Titan with full # of shader cores

[railven]

Then people have too much money. In my case the 680s were too little of an improvement and I didn't want AMD for several reasons that are offtopic. So I had only two choices:
Wait or buy. I bought

Grats!

The simple fact of the matter is: Titan gives you about 50% over the 680 and 30% over the 7970 GE. And that is good. There is no way to spin it into something bad. EOD.

Okay...sure...Whatever makes you feel better.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Okay...sure...Whatever makes you feel better.

In what universe is more performance not better??? Remember, this is not about price, it's about the silly resolution sidegrade vs. upgrade question.

 

[railven]

In what universe is more performance not better??? Remember, this is not about price, it's about the silly resolution sidegrade vs. upgrade question.

I'd go SLI 680s. If I had SLI 680s, and price isn't an issue, then as you said earlier - I got too much money on my hands

 

[MrK6]

Not true. I can only get maybe 10% increase in frame-rates after Overclocking my Titan. Even if you don't OC 7970GE at all Titan still won't be 50% faster. I admit it was an idiotic purchase on my part. I'm definitely not going to buy a Titan Ultra even if it replaces the current Titan at 1000$ price point. I'm never going to drop that kind of money on a computer part, 1000$(actually 1300$ in my country) and the card rattles! I wanted a quiet card and I got a rattlesnake. For that price Quality Control should be top-notch and it is atrocious.

Sorry you feel that way, but it's to be expected. This was a quick money grab for nvidia and you bought into it, but at least you learned something from it.

 

[MrK6]

It is what it is. If you want decent hardware and on a budget then their is options for you. There is hardware that gives you less performance but a great price/performance ratio. If your really on a tight budget or love to save money, AMD has got you covered. Its nice to have options. But if you want the best of the best and have a lot of money, there is something for you too. Buy what makes you happy.

I mean, seriously i think there are people out there who have to keep saying things just so they can feel better about their value oriented decisions. Be secure with your choice and quit worrying about what other people might buy. They dont need you to save them money, its okay. Be happy with your hardware and dont worry about they guys who can afford extreme processors, titans, and Bentley's. No need to put them down or call them names (idiots) out of jealousy or envy. What they buy doesnt make your purchase in less special.

I don't know if English isn't your first language or you need to re-read my post, but that wasn't my point. If you have the disposable income to buy a $1,000 video card, do it, that's what your money is for. However, that also means that you shouldn't be upset that said premium part is not a "value," or, even more appropriate, is soon obsolete, as is always the case in such a luxury market as computer hardware. If you do get upset, you either don't have the disposable income to participate that you should OR you're an idiot.

 

[Rvenger]

When I purchased my Titan I got it used on Ebay and it was cheaper than Newegg.

Win-win, I didn't have to give my money to Nvidia.

 

[lavaheadache]

I for one will be pissed if Nvidia waits too long to release a faster Titan card because I would hate to loose out on a possible step up from EVGA. I'm surprised nobody else thinks of it this way. For those of us who picked up evga cards this could be a good thing.

As for the argument about performance, Titan certainly delivers. Both camps have their strengths and weaknesses but with a 2560 screen I know I wouldn't have any other card but the fastest in my rig (not including mgpu).

It's simple math really. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. If you can afford it and don't mind poor performance for the dollar then this is the card for you (again, mgpu aside). The best of anything is almost always of poor value compared to the rest. Lets move on already from that discussion.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

You want more proof that a single Titan is a waste of time above 1080P/1200P for most HD7970GE OC/680OC owners?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/graphics/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan/zfulltable.png

I could not disagree any more. Titan at 1440p feels exactly the same as my GTX 680 did at 1080p. The frame rates are remarkably similar across all games and benchmarks, the only difference being resolution. This is comparing max game stable overclocks between the cards (1176/7000 on Titan vs 1280/6700 on the GTX 680).

When I had a GTX 680 and ran 1080p, everything played great. When I moved to 1440p, the large performance drop off was clear as day. Titan removed that performance drop off completely.

I'm not saying the price is justified, but to say it's waste of time at resolutions higher than 1080/1200p is very off base.

Edit, The chart actually shows what I described in my experience.
1080p 0x/4xAA stock GTX 680 : 77.2fps, 48.8fps
1440p 0x/4xAA stock Titan : 70.5fps, 48.6fps

 

[nanaki333]

eh.. kind of annoying that they did not give titan that long of a run before releasing a new card that's faster at the same price (how long did the 690 hold the $999 premium?). they're just getting cocky now. there was a great demand for titan (sold out quick at microcenter, newegg and other retailers quick), nvidia thinks they can do it again and again and again. eventually, nobody will buy their $999 graphics card for fear that it will be replaced in like 3 or 4 months.

