• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

TPU: NVIDIA to Unveil GeForce GTX TITAN P at Gamescom

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,015
3,815
136
$999? That's too low, I'm expecting $1299 for the Founder's Edition Titan P.

There's no way a card with uncontested gaming performance will give better perf/$ than 1080 (which is already pretty lousy perf/$). They can charge $1299 and it'll still sell.

I suppose technically I would be ready for it since I've got the awesome 6700K ;)
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
744
126
$999? That's too low, I'm expecting $1299 for the Founder's Edition Titan P.

There's no way a card with uncontested gaming performance will give better perf/$ than 1080 (which is already pretty lousy perf/$). They can charge $1299 and it'll still sell.

I suppose technically I would be ready for it since I've got the awesome 6700K ;)
What I am afraid of is the effect of gamers buying $699 1080 (midrange Pascal) and not even waiting for AIB cards. This 100% sent a message to NV that their pricing was "reasonable" and justified. That means NV can easily launch a cut-down 980Ti style 1080Ti with only 3456-3584 CC and price it at $799-899. That would make it too close to the $999 price of the full 3840 CC Titan P. If Titan P has HBM2 and full 3840 CC, Max overclocked on water it would actually beat the 384-bit GDDR5X 3456-3584 1080Ti. If NV goes this route, they can price 1080Ti at $799-899 and justify $1199-1299 price for Titan P for those who want the best gaming card. It means it would be strategic for NV to gimp 1080Ti again and not release the full GTX580/780Ti flagship. Hopefully I am wrong but I think they got away with a cut down 980Ti at $649 already, so now they can probably get away with a repeat of that strategy but at an even higher price.
 

4K_shmoorK

Senior member
Jul 1, 2015
464
43
91
I'm not so sure we will even see a 1080 Ti 3-6 months after Titan P launches. If Vega launches Q4/Q1 and slots somewhere between the 1070/1080, what reason would Nvidia have to even release a cut down Titan? We all know people will buy the Titan P at whatever price NV sets and if AMD has no answer for near Titan level performance, I'm sure NV would be in no rush to undercut potential profits on the Titan P.
 

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,586
243
106
NV do still have to compete with themselves :)

Next Spring/early Summer they will want a new 'top' card to replace the 1080. If you think about the time scales, a 1080ti will do that job very nicely thank you.

They could very plausibly also want to push the 1070/80 etc down (half?) a tier price wise as a big chunk of the people who would have got them at their current prices will have done so.

Then onwards to Volta etc.
 

Yakk

Golden Member
May 28, 2016
1,574
272
81
$999? That's too low, I'm expecting $1299 for the Founder's Edition Titan P.

There's no way a card with uncontested gaming performance will give better perf/$ than 1080 (which is already pretty lousy perf/$). They can charge $1299 and it'll still sell.

I suppose technically I would be ready for it since I've got the awesome 6700K ;)
$999 does look too cheap now for nvidia. I would expect around $1,499 for the Titan P based on 1080 pricing. Maybe $100 or $200 more for the Titan name.

"P" for "Privilege"?
 

Aristotelian

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,246
10
76
I cannot remember the source but I have read before that Nvidia plans to justify the price of the Titan P by actually making it a full out gaming card, with none of the other non-gaming features that occupy die space. This is meant to justify the price difference between the Titan P, the 1080, and the eventual 1080Ti.

So if the 1080 is now USD 699, then the Titan P could be priced at 999, and when the 1080Ti is released the 1080 will be dropped to USD 499 or so, with the 1080Ti being 699? And I expect the Titan P (if what I say above is correct) to be more than 50% faster than the 1080.

