Titan X SLI Benchmarks

[ratzofftoya]

These pretty much speak for themselves. Suffice it to say, we're going to need some 100hz G-sync/FreeSync monitors.

If you're interested, check out the video:

 

[Bacon1]

Do you mean 100hz 4k monitor? Luckily DP1.4 will support 120hz 4k iirc.

Crazy amount of performance, though the graph colors are painful to look at.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Titan XP is very powerful. It works at 4K as well as a GTX 970 works at 1080p (almost). Shame about that price tag though.

 

[Headfoot]

I just really hope that multi-card undergoes a rennaissance. Actually being able to consider 2 cheaper cards vs a single larger card without the single large card winning by a mile would provide more competition for things like the Titan XP. And it would also make you feel a lot better when you have 2 Titan XP's that the second one you spent $1200 on isn't sitting idle

 

[RussianSensation]

Thanks OP! This YouTuber seems seriously underrated. His eloquence and production values are top notch for a new/unknown YouTuber.

As far as the benchmarks go, it's been obvious for a while that 2014-2016 dGPU hardware is far outpacing the development of next generation PC games. It appears that the most demanding games are often poorly optimized console ports (Mafia 3, Assassin's Creed Unity/Syndicate, Forza Horizon 3, etc.). I said it before that within 1 generation from now, a $250 Volta x60 successor should play almost all well-optimized PC games at 1080p 60Hz with ease. If we use Steam hardware survey as a rough approximation, most PC gamers don't have monitors above 1080p 60Hz. This will create a serious problem for AMD/NV in trying to sell more expensive GPUs. We already see it now as 84% of PC gamers are buying GPUs between $100-300.

It's part of the reason that AMD and NV have been raising prices on GPUs over the last 4 years. They see the train coming towards them. While every new GPU generation brings 70-80% more dGPU performance, the trickle down effect means that a $550 September 2014 980's level of performance is now available in a $190-250 GTX1060. Unless NV neuters the specs on the next Volta x60 card or raises its price above $300, it should be as fast as the GTX1080 for sub-$300 mark. That's a lot of perfomrance for 1080p 60Hz for PS4/XB1 AAA console ports.

AMD/NV would benefit significantly from 165-200Hz HDR monitors and lower prices of 2560x1440, 3440x1440 and 4K monitors. That would spur higher-end GPU upgrades. Unfortunately, prices of high-end monitors aren't dropping as rapidly as even faster and cheaper GPUs are released every 2 years like clock work. Higher refresh rate monitors with FreeSync/G-Sync are still high-end niche segment for the most part. There also appears to be a strong reluctance for many PC gamers to abandon their old but trusty 1080p 60Hz and lower monitors. It's going to be coasting season until the next PS5/XB2, unless certain companies surprise us with truly next gen PC titles such as Cyberpunk 2077, etc. The closer we get towards the end of the current PS4/XB1 generation (let's say 2019-2020), the more the gap in PC GPU hardware power will ensure that PC games are held back by publishing studios and developers targeting 80-100 million of these consoles.

VR is making no strides in making it affordable for the mainstream market. In fact, it appears the aggregate cost of the complete Oculus Rift kit is $926 ($599 Oculus Rift + $49 proprietary connector headphones + $79 motion sensor + $199 controller).

Since we know that in 1.5 years since launch the $650 Fury X and 980Ti lost 50% of their market value, and $1100 Titan X Maxwell's performance can be purchased today in a $390 GTX1070, it only stands to reason that $2400 Titan XP SLI performance will be available in a $1200 GPU setup in 2018. That subsequent level of performance will be available in a $600 2020 GPU. This means in 4 years from now (October 2020), a $350 dGPU should be more powerful than Titan XP SLI. If most PC gamers continue to use 1080p 60Hz monitors, it's clear to see how this is the greatest risk to the entire dGPU business model. Let's hope prices of 1440p/4K monitors start coming down and we get 100-200Hz 1440p/4K monitors asap!

 

[sxr7171]

That's why 4K is being pushed so hard. These manufacturers really need the money or they will be gone. Next one is HDR.

