Titan X vs Titans 3-way SLI Water-Cooled

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2009
2,546
0
81
#1
I can have one or the other for about the same price, although getting the Titan X would be more of a hassle because I would have to sell my current cards, which have water blocks on them. I don't know if I could sell them with water-blocks installed or if I would be forced to sell all of that separately. Another thing to consider is if there are any water blocks available for the Titan X? I would certainly not want to have it air-cooled, that would be unacceptable to me. I think that I have to act quickly if I want to still fetch a fair price for my titans because when AMD's 3XX series cards arrive that have more or less the same performance as the Titan X for 600$ then my Titans are going down in price a lot and then I would want to get the 3rd one, but if I decided to go with the Titan X I would do it as quickly as possible to still sell my titans for a fair price. I think even 2 titans are already faster than one Titan X, so the value proposition isn't really there is it? So I would need to get the second one down the line for that to make sense. How long before a used one will be going for a 500$? The larger frame buffer doesn't seem like much of a benefit because 6GB is still plenty, at least even for 4K not to mention 1440p. Are there any games where 6GB can be a limiting factor already? I don't care about the power draw, like at all, so that's not an advantage for the Titan X in my case, because I'm using water-cooling anyway and my loop can easily handle any computer parts.

UPDATE: Never mind, Titan X is out of the question due to the ethics of NV. I won't be supporting a company that utterly neglected drivers for the cards that cost me so much money just because they released a slightly faster card. I'm talking about the GTX980 not the Titan X. Neither of these cards is the proper successor to the original Titan. Titan X seems like a proper successor to the 780Ti but with a hugely inflated price.
See the relative performance of 780Ti, 290X, 7970 and 980 at Maxwell's launch and now. I'm not buying the explanation that GCN even GCN 1.0 and Maxwell are so much more future proof hardware wise, it's all down to drivers. Also the 970 fiasco.

ps. We can still discuss the merits of such an "upgrade" but it will be a purely academic discussion but then most of such threads are like that anyway.
 
Last edited:

imaheadcase

Diamond Member
May 9, 2005
3,850
0
76
#2
I don't think anyone is going to agree any upgrade path you want is right for you. If what you have now is listed in post, you are golden for year+ still.
 

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2009
2,546
0
81
#3
I didn't mention one thing, I want to upgrade my monitor to either a 4K model or 120Hz/144Hz. 4K 120Hz+ or even 75Hz would be best but there just isn't one available, is there any such monitor even planned for release? I'm thinking about Acer's XB270HU that is IPS 144Hz G-SYNC but I would prefer something larger and 4K. If that Acer would be larger than 27'' I wouldn't hesitate. What I have is plenty for 2560x1440 60Hz.
 

Annisman*

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2010
1,776
0
81
#4
Can you explain further about what NV did to you ?
 

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2009
2,546
0
81
#5
Can you explain further about what NV did to you ?
I don't like their business practices. Titan's lead over 7970 eroding over time even tough it is a newer card. GW games. But what affects me the most is how they don't care to optimize drivers for Kepler cards anymore, now Titan is slower than both 290 and GTX970. And it only keeps getting worse. That shouldn't happen according to specs alone it's all in the software. Not to mention blocking PHYS-X when the main card is not from NV. Not supporting Display Port optional features namely adaptive refresh rate just G-SYNC.




Kepler is getting hammered. Exclude the old games and it looks terrible for kepler.
like that:

 
Last edited:

5150Joker

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2002
5,563
0
71
www.techinferno.com
#6
Have you looked at other sources for comparison besides just TPU? Their results and game selection may be different from somewhere else that obtains totally different results. You can't make sweeping generalizations about performance gains/losses unless you round up many more sources.
 

.vodka

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2014
1,080
163
136
#7
The other sources are more or less going to back up TPU's results. Kepler's performance has gone off a cliff after XB1/PS4 launched *and* Maxwell cards arrived, with the 290x now tying or surpassing the 780Ti, also closing the gap with the 980 down to ~10% (stock to stock, obviously). He's more than right to be annoyed at his Titans' now lackluster performance, considering the price they'd command in their time.