What people here mention about the CPU bottlenecks - I'd like to know more about that. If it is true that a 6950X already bottlenecks 1080s in SLI at 4k, then that cannot be the CPU for me although I do plan a workstation/gaming mix in my new build. Can anyone point me to a place that would show CPU bottlenecks on 1080s in SLI?
 

selni

Senior member
Oct 24, 2013
249
0
41
I'm not so sure we will even see a 1080 Ti 3-6 months after Titan P launches. If Vega launches Q4/Q1 and slots somewhere between the 1070/1080, what reason would Nvidia have to even release a cut down Titan? We all know people will buy the Titan P at whatever price NV sets and if AMD has no answer for near Titan level performance, I'm sure NV would be in no rush to undercut potential profits on the Titan P.
This is the right idea - the 780 ti and 980 ti only appeared when they needed to to derail AMD product launches. We'll see a titan card with insane pricing until AMD releases a competitive product, then a 1080 ti.
 

CakeMonster

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2012
1,026
96
91
If it is 1080+50% and it does launch at the traditional $999 price, I'm pretty sure I'll pick one up. It's shocking to say, but it would actually be a reasonable deal compared to a $700 FE 1080.
Well, it won't. At least not the Titan version. The Ti might be in that price range.

I wouldn't compare the price or performance to 1080 before it is out. If it can't be bought until 3, 6, 9, or 12 months later the dollar comparison to 1080 has little or no practical value.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,010
126
What I am afraid of is the effect of gamers buying $699 1080 (midrange Pascal) and not even waiting for AIB cards. This 100% sent a message to NV that their pricing was "reasonable" and justified. That means NV can easily launch a cut-down 980Ti style 1080Ti with only 3456-3584 CC and price it at $799-899. That would make it too close to the $999 price of the full 3840 CC Titan P. If Titan P has HBM2 and full 3840 CC, Max overclocked on water it would actually beat the 384-bit GDDR5X 3456-3584 1080Ti. If NV goes this route, they can price 1080Ti at $799-899 and justify $1199-1299 price for Titan P for those who want the best gaming card. It means it would be strategic for NV to gimp 1080Ti again and not release the full GTX580/780Ti flagship. Hopefully I am wrong but I think they got away with a cut down 980Ti at $649 already, so now they can probably get away with a repeat of that strategy but at an even higher price.
If you don't like how NV prices products, then cast your vote by not buying. But if other people buy these products and enjoy them, then maybe the pricing actually is reasonable?
 

96Firebird

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
5,651
267
126
This is the right idea - the 780 ti and 980 ti only appeared when they needed to to derail AMD product launches. We'll see a titan card with insane pricing until AMD releases a competitive product, then a 1080 ti.
The 980 Ti was released three months after the Titan X, the same space between the original Titan and the 780. Worked for them the first time, why not repeat success?
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
744
126
I cannot remember the source but I have read before that Nvidia plans to justify the price of the Titan P by actually making it a full out gaming card, with none of the other non-gaming features that occupy die space. This is meant to justify the price difference between the Titan P, the 1080, and the eventual 1080Ti.

So if the 1080 is now USD 699, then the Titan P could be priced at 999, and when the 1080Ti is released the 1080 will be dropped to USD 499 or so, with the 1080Ti being 699? And I expect the Titan P (if what I say above is correct) to be more than 50% faster than the 1080.

What people here mention about the CPU bottlenecks - I'd like to know more about that. If it is true that a 6950X already bottlenecks 1080s in SLI at 4k, then that cannot be the CPU for me although I do plan a workstation/gaming mix in my new build. Can anyone point me to a place that would show CPU bottlenecks on 1080s in SLI?
Here you go - @ 1440p 1080 SLI bottlenecks any CPU. Compare the scaling at 1440p vs. 4K:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1080_2_way_sli_review,13.html

TPU:
Asus Strix 1080 SLI 1440p = 45% scaling
Asus Strix 1080 SLI 4K = 71% scaling
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_SLI/20.html

100% CPU bottleneck with a 6700K. By extension the 6950X is a bigger bottleneck since it's a slower CPU for games.

For anyone intending to spend $1000+ on a CPU to keep for 4-5 years, I would not buy a 6950X. Wait for Skylake-E.

Alternatively, buy a 6700K now and resell it and get SKL-E. The loss in resale value on the 6950X will be more than the entire 6700K CPU.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
744
126
If you don't like how NV prices products, then cast your vote by not buying. But if other people buy these products and enjoy them, then maybe the pricing actually is reasonable?
I didn't say anything against Titan customer base. If they want to buy $1500-2000 GPUs, I don't care. But you have to be naive to think that 1080/1080Ti/Titan P pricing isn't related. NV doesn't blindly price these products. It's why suddenly a $449 1070 looks like a good value against a $999 Titan X marketing. That I care about because it means for the mid-range market the price just went up from $329 -> $399-449 for 970's successor. The same happened with $499 680 -> $549 980 -> $620-700 1080.

I wouldn't care if NV raised the Titan P to $1500 and kept everything else reasonably priced. But you and I both know that's not what's going to happen since they continue raising prices. I am simply pointing out that NV can continue to raise prices because they obviously just moved the midrange up from $499-> $699. Why not move 1080Ti to $799-899 and Titan P to $1199-1299?

It's actually in our best interests for AMD to release a competitive Vega since not only will that impact 1080Ti's pricing but if NV intends to launch a cut-down 1080Ti, a competitive Vega would put more pressure on NV to release a full flagship (aka 285/580/780Ti).
 
Last edited:

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,104
775
136
Here you go - @ 1440p 1080 SLI bottlenecks any CPU. Compare the scaling at 1440p vs. 4K:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1080_2_way_sli_review,13.html

TPU:
Asus Strix 1080 SLI 1440p = 45% scaling
Asus Strix 1080 SLI 4K = 71% scaling
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_SLI/20.html

100% CPU bottleneck with a 6700K. By extension the 6950X is a bigger bottleneck since it's a slower CPU for games.

For anyone intending to spend $1000+ on a CPU to keep for 4-5 years, I would not buy a 6950X. Wait for Skylake-E.

Alternatively, buy a 6700K now and resell it and get SKL-E. The loss in resale value on the 6950X will be more than the entire 6700K CPU.
Not that the lower scaling isn't a result of a CPU bottleneck, but it would be really interested to see scaling in those two games at the three resolutions with a 6950X and 6700k just to see how (or if) the scaling changes at different CPU frequencies.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,914
1,538
136
If you don't like how NV prices products, then cast your vote by not buying. But if other people buy these products and enjoy them, then maybe the pricing actually is reasonable?
The price is set to maximize profit not to maximize consumer benefit.
When i drive a business i try to maximize profit.
When i act as a consumer i try to maximize benefit.

For some reason it seems some people kind of think there is mutual interest between their favorite gpu/cpu company and their personal benefit. Like a family? They seem confused to me. But hey ofcource its the purpose. Like rs have noted people have stopped to react. Evident in prices. Strategy succeded.

Weak mental sauce if you ask me. Could never run a business with that attitude. Actually it hurt the market when people dont act as it lessens compettition and therefore innovation and progress.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,289
1,150
126
Seems like AMD is going to fall further behind in performance unless they move forward the Vega launch. If true that's bad for all of us who care about competition in the GPU space.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
744
126
The price is set to maximize profit not to maximize consumer benefit.
When i drive a business i try to maximize profit.
When i act as a consumer i try to maximize benefit.

For some reason it seems some people kind of think there is mutual interest between their favorite gpu/cpu company and their personal benefit. Like a family? They seem confused to me. But hey ofcource its the purpose. Like rs have noted people have stopped to react. Evident in prices. Strategy succeded.

Weak mental sauce if you ask me. Could never run a business with that attitude. Actually it hurt the market when people dont act as it lessens compettition and therefore innovation and progress.
He purposely ignored the other comparison I made:

$999 OG Titan < $650 780 Ghz 3 months later, then $399 290, then $329 970

$999 Titan X < $649 980Ti, then about 15 months later $399-449 1070 beats it.