 

[5150Joker]

eh.. kind of annoying that they did not give titan that long of a run before releasing a new card that's faster at the same price (how long did the 690 hold the $999 premium?). they're just getting cocky now. there was a great demand for titan (sold out quick at microcenter, newegg and other retailers quick), nvidia thinks they can do it again and again and again. eventually, nobody will buy their $999 graphics card for fear that it will be replaced in like 3 or 4 months.

Chill out dude it is all conjecture started from one website. There is zero proof of any of this ever materializing.

 

[RussianSensation]

But what has this to do with Titan? Titan w/o temp target is 37% faster than a 7970GHz. That is more than the 7970 was over the GTX580.

HD7970 cost $50-100 more vs. 580. Titan costs $590 more.

You could buy two GTX570 with 2,25GB or two 6970 for a little bit more than one 7970 last year. Another reason why AMD's cards are useless.

That makes no sense whatsoever. HD7970 OC provides a smoother gaming experience than either of those setups, costs less and makes more $ bitcoin mining. HD7970 OC is better than GTX570 SLI or HD6970 CF. Also, HD7970 OC stayed the fastest single GPU from the day it came out in the hands of overclockers until Titan hit. That's more than 1 year of flagship performance.

Not one of the reasons makes sense. You know claiming that a 50% lead is no "real" advantage, yet a <10% would be?

HD7970 and GTX680 cost about the same. So 10% difference in favour of one or the other matters when they are priced so close. When Titan is 35-50% faster as you say, we have to look at what you can get from it. What you get is a card that's too slow for 1600P / multi-monitor resolutions. Therefore, if you right now went out and were thinking GTX680/7970GE vs. Titan, the Titan makes almost no sense unless you plan on getting 2.

And a GTX680 is a much better deal than a 7970 for 1080p.

Not sure if serious. 1050mhz HD7970 is $410 with Bioshock and Crysis 3. GTX680 is slower on avg. and will come with Metro LL only. The 680 also has less VRAM for mods and makes no $ bitcoin mining. You'd have to be a hardcore NV fanboy now to buy a GTX680 for $450+ over the faster 7970 GE that costs less and makes $. Unless you absolutely need Physx, CUDA or want to go SLI, 680 needs a price drop to $399 at most.

Only if you have no clue about the architecture. The GTX680 is faster in 1080p in Farcry 3, Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinity but was only as fast as in 1440p/1600p last year.

Wrong. GTX680 is slower in 3 out of 4 of those titles in latest reviews with updated drivers. Not that it matters much since GTX680 and HD7970 are both too slow to hit 60 fps there.

Did you conveniently forget games where HD7970GE is smashing the 680 like in COH2 where the 7970GE's minimums are roughly at GTX670's avg despite 7970GE costing $410.

April 13, 2013

GTX680 and HD7970GE are practically tied in Bioshock Infinite.

"The AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition provided an identical experience."
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1366059325bz0mQW3iY7_5_2_l.jpg

Really... Titan is 50% faster than a GTX680 without temp target.
Or in your world: I can play Crysis 3 with 60fps instead of 40 fps.

That's great. 1 avg game with a short campaign to spend $1000 on to go from 40 fps on a 680 to 60 fps. Knock yourself out.

Fun fact: The 7970 is only 18% faster than the GTX580 in Crysis 3, Titan with temp target @ 80°C is 48% faster than the 7970:

Fun fact #1, GTX680 is even slower than HD7970GE in Crysis 3. So why didn't compare GTX580 to the 680 to show how overpriced the 680 is today?

Fun fact #2, HD7970 delivered more performance advantage over HD6970 for $180 than Titan does over HD7970GE for $600. Didn't you continuously attack 7970's rip-off price but now you seem to be defending Titan's price premiums? Interesting.

Edit, The chart actually shows what I described in my experience.
1080p 0x/4xAA stock GTX 680 : 77.2fps, 48.8fps
1440p 0x/4xAA stock Titan : 70.5fps, 48.6fps

Right, so for you it's worth spending $1000 to maintain the same performance when going from 1080P to 1440P. What you are saying is it's worth $1000 for you to go from 1080P to 1440P gaming? Fair enough.

Keep in mind HD7970GE gets 55.9 fps at 1080P. However, that's avg fps. Look at what happens to Titan at 1440P in GPU demanding games in the same review - low to mid-30s. That's disappointing for a $1000 GPU. As long as you are happy, that's all that matters but in the context of your statement, you are suggesting it's normal to pay $1000 to maintain the same or lower performance to go from 1080P to 1440P. GTX680 delivered 35-40% more performance than 580 at the same price level. Titan is asking that level of increase over GTX680/HD7970GE for a whopping $550-600 more. If Titan LE hits at $600-700, it'll be even more obvious how much of a rip-off the Titan was all along. If NV releases Titan Ultra with full fledged shaders at $1K and Titan LE at $600, Titan loses $200 in value automatically. I just find it hilarious that the same people who cried about AMD raising prices from HD6970 to HD7970 are now defending NV's $600 price premium for a lower increase in performance the Titan delivers over HD7970GE than 7970 did over 6970.

 

[SirPauly]

What nVidia may need is a new family and more competitive sku's.

 

[wand3r3r]

HD7970 cost $50-100 more vs. 580. Titan costs $590 more.

Slap slap slap slap = the sound of sontin('s ridiculous arguments) getting b#% slapped.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Slap slap slap slap = the sound of sontin('s ridiculous arguments) getting b#% slapped.

I don't see the problem, midrange went for $500 this gen, and high end went for $1000.

Titan actually increased the gap between the two tiers, and it did it while reducing TDP.

In the grand scheme of things, Titan pushed us further ahead than either the 680 or 7970.

 

[wand3r3r]

I don't see the problem

In the grand scheme of things, Titan pushed us further ahead than either the 680 or 7970.

The point is sontin is desperately throwing mud on everything AMD and trying to pass of NV's premiums as normal or worth it. (If you're even referring to my post)

Yeah the titan is a decent card itself without considering anything else.

 

[RussianSensation]

Slap slap slap slap = the sound of sontin('s ridiculous arguments) getting b#% slapped.

Also 1 small detail - he keeps saying how Titan OC is up to 50% faster than HD7970GE but when he is comparing 7970 to 580, he ignores 7970's overclocking. At 1180mhz, the 7970 is 49% than 580 at 1200P and 59% faster at 1600P.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_7970_X_Turbo/28.html

The Titan has inconsistent performance. In some games, it's barely faster than HD7970GE. If there was a $1000 GPU like that during GeForce 3 to GeForce 400 eras that cost $1000 and in many games could barely outperform a $400-450 one, it would be ripped apart.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6915/54336.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6915/54330.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6915/54348.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6915/54345.png

Notice his jab about me not understanding architectures and yet for 1.5 years now he keeps denying that GCN is the superior architecture for compute despite benchmarks all over the net showing this to be the case:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6915/amd-radeon-hd-7990-review-7990-gets-official/15

AMD now launched HD7990 Malta for $1000, or a $300 price increase from HD6990 and $400 price increase from HD5970. Between the usual NV vs. AMD fanfare, gamers aren't seeing the big picture how prices are slowly creeping up and NV and AMD are laughing at us. Titan / Ultra / GTX690 / HD7990 at $1-1.2K? Go Premiums!

 

[Fx1]

Dual GPU cards should be CHEAPER! They use less materials and your essentially buying 2 cards so you should at least get a discount!

Im sick of both NV and AMD pushing up prices. The 4870X2 cost £350!!!! 7990 is £850!

 

[UaVaj]

if you can truly AFFORD a titan or two. upgrading to titan ultra is just a walk in the park. when the titan ultra comes avaialble. sell the titan for whatever it is wrorth and get the ultra. then call it a day.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Notice his jab about me not understanding architectures and yet for 1.5 years now he keeps denying that GCN is the superior architecture for compute despite benchmarks all over the net showing this to be the case:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6915/amd-radeon-hd-7990-review-7990-gets-official/15

Are those games? No, they are not. And in Civ 5 the difference is marginal.
Shall I quote you (again), saying compute is NOT the reason the 7970 (GE) can be faster in some titles?
Why are you constantly saying this when you know it's not true? Why do you keep trolling on this topic?

Me:

Yet I wonder, with all that being said - why is the 7870 LE not faster than the 670/680 if it is so much better at compute?

You:

My educated guess is most games are not mostly Compute Shader limited.
Think of it this way - for graphics we now have all these factors that could be limiting overall gaming performance of a GPU:

Pixel shading power
Texture shading power
Geometry shader/engine performance (tessellation)
Compute shader processing power (Compute shaders)
Memory bandwidth limitations

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34597762&postcount=48

QED.

Oh and btw:
Those who care about bitcoin mining so much are as greedy as Nvidia is. They have no right to complain about prices when they promote processes that "print" money at the expense of other people. Nvidia charges too much, correct. But at least they create something worthwile. Bitcoins do not.

 

[sontin]

Also 1 small detail - he keeps saying how Titan OC is up to 50% faster than HD7970GE but when he is comparing 7970 to 580, he ignores 7970's overclocking. At 1180mhz, the 7970 is 49% than 580 at 1200P and 59% faster at 1600P.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_7970_X_Turbo/28.html

Yeah and you can't overclock the GTX580, i guess.
It's funny the only guy who is ignoring things is you. :awe:

Notice his jab about me not understanding architectures and yet for 1.5 years now he keeps denying that GCN is the superior architecture for compute despite benchmarks all over the net showing this to be the case:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6915/amd-radeon-hd-7990-review-7990-gets-official/15

And yet Kepler with less compute performance is beating GCN in Tomb Raider with TressFX:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2013/amd-radeon-hd-7990-im-test/36/

You have really no clue. OpenCL benchmarks show nothing because nVidia is not optimizing for it.

AMD now launched HD7990 Malta for $1000, or a $300 price increase from HD6990 and $400 price increase from HD5970. Between the usual NV vs. AMD fanfare, gamers aren't seeing the big picture how prices are slowly creeping up and NV and AMD are laughing at us. Titan / Ultra / GTX690 / HD7990 at $1-1.2K? Go Premiums!

What are talking? AMD is the company who is not putting out faster products. Instead they giving tens of free games with their cards. You want cheaper/or faster cards? Write a letter to AMD that they bring something new to the market.

 

[Lepton87]

I could not disagree any more. Titan at 1440p feels exactly the same as my GTX 680 did at 1080p. The frame rates are remarkably similar across all games and benchmarks, the only difference being resolution. This is comparing max game stable overclocks between the cards (1176/7000 on Titan vs 1280/6700 on the GTX 680).

When I had a GTX 680 and ran 1080p, everything played great. When I moved to 1440p, the large performance drop off was clear as day. Titan removed that performance drop off completely.

I'm not saying the price is justified, but to say it's waste of time at resolutions higher than 1080/1200p is very off base.

Edit, The chart actually shows what I described in my experience.
1080p 0x/4xAA stock GTX 680 : 77.2fps, 48.8fps
1440p 0x/4xAA stock Titan : 70.5fps, 48.6fps

What max stable OC? there are no max stable OC in general sense only for specific individual cards, my Titan won't run memory 100MHz out of spec. Max GPU offset is just 125MHz and that's it for OC.

 

[moonbogg]

Screw all these new cards. Not worth it. Moonbogg out!

 

[Unoid]

I could not disagree any more. Titan at 1440p feels exactly the same as my GTX 680 did at 1080p. The frame rates are remarkably similar across all games and benchmarks, the only difference being resolution. This is comparing max game stable overclocks between the cards (1176/7000 on Titan vs 1280/6700 on the GTX 680).

When I had a GTX 680 and ran 1080p, everything played great. When I moved to 1440p, the large performance drop off was clear as day. Titan removed that performance drop off completely.

I'm not saying the price is justified, but to say it's waste of time at resolutions higher than 1080/1200p is very off base.

Edit, The chart actually shows what I described in my experience.
1080p 0x/4xAA stock GTX 680 : 77.2fps, 48.8fps
1440p 0x/4xAA stock Titan : 70.5fps, 48.6fps

I wasin the same boat as you, 1080P single 680.

I've been playing at 1440p with a single 680 for 5 months now.
When faced with two options, Buy a second 680 and save money comapred to selling my 680 and buying a titan, I chose SLI.

More performance (even with SLI scalings) and cheaper. My 850watt PSU handles everything fine. and I'm happy.

Was your choice to spend more money for less performacne because of not wanting SLI and it's risks associated, or possibly your case size/utility bill, or PSU size?

 

[HisDivineOrder]

AMD now launched HD7990 Malta for $1000, or a $300 price increase from HD6990 and $400 price increase from HD5970. Between the usual NV vs. AMD fanfare, gamers aren't seeing the big picture how prices are slowly creeping up and NV and AMD are laughing at us. Titan / Ultra / GTX690 / HD7990 at $1-1.2K? Go Premiums!

I agree with this quote as being the most important point made in this thread. nVidia and AMD are both raising the prices on their high end bit by bit and enthusiasts are lapping it up eagerly.

Hopefully, this will change when games show up that are ports from the next gen titles that need truly high end hardware instead of the AA and/or multidisplay race the SLI/CF systems of today are built for.