OP, the Titan X is a known quantity now. Wait until June to see what the 390x brings to the table. There's also the rumor of a 980Ti based on a full GM200 just like the X, with 6GB vram instead of 12GB. That could also be an interesting card, priced accordingly.


At least your Titans hold up in resale value due to their DP capabilities, something the X lacks. If you sell them, and the 390x doesn't fulfill your expectations... The X or that supposed 980Ti, when watercooled and OCed give and will give insane performance, sometimes approaching the 295x2! It's something to consider, in spite of nV's questionable practices.
 
Last edited:

.vodka

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2014
1,080
163
136
#9
Yes. It's a pure gaming card. It is a Titan only in name, and VRAM. With that in mind, if there's a geforce variant of GM200 with 6GB VRAM coming, it'll be the card to get (if you like green) without paying the insane sum of $1000.

Here's hoping for 390x to bring that absurd pricing down.
 
Sep 5, 2003
19,460
0
126
#10
Have you looked at other sources for comparison besides just TPU? Their results and game selection may be different from somewhere else that obtains totally different results. You can't make sweeping generalizations about performance gains/losses unless you round up many more sources.
You must have not paid attention. Many sites like TechSpot, GameGPU, Computerbase all show Kepler bombing against GCN/Maxwell. 780 is barely faster than a 7970Ghz, Titan < R9 290, 780Ti is ~ R9 290X and slower at higher resolutions, with 980's lead over 780Ti extending to 20-30% in some modern titles released in the last 6 months.

---

On the topic of upgrading, even if you can sell each of your Titans for $450-500 when GM200 6GB/390 cards launch, it's still worth it. In your shoes, I would much rather pay $200-300 extra out of pocket for $1200-1300 GM200 6GB SLI/390 nonX/390X CF than get a single Titan X. Some people are unlikely to believe it, but I think it's almost a guarantee that a $500-650 GM200 6GB/390 non-X card will provide 87-90% performance of the Titan X, meaning 2 of those will blow it away.

Even if we take aside NV's GWs and throwing Kepler under the bus, there are 3 strong reasons for you to skip Titan X entirely. The first I mentioned above (Price/performance of upcoming cards). The second is that Titan has DP performance which means even if R9 390X/GM200 6GB is released, your resale value on your Titans for the consumer who needs DP is unlikely to drop much more in the next 3-4 months. Therefore, I think you are worried a bit too much here. The third, Titan X is a 100% money grab as it is basically a gaming card with 12GB of VRAM and a $999 ($1300 US in Europe) price tag. NV will not have 100% full yielding GM200 die which means it's 100% guarantee we will see a cut-down GM200 with after-market coolers. Remember 780 Ghz edition vs. Titan? With Titan X, NV magically (via marketing) just raised the price from $699 of 780Ti to $999-1299 if you will. If you do not want to support this business practice of having single-chip flagships at $999+, it's another reason to skip the Titan X. If you buy the Titan X at $1300 US in Europe, you are just sending a signal to NV that it's OK to price mid-range cards at $550-600 (980/680 4GB) and flagships at $1000+ (Titan X without DP). Many people can afford the Titan X at $1000 but won't buy it out of principle of not supporting such high prices in the hardware industry.

Finally, major games of 2015 haven't launched yet like Project CARS, GTA V, Witcher 3. It's not as if your existing Titans are slow as they are clocked at 1.2Ghz. A single Titan X would be a downgrade for you in many games that work well in SLI. That's why I think R9 390 CF/GM200 6GB SLI should be your next upgrade path and it will not cost that much more compared to the Titan X. Frankly, with dual Titans you can probably coast for another 1.5 years until Pascal 14nm/16nm GPUs. In your case I would wait until R9 390 (esp. non-X version) and GM200 6GB and then make your decision. Usually the 2nd fastest cards from the top from NV/AMD are by far the best value. The top cards never outlast the 2nd tier for next gen games (i.e., recall 470 OC vs. 480 OC, 570 OC vs. 580 OC, 670 OC vs. 680 OC, etc.).
 
Last edited:

Pandamonia

Senior member
Jun 13, 2013
433
7
91
#11
Im thinking of buying the 380X in CF next time around just because im sick of Nvidia screwing its customers. They have thrown Keplar to the wolves in pursuit of the next $
 

96Firebird

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
5,587
25
106
#12
I'm confused, did you come to this epiphany of not supporting Nvidia less than 20 minutes after posting the original post?
 
Sep 5, 2003
19,460
0
126
#13
Im thinking of buying the 380X in CF next time around just because im sick of Nvidia screwing its customers. They have thrown Keplar to the wolves in pursuit of the next $
Be careful. It's usually not a great idea to do SLI/CF with next generation mid-range cards (i.e., last generation that would have been R9 280 or 280X/GTX760 SLI). Chances are the flagship $600-650 card will offer 80-90% of the performance of 380X CF for a similar price. CF/SLI makes the most sense at the beginning of a generation with 2nd tier or flagship cards (i.e., 390 nonX / 2nd tier GM200 6GB and up). Some people disagree as I've seen GTX460 SLI being popular back in the days but usually that is only if you can get a very great deal in terms of price/performance (for example if you could get GTX460 SLI for $300 when GTX480 was $500). As an example, I would have never bought 760 SLI for $500 over a $550 290X.



Also, rumours have it that GM200 6GB might be as low as $599-649. That means there is a strong possibility that 390 nonX will only be $499. If it has 3840 SPs, and slightly lower clocks than the flagship 390X, but retains and the same 4096-bit HBM bus and ROP count (something that's been consistent for 5850 vs. 5870 ---> 290 nonX vs. 290X), it could be a sleaper videocard of next gen. I think the performance difference between a 390 nonX OC and 380X OC will be massive (i.e., > 30%).
 

5150Joker

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2002
5,563
0
71
www.techinferno.com
#14
I see Kepler doing just fine in new reviews done this year. And when these comparisons are made, is it with after market 290/290x vs stock keplers? Because that is a very disingenuous way of making comparisons.

Glancing over recent reviews, the two games I see Kepler AND Maxwell doing poorly in with average fps are FC4 and SoM which could be a simple matter of driver optimization. Rest seem about where they should be. I don't see where the sky is falling comments are coming from.

1. http://techreport.com/review/27969/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-graphics-card-reviewed







2. http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_x_review,14.html





3. http://hothardware.com/reviews/gefo...ards-from-msi-evga-and-zotac-reviewed?page=10



4. http://www.techspot.com/review/977-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x/page8.html




And when doing Maxwell vs GCN, if you look at OC vs OC, Maxwell embarrasses GCN as it just pulls far ahead. There's many dimensions to consider when looking at video card reviews, by boxing yourself to a few narrow criteria and sources, you don't get the overall picture.
 
Last edited:

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2009
2,546
0
81
#15
OMG you really like to write but sometimes being concise is better. The only problem with my Titans is that I already invested* in water blocks for them. I'm not ever going back to an air cooler card or CPU ever, even those CLC like 285X are unacceptable to me, everything has to be connected to my loop save for RAM, MOBO and other silliness.

" I said invested because I wanted to grab a third one down the road but with the sorry state of Kepler performance in new games that doesn't seem like a good option. Then why they installed 6GB? Certainly not for people who want to enjoy the card for a few years because they dropped the ball on drivers
 
Last edited:

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2009
2,546
0
81
#16
G]

And when doing Maxwell vs GCN, if you look at OC vs OC, Maxwell embarrasses GCN as it just pulls far ahead. There's many dimensions to consider when looking at video card reviews, by boxing yourself to a few narrow criteria and sources, you don't get the overall picture.
Did they buy the card themselves or were they send by NV? If the latter NV is notorious for sending cherry picked chips just as Intel. I don't know about AMD but they probably do that. Anyway I'm not interested in OC with aircooler what I want to know is how the cards react to a higher voltage.
 
Sep 5, 2003
19,460
0
126
#17
OMG you really like to write but sometimes being concise is better. The only problem with my Titans is that I already invested* in water blocks for them. I'm not ever going back to an air cooler card or CPU ever, even those CLC like 285X are unacceptable to me, everything has to be connected to my loop save for RAM, MOBO and other silliness.
Sorry, didn't mean to write so much. Take a step back and think about it another way -- do you want to upgrade for benchmarks/bragging rights or actual needed performance? You already know how quickly GPUs depreciate in value and how often faster ones come out. Are your dual Titans OCed too slow for certain games? If so, which ones? I think at the very least wait until June to see the performance of R9 390 series and how NV vs. AMD fare in GTA IV/TW3, etc.

As I already told you, I personally do not believe that your Titans will depreciate much more in value in the next 3-4 months since the card is very specialized and there isn't anything faster besides Titan Blacks for DP performance. Since you have to have water-cooled cards and Titan X costs ~$1300 USD in Europe, to upgrade you'd need to get 2 of those which is ~$2600 USD. Based on the benchmarks of the Titans @ 1.2Ghz, it's not as if your Titans are slow imo and I don't think you have a 4K monitor. In your shoes I would honestly consider skipping this generation entirely unless something comes along where you can sell your Titans for $400-500 a pop and upgrade to a card faster for not much more $. For example if R9 390/GM200 6GB card is $550 and offers 87-90% of the performance of the Titan X, then I would do a stop-gap upgrade. Otherwise I don't think 980s or the Titan X are worth it for you. If you could spend $2600 on Titan Xs and not really care, I doubt you'd be asking for upgrading advice. This is not meant to offend you but the opposite -- patience should reward you in terms of price/performance as it's inevitable that R9 390/390X/GM200 6GB will all blow the Titan X in price/performance. If you can hold out until 14nm GPUs, I have little doubt that a $450 Pascal card will match or beat the Titan X late next year.
 
Last edited:

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,408
55
126
#18
I agree, seems like waiting out to 16nm cards will be the best call. 2x SLI Titans @ 1.2ghz is still very fast. Titan and Titan Black are still the fastest DP compute CUDA cards, so they should maintain value better than the average card. Look at how people still buy used 580s for compute even
 

njdevilsfan87

Golden Member
Apr 19, 2007
1,803
4
81
#19
I've had three Titans for a while, and I'm just not feeling the urge to upgrade at all. My compute work for my degree is finished, so I'll be selling off one Titan this summer, and keeping the other two to hold me over until 16-20nm GPUs arrive. Or maybe I won't sell it, depending on how much Witcher 3 and GTA5 hammer our systems. Either way, I'll be keeping 2 or all 3 of my Titans until the 16-20nm flagships arrive.

Of course, an 8GB 390X could come in at $600, match the Titan X, and have me not waiting. I could end up with a mix of 390X and OG Titan GPUs in my sytem this summer. :p
 

imaheadcase

Diamond Member
May 9, 2005
3,850
0
76
#20
Never in my life have i heard someone not buy a top end care because of "business practices"..
 

5150Joker

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2002
5,563
0
71
www.techinferno.com
#21
Never in my life have i heard someone not buy a top end care because of "business practices"..
I bet if you go to Fry's Electronics or Microcenter and poll customers that are in the video card section if they are buying based on business ethics, they'd give you a weird "wtf" look. The average customer doesn't care about these things, I'd even say the average enthusiast doesn't care. Everyone gravitates towards the best on the market regardless of what they think of that company.
 
Sep 5, 2003
19,460
0
126
#22
Everyone gravitates towards the best on the market regardless of what they think of that company.
So what you are saying is 80% of consumers make purchases (not just videocards) based on emotions and not logic? Thanks for stating the obvious. Also, the definition of "best" is subjective. Someone who bought the original Titan for $1000 or a pair of those thought it was the best thing since sliced bread while others had the foresight to know that wasting $2K on the original Titans was like taking a foot in your mouth since it was obvious that before the end of the year that level of performance would be available for half the price. This thread is just a reminder that despite the hype, history has a tendency to repeat itself.

Now for someone like you who always wants the cutting edge and $ is a non-factor, you would have bought the Titans at $1500 even and wouldn't even consider AMD because of lack of G-Sync. For the rest of brand agnostic PC gamers, buying a Titan X, or in the OP's case at least a pair of those, is not such a clear cut situation because his existing cards are still very fast and will still hold value well. Because it's 100% inevitable that in the next 6 months there will be AMD/NV cards that will blow Titan X in price/performance out of the water, the OP can resell both of his Titans and grab something way cheaper with similar or better than Titan X's performance. The question is when is the right time to upgrade (i.e., how many games out there are putting a strain on Titan SLI @ 1.2Ghz at 1440p?).

Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a customer looking at business ethics of a firm to make purchasing decisions. NV not owning up to bump-gate and brushing aside all GTX970 customers after trying to cover up the VRAM/ROP scandal, while also neglecting Kepler performance in many modern titles released in the last 6 months can and does impact some consumers choice for their next GPU purchase. Just because some PC gamers do not care about these things, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a factor for others who do. For example, many people are boycotting all Dolce & Gabbana products because of that firm's founders views on certain topics in the world.

I am sure there are plenty of PC gamers who traded up from GTX970 to a 980 and will again get GM200 6GB before Pascal is out, while others are appalled at how NV has handled GTX970 fiasco especially after the bumpgate scandal years ago. Forums like these help PC gamers navigate through their upgrade paths or at least put some thought process together with the numbers before blindly making a purchase. For some people on this forum it's not worth waiting 6-12 months to get Titan X performance at $500, but most people asking for advice obviously care because if they could easily afford to drop $2K on Titan Xs, chances are they wouldn't be asking for advice to upgrade in the first place. For example, I don't need anyone to tell me if it's worth getting a Porsche GT3.
 
Last edited:

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,430
1
121
#23
I don't like their business practices. Titan's lead over 7970 eroding over time even tough it is a newer card. GW games. But what affects me the most is how they don't care to optimize drivers for Kepler cards anymore, now Titan is slower than both 290 and GTX970. And it only keeps getting worse. That shouldn't happen according to specs alone it's all in the software. Not to mention blocking PHYS-X when the main card is not from NV. Not supporting Display Port optional features namely adaptive refresh rate just G-SYNC.




Kepler is getting hammered. Exclude the old games and it looks terrible for kepler.
like that:
there is a very super important reason for this.

nvidia kepler and under USED to be tested with old dx 9 and 10 games where they excelled

now with newer dx11 based games they are getting their collective ass handed to them by gcn.

tpus updated games list shows that.

iirc one of the aftermarket 970s is when they started using NEW games.
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,363
0
121
#24
I'm confused, did you come to this epiphany of not supporting Nvidia less than 20 minutes after posting the original post?
He's been feeling this way for awhile now.
 

Pandamonia

Senior member
Jun 13, 2013
433
7
91
#25
Be careful. It's usually not a great idea to do SLI/CF with next generation mid-range cards (i.e., last generation that would have been R9 280 or 280X/GTX760 SLI). Chances are the flagship $600-650 card will offer 80-90% of the performance of 380X CF for a similar price. CF/SLI makes the most sense at the beginning of a generation with 2nd tier or flagship cards (i.e., 390 nonX / 2nd tier GM200 6GB and up). Some people disagree as I've seen GTX460 SLI being popular back in the days but usually that is only if you can get a very great deal in terms of price/performance (for example if you could get GTX460 SLI for $300 when GTX480 was $500). As an example, I would have never bought 760 SLI for $500 over a $550 290X.



Also, rumours have it that GM200 6GB might be as low as $599-649. That means there is a strong possibility that 390 nonX will only be $499. If it has 3840 SPs, and slightly lower clocks than the flagship 390X, but retains and the same 4096-bit HBM bus and ROP count (something that's been consistent for 5850 vs. 5870 ---> 290 nonX vs. 290X), it could be a sleaper videocard of next gen. I think the performance difference between a 390 nonX OC and 380X OC will be massive (i.e., > 30%).
My Bad Typo i meant 390X CF
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Nvidia 5
I Nvidia 12

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS