excuses made for NV. The reason why older GCN cards are doing better today is because AMD invested significant amount of time in raising their performance while NV simply didn't. There's no inherent "magic" involved in the older GCN cards which had mountains of "untapped performance" but I'm laughing at you if you think there was.

Also, please stop talking about GCN as if it is one big grey goo. There are different versions of GCN and they are not the same.

AMD's DX11 drivers are even to this day worse than NV's, so NV has no excuse. It purposefully abandoned Kepler so as to force people to get to Maxwell. It has since boosted Kepler to levels which are the minimum necessary.

The true "untapped advantage" of GCN 1.0 and 1.1 isn't in DX11 games - it's in DX12. But all of the performance advantage we've seen so far has been in DX11. So what does that tell us? Magic? No, purposeful investment. Once DX12 becomes mainstream, the Hawaii GPUs in particular will look even better, but this time you can actually talk about untapped potential with a straight face without making yourself look like a fool.

I'm amazed how far some people are willing to slobber for NV, anything to excuse their behaviour. I'm sure we'll get long "explanations" from the same people how gameworks is really about bringing innovation to gaming and any suggestion otherwise is just anti-NV smears. :biggrin:

Warning issued for inflammatory language.
-- stahlhart

 

[BFG10K]

I've had the original Titan since June 2013 and it's held up fine for my needs. I've skipped two generations so when I next upgrade, I'll have had the card for around 3 years.

A lot of newish games still fine run at 4K with my target of 60FPS (e.g. Betrayer). If not, dropping to a native 1080p provides up to four times more performance.

I don't regret my purchase, but I'll never pay that much for a graphics card again. In the future I plan on buying the second fastest card from whichever vendor I chose.

A simple example of why: the 970 was about a third the cost while being the same speed. 2.5GB VRAM is not worth $650.

 

[Innokentij]

I've had the original Titan since June 2013 and it's held up fine for my needs. I've skipped two generations so when I next upgrade, I'll have had the card for around 3 years.

A lot of newish games still fine run at 4K with my target of 60FPS (e.g. Betrayer). If not, dropping to a native 1080p provides up to four times more performance.

I don't regret my purchase, but I'll never pay that much for a graphics card again. In the future I plan on buying the second fastest card from whichever vendor I chose.

A simple example of why: the 970 was about a third the cost while being the same speed. 2.5GB VRAM is not worth $650.

970 wasent born when the titan was released tough. You should compare to what was around the time the titan came, aka 680 for single gpu and 690 for dual gpu. So going by your logic u be stuck with a 670 GTX today.

 

[NTMBK]

970 wasent born when the titan was released tough. You should compare to what was around the time the titan came, aka 680 for single gpu and 690 for dual gpu. So going by your logic u be stuck with a 670 GTX today.

He could have bought a 680 then and a 980 now, and have spent less than he did on the Titan.

 

[BFG10K]

So going by your logic u be stuck with a 670 GTX today.

$400 (670) + $330 (970) = $730. I'd end up with the same performance and save $270. That's almost the price of the 970 by itself.

Also a 680 is only 7% faster than 670, yet the 670 is $100 cheaper. You won't notice 7%, but you'll certainly notice $100.