But now that the PS4 pro is coming and the games are still targeting the old PS4 this might make things even worse. At some point the games have to drop PS4 compatibility. Otherwise they will be the same old games with Pro just running them at a higher resolution. There might not be a PS5. Just a slow transition as the installed base of the Pro eclipses the PS4. Even still I expect there to be games to start with code for both machines on the disc/download and then slowly (who knows when) the games will be exclusive to the Pro.

In my recollection the first current gen only AAA game was The Division which came out this year. What are the chances we'll see a PS4 pro/Scorpio only game for 3-4 years?

The main reason people would even want a PS4 pro is because they have a 4K TV at home. So I'm happy they are pushing those even though the benefits of the display itself are moot in most installations.

I can only hope that Sony funds some PS4 pro exclusive title to goad people into buying it. No third party will bother will catering to a smaller installed base. But then again whatever title that is won't be on PC so we'all have to wait for the console folks to have their go at it first and wait for games to trickle down to us.

Either that or the high end PC gamers will have to start paying $150+ a game. The cost is getting ridiculous.


Let's say over 50% of PC gamers get 1440p or above monitors. Would nVidia start dropping prices on GPUs? I can only hope.

 

[ratzofftoya]

I just really hope that multi-card undergoes a rennaissance. Actually being able to consider 2 cheaper cards vs a single larger card without the single large card winning by a mile would provide more competition for things like the Titan XP. And it would also make you feel a lot better when you have 2 Titan XP's that the second one you spent $1200 on isn't sitting idle

That's a good point--I hadn't really considered the fact that we might actually WANT SLI to be a viable option into the future.

 

[ratzofftoya]

Since we know that in 1.5 years since launch the $650 Fury X and 980Ti lost 50% of their market value, and $1100 Titan X Maxwell's performance can be purchased today in a $390 GTX1070, it only stands to reason that $2400 Titan XP SLI performance will be available in a $1200 GPU setup in 2018. That subsequent level of performance will be available in a $600 2020 GPU. This means in 4 years from now (October 2020), a $350 dGPU should be more powerful than Titan XP SLI. If most PC gamers continue to use 1080p 60Hz monitors, it's clear to see how this is the greatest risk to the entire dGPU business model. Let's hope prices of 1440p/4K monitors start coming down and we get 100-200Hz 1440p/4K monitors asap!

Hear, hear! Although do you feel that maybe the introduction of PS4 Pro/Scorpio will push things in the right direction in terms of more demanding games?

 

[sxr7171]

I think the trend of how machines are going to get updated every year or so is very similar to PC. So maybe it will end up how Apple does iOS updates. They support machines maybe up to 3 years ago or maybe more but I'm okay with 3. Less would be better but they want to have enough installed base I suppose.

I really wanted Valve to get into the preconfigured PC space in a big way but it seems MS and Sony may end up being first.

Overall it's probably good. Capitalism is going to have them trying to get the most expenditure out of people. But I think they need to throw in exclusives to get people to upgrade. If smartphone manufacturers can get a chunk of us to upgrade annually then hopefully the console manufacturers can also. It's mostly about how well they can entice and market.

I do wonder about prices dropping. The concept of sticky pricing would suggest not sadly. It would need people rushing into PC gaming which I'm always a sort of evangelist for. It needs to be made easier and MS keeps stumbling along. Nobody wants to deal with command line or registry editing just to get a game to download or work.

That imho is more of a factor than the cost.

 

[RussianSensation]

Hear, hear! Although do you feel that maybe the introduction of PS4 Pro/Scorpio will push things in the right direction in terms of more demanding games?

I don't think so because neither Sony nor MS is allowing exclusive games. The games will still target XB One / S and PS4. The games will be more demanding on the PC due to these factors:

1) We run games at higher resolutions and FPS than consoles. Naturally, PC games are more demanding than the same game would be on consoles if we run them a to 1440p 165Hz or 4K, etc.

2) The ports are poorly optimized. We see A LOT of that. It then takes 3-6 months of patches and AMD/NV driver updates before we get performance that should have been there on release day.

3) The game was made to be next gen at the expense of the studio (since if they went this route, it would be impossible to run it on consoles without a huge downgrade). If so, we would see a massive difference in IQ/visuals between a console and a maxed out PC game. Thus far, not a single cross-platform PS4/XB1 game exhibits this behaviour. Instead, most AAA cross-platform games are a minor downgrade from the PC. The models, level design, AI, underlying physics is hardly beyond current gen consoles. This is why graphically almost all AAA PC games barely look better than the console versions - Fallout 4, The Witcher 3, Gears of War 4, Forza Horizon 3, Doom, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Battlefield 1 look 90% as good as the PC version. There is not even 1 PC game out that looks next generation compared to the best looking console games. That in itself is telling given how much more powerful CPU and GPU hardware on the PC is.

There are 0 AAA games released now that are specifically made to take advantage of powerful cutting edge PC hardware. Perhaps the only game I can think of is Star Citizen, but it hasn't come out yet. By the time this game comes out, it could be almost 5 years since this generation even started...

For me personally, from a technical perspective, this is easily the least impressive console & PC gaming generation. This is especially so given the hype preceding this gen. The difference between PS3/360 games and PS4/XB1 games is far less than it is comparing PS2/XB to PS3/360.

There is also no Crysis. One sign that almost all modern AAA games are primarily designed around consoles is that changing settings from Medium/High to Very High/Ultra on the PC often requires still screenshots and 200% zoom/magnifying glass to tell the difference. Imho, there is not 1 game out today that looks next generation compared to Metro Last Light of Crysis 3. Star Wars Battlefront and Battlefield 1 look great but they doesn't feel like a generational leap.

I expected this generation to have games that looked like the UE4 Kite or Inflitrator demos. Unfortunately, there are 0 mind-blowing games using graphics is that caliber. I remember when I played Crysis, it was a full generational leap compared to every console and PC game of that era. I was hoping we would get something like that again this gen -- thus far we have nothing.

On these forums we have people praising a couple effects in games but they ignore the overall look of the game. Many games still don't even look as good as Crysis Warhead.

Look at Unigine's Superposition demo:
https://unigine.com/en/products/benchmarks/superposition

^Since the start of this console generation, there have been a total of 0 PC games which have real time graphics this good. Every single AAA game from The Witcher 3, to Assassin'a Creed Syndicate, to Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, to Hitman, to Gears of War 4, to GTA V, etc. failed to have a next generational graphical leap from Crysis 3/Metro Last Light.

I have a feeling we will need PS5/XB2 with 8-12Tflops GPUs before we have the level of graphics of UE4 demos or the Unigine Superposition demo. To me, this entire 2013-2016 period of this console generation has been extremely uneventful to the point where the only reason I keep upgrading to newer GPUs is because it's free due to mining, not because I am actually excited to max out next gen PC games. I have 1070 SLI and Hawaii Tri-fire and yet they don't feel special in a way firing Crysis 1 felt special on a GeForce 8, or playing Half-Life 2 or Unreal 2/Tournament felt special back in the day. Maybe I was just younger back then. Now I am just not as impressed by graphical leaps as they feel more incremental due to diminishing returns. Back then going from 2D Mario/Zelda to Super Mario 64/Goldeneye 007/Ocarina of Time was mind-blowing. Such experience is now impossible to find. BR is probably the only thing that can bring these types of feelings for adults -

I feel like in the past graphics card upgrades actually meant something. Now, it's just to go from High to Ultra, from 1080p to 1440p/4K and/or have more FPS. Even if a gamer has Titan XP SLI, there are no true next gen PC games to take advantage of these cards. By the time these games arrive, a single $700 graphics card will be superior

 

[PowerK]

If you're interested, check out the video:

I think the YouTuber is not aware that DOOM 2016 does not support multi-GPU.
Also, it seems that the DOOM 2016 benchmark was done with SMAA enabled. FWIW, only TSSAA in Vulkan path uses Async Compute.

 

[Thinker_145]

We need high refresh rate monitors to get cheaper rather than pushing for higher resolutions. The G-Sync crap has also made some monitors so expensive than what they should be. Like I really like the Acer Z271 but lack of non G-Sync version ruins it's value.