Both of those examples highlight that anyone buying Titan series for gaming doesn't care about value. In that case, what's the point keeping it at $999 instead of $1299-1499? As a business NV should continue to raise prices on its customer base. The only 2 things that stay in the way are consumers voting with their wallet and AMD.

However, I think the Titan is a special case since it doesn't have a clear competitor from AMD and consumers also keep purchasing it. For that reason I don't see why NV won't raise the price to $1299-1499. Actually the last Titan X retailed for $1099 in the U.S. for most of its life, not $999.

Seems like AMD is going to fall further behind in performance unless they move forward the Vega launch. If true that's bad for all of us who care about competition in the GPU space.
Very true. A lot of people on this forum predicted that if one manufacturer pulls far away from the other, there will be major price increases. Many called this years ago but Intel/NV supporters used the flawed argument that those firms need to compete with themselves. Clearly this logic failed materially because Intel now has $1700 consumer CPUs, there is no mainstream 6-core Skylake, and NV continue to raise prices. Both the CPU and the GPU markets are moving closer to a monopoly. That's why we are now seeing a new type of "PC enthusiast" emerging -- proud to pay as much as possible for PC hardware to justify/defend the term "PC enthusiast". Intel and NV realized this and are attacking this market at full force. I guess we were lucky to have enjoyed HD 5870 for $369 and GTX580 for $499. Those days are gone. The full flagship has been rebranded Titan series and if 1080Ti is yet another cut-down flagship, it would be a 2nd consecutive generation of $349 GTX570 selling for $650+. I don't see how as a consumer I am supposed to be happy about this.
 
Last edited:

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,914
1,538
136
Ofcource there is a tendency where rising process cost is transferred to customers but the major slowdown on cpu side shows us what happens when this attitude of "if thats the price and its better then its good or at least acceptable". On gpu its this horrendous enthusiast gladly pay perspective creeping in and its a disgrace and is a danger to pc gaming.

The problem is top management striving for short term profit goes hand in hand with that weak and manipulated consumer behaviour. Or perhaps its better to have this cosy feeling as consumer instead of beeing irritated?

Look where Intel is today. Dcg is driving profit. Pc desktop is falling and the innovative force of the compagny is weak and reduced to incremental improvement.

Long term that will lead to a stagnating and falling revenue. And if dcg is threattened by eg arm whatever disruptive they have nowhere to go. Damn shame.

Then people will blame them but part of the reason is this long term eroding monopoly thinking beeing derived from endless segmentation on consumer side and weak consumer reaction.
 

Alaa

Senior member
Apr 26, 2005
839
8
81
WOW! >$1000 for a GPU to run games design with consoles in mind? I wouldn't care if prices went higher, but at least provide extra value for the price. They need to increase their cooperation with developers to produce high quality PC games that take advantage of such hardware.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
744
126
Not that the lower scaling isn't a result of a CPU bottleneck, but it would be really interested to see scaling in those two games at the three resolutions with a 6950X and 6700k just to see how (or if) the scaling changes at different CPU frequencies.
6950X stands no chance whatsoever. A good overclock on a 6950X is 4.4-4.5Ghz but in reviews they use 6700K 4.5Ghz with gimped DDR4 and it's CPU bottlenecking GTX1080 SLI like no tomorrow.

You should read this review. The gains for an i7 6700K OC with faster DDR4 at 1440p while using GTX980Ti SLI are massive. They didn't use reference 980Tis either but Gainward's GTX 980 Ti "Golden Sample", which features a 15% factory overclock. While everyone has been too busy discussing GPU wars, many missed the memory bandwidth and CPU bottlenecking review from TechSpot. It really shocked me.

Test System Specs
Intel Core i7-6700 Skylake @ 4.50GHz
Asrock Z170M OC Formula
G.Skill TridentZ 8GB (2x4GB) DDR4-4000
2x GeForce GTX 980 Ti SLI
Samsung SSD 950 Pro 512GB
Silverstone Strider Series ST1000-G Evolution 1000w
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit







Even a very GPU demanding game such as the Division still shows memory bandwidth scaling on an overclocked 6700K!



Since Skylake scales way better with faster DDR4 than BW-E does, since i7 6700K overclock better than i7 6950X does, and since Skylake has a superior IPC to Broadwell-E, GTX1080Ti/Titan P paired with i7 6700K OC and DDR4 4000 will smash an i7 6950X OC in games.
 
Last edited:

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
Yeah, look at that minimum number jump up when you just go from 2133 to 2400.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
744
126
TechPowerUp highlights just how severe the CPU bottleneck is now becoming at "lower" resolutions such as 1440p. Even Skylake i7 6700K 4.5Ghz cannot keep up with 1080 SLI.
















This is the difference between buying PC parts for bragging rights (I spent more $$$ on hardware so I am a "PC enthusiast") and being a true PC enthusiast.

A true PC enthusiast who prioritizes gaming performance will admit that i7 6700K @ 4.8Ghz and DDR4 4000-4133 will smash a 4.4Ghz i7 6950X with DDR4 3000 and get the cheaper but faster platform. And of course there are already Z170 boards (1, 2) that can support DDR4 4500mhz.

It's good to see NV actually call out the truth and recommend PC gamers buy the fastest gaming CPU to extract maximum performance out of the 1080 SLI/Titan P (etc.).

By the time we are into Volta generation, CPU bottlenecking will be even more severe. This is why both AMD/NV are pushing 1440p 144-200Hz, HDR, 4K/5K gaming. 1080p 60Hz gaming is becoming a completely outdated concept for the level of graphics cards that are coming out now and unless games start becoming a lot more advanced, 1080p 60hz gaming will be laughable by 2018 when a $400 card will be as fast as a GTX1080Ti. GPU hardware is now starting to outpace software as we enter the 2nd half of the current console generation. We've seen the exact same scenario play out towards the last 3 years of PS360 generation.
 
Last edited:

Yakk

Golden Member
May 28, 2016
1,574
272
81
WOW! >$1000 for a GPU to run games design with consoles in mind? I wouldn't care if prices went higher, but at least provide extra value for the price. They need to increase their cooperation with developers to produce high quality PC games that take advantage of such hardware.
I guess >$200 games would go well with >$1000 GPUs.
 

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,104
775
136
6950X stands no chance whatsoever. A good overclock on a 6950X is 4.4-4.5Ghz but in reviews they use 6700K 4.5Ghz with gimped DDR4 and it's CPU bottlenecking GTX1080 SLI like no tomorrow.

You should read this review. The gains for an i7 6700K OC with faster DDR4 at 1440p while using GTX980Ti SLI are massive. While everyone has been too busy discussing GPU wars, many missed the memory bandwidth and CPU bottlenecking review from TechSpot. It really shocked me.

Even a very GPU demanding game such as the Division still shows memory bandwidth scaling on an overclocked 6700K!



Since Skylake scales way better with faster DDR4 than BW-E does, since i7 6700K overclock better than i7 6950X does, and since Skylake has a superior IPC to Broadwell-E, GTX1080Ti/Titan P paired with i7 6700K OC and DDR4 4000 will smash an i7 6950X OC in games.
I think you might have missed the point of my post in your rush to slag the HEDT platform. I don't care about the relative positioning of the 6950X vs the 6700k, having both in there just gives a little more leeway with games that might scale with more than 4C8T. The main idea is to look at performance vs frequency to see if in those low resolution situations performance for 1080SLI does scale well with CPU frequency as you'd expect if it were a CPU bottleneck.
 

CakeMonster

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2012
1,026
96
91
I'm intrigued by the recent findings about RAM. But I'm also bummed by the lack of fast 32Gb kits out there. And its even worse for 2x16Gb sets. Any idea if this will improve, or if there is significant demand enough to not have to downgrade capacity and fill all slots in order to get 3600 or preferably more?
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
744
126
The main idea is to look at performance vs frequency to see if in those low resolution situations performance for 1080SLI does scale well with CPU frequency as you'd expect if it were a CPU bottleneck.
There isn't much frequency headroom left for an i7 6700K 4.5Ghz. Look at my most recent post above as I took out the graphs out of the TPU review that prove CPU bottlenecking is real. The reason 1080 SLI doesn't scale at 1440p is because the GPU utilization is low compared to 4K. That's primarily driven by a CPU bottleneck. Even if you managed to get a golden sample 6700K 5Ghz, the vast difference in scaling at 4K vs. 1440p highlights that 1080 SLI isn't being fully utilized at 1440p without enabling even higher levels of MSAA/SSAA (or games have to become more advanced).

Tying this back to Titan P (or 1080Ti), 6700K will limit the card at 1440p and there is nothing we can do at this point other than increasing IQ (MSAA/SSAA) or buying a 4K+ monitor. Part of this isn't Intel's fault because most games now are made for PS4/XB1 consoles and are inherently not advanced enough for the modern hardware coming out.

Look at this.

Palit 1080 vs. Titan X
900 = 31.6% faster
1080 = 35.1% faster
1440 = 43.9% faster
4K = 44.9% faster

Palit 1080 vs. GTX1070
900 = 20.8% faster
1080 = 23.5% faster
1440 = 29.9% faster
4K = 35.1% faster
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_1080_GameRock/25.html

Most people on our forum ignore CPU bottlenecks since they don't want to admit that their CPU/platform is outdated/not fast enough. While someone with an i7 3770K/4770K and a single GTX1070 doesn't need to worry, someone with a GTX1070 SLI/1080 SLI/1080Ti/Titan P should.

Nano CF vs. Titan X
Intel Core i7-4770K @ 4.2 GHz
(Haswell, 8192 KB Cache)
1080 = 1.6% faster
1440 = 19.5% faster
4K = 37.8% faster
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Nano_CrossFire/25.html

It's shocking to some people to accept that a 3930K or 4770K is not fast enough for GTX980Ti SLI/1080SLI or 1080Ti at 1440p 144-165Hz, but it's the truth. Also, if someone has a G-Sync monitor it matters far less. Generally it's not discussed since a lot of people are gaming at 60hz so the CPU bottleneck isn't showing up as much unless one tracks minimum fps. That's why I am not surprised NV would recommend 6700K over 6950X for a Titan P. They want to remove the CPU bottleneck as much as possible and the fastest gaming platform right now is i7 6700K + DDR4 4000+ not 6950X.

I'm intrigued by the recent findings about RAM. But I'm also bummed by the lack of fast 32Gb kits out there. And its even worse for 2x16Gb sets. Any idea if this will improve, or if there is significant demand enough to not have to downgrade capacity and fill all slots in order to get 3600 or preferably more?
Some games are just poorly coded or have some unexplained bottleneck. Look at this:



In the large majority of cases, Haswell never cared about fast DDR3 memory in games.

---

There have also been some reviews that show almost no benefit of HB SLI bridge but they are false. They don't capture enough games to draw an accurate conclusion. That's why 1080 SLI and 1080Ti/Titan P SLI users have to be extra careful on this front as well.




http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/nvidias-hb-sli-bridge-surprising-gains-gtx-1080-sli-testing-inside/

I'm intrigued by the recent findings about RAM. But I'm also bummed by the lack of fast 32Gb kits out there. And its even worse for 2x16Gb sets. Any idea if this will improve, or if there is significant demand enough to not have to downgrade capacity and fill all slots in order to get 3600 or preferably more?
It should improve over time. For gaming though, from what I've read, there isn't any benefit at this time beyond 16GB. Right now the premium beyond DDR4 3200 becomes pretty steep. It will probably a year or 2 before we can buy 2x16GB DDR4 3600+ at reasonable prices. Micron just reported losses on their last quarter which suggests the memory manufacturers can't drop prices much more at this time.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY