Updated List of Video Card GPU OVERALL Performance VP Ratings - TITAN update!

Discussion in 'Video Cards and Graphics' started by BoFox, Feb 7, 2013.

  1. BallaTheFeared

    BallaTheFeared Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    8,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's going to take a while before other sites pick this up, they've been developing it for over a year.
     
  2. BoFox

    BoFox Senior member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting things about Titan, helping to further boost its performance over GK104:

    GK110 vs GK104:
    255 MAX Registers / Thread, vs 63.
    1536KB L2 Cache, vs 512KB.
    (From Anand:)
    Plus more, see: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6446/nvidia-launches-tesla-k20-k20x-gk110-arrives-at-last/3

    Perhaps that explains how Titan can use all of its 2688 shaders so well, which is quite extraordinary, with super scheduling thanks to large cache, etc..
     
  3. BoFox

    BoFox Senior member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Overall, it is a bit more than than 44% faster than GTX 680 overall at 1440p and higher, but since most benchmarks out there are done when the card is cooler (being more temperature-relative than 680 ever was, dropping Boost2.0 by 30-80MHz and reducing about 0.08 volts total after 20 minutes - most during the first couple minutes), MORE INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO BE DONE.

    Hurry up Xbitlabs, HT4U, etc..!

    44% faster than GTX 680 is 338 Voodoopower!

    Geforce GTX TITAN 6GB (DX11.1) -- 338 VP --- (* NEW ENTRY! *)
     
    #53 BoFox, Feb 22, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2013
  4. BoFox

    BoFox Senior member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    ***PROPOSAL*** for further investigation into real-world performance of Titan, WITHOUT allowing GPU Boost 2.0 to interfere with preliminary benchmarking when the card is cool for the first 1-2 minutes:

    (Google translated: http://translate.google.com/transla...Tests/Test-Geforce-GTX-Titan-1056659/&act=url )
    PCGH includes these settings in their benchmarks to account for REAL-WORLD gameplay where the card heats itself up first and then the ambient after a few minutes.

    Also, from HardOCP:
    How long is an average benchmark run for most review sites? 1 minute long? When loading up a benchmark, the card is usually cooled off a good deal already. At the very beginning, the card is likely to be running about 80MHz higher than a few minutes afterwards.

    The question is, how much does that really affect the benchmark scoring?

    PCGH's benches show there to be between 5-10% difference between "dynamic boost" (open-air rig) and "28 degrees Celsius" at 2560x1600, with average fps (except for Skyrim which shows a 19% difference). Sometimes, the 28C test is slower than the 876MHz result, and sometimes it is faster.

    Computerbase.de is saying the same thing (translated):
    This explains Computerbase.de's relatively low scores for Titan (default, not "MAX") compared to most other review sites.

    The same goes for Hardware.fr (translated page explaining such) and its "relatively" low scores for Titan.
    As to the PCGH tests, the differences can be astounding, upwards of 10% (averaging 5-10% for these few games). The benchmark videos can be viewed at PCGH, to judge its length, in how long the run actually is, keeping in mind how much GPU Boost2.0 could potentially affect the entire result, with a large "boost impact" coming from the first 30-60 seconds especially.

    Let's request American reviewers to also look into this, and to try to account for it. ~342-343 Voodoopower (after excluding PCGH, CB.de, HW.fr, TPU's CPU-bottlenecked benches at 25x16, etc..) then reduced by 5-10% would be a drastically reduced:
    ~311-327 Voodoopower

    What do y'all think about this? It's something serious reviewers need to beware of, in the future. Would AnandTech look into this?
     
    #54 BoFox, Feb 23, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2013
  5. wand3r3r

    wand3r3r Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Them and their boost and now boost 2 along with TDP limits and then the card is hard limited to 265w, none of this is good for overclocking, and even skew the results. Very interesting find!

    If Titanics real scores are all the artificially boosted 5-10%, it looks worse with each detail uncovered *for the price*.

    It will be fun to see the NV PR/shills try to spin this.
     
  6. Keysplayr

    Keysplayr Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    22
    You're probably doing all the spinning this thread needs. Thanks.
     
  7. wand3r3r

    wand3r3r Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure avoid the issue, tar and feather the messenger who wants further investigation. Typical strategy apparently. :p

    I didn't make anything up, just brought up what's been discovered and added my opinion that the titanics price is absurd. They only spinning is you trying to deflect the issue.

    What do you have to say about the issue, benchmarks are allegedly skewed if they don't last long enough for the card to warmup.
     
  8. VulgarDisplay

    VulgarDisplay Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,194
    Likes Received:
    1
    So the Titan in real world scenarios is only roughly 20-25% faster than the 7970ghz edition if I'm reading that post correctly.

    Didn't we run into this same problem with the gtx680 reviews where a hot card would perform worse in benchmarks? I thought other sites reported this back then.
     
  9. Keysplayr

    Keysplayr Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    22
    A dozen or so posts from now, it'll be down to 15-20 and 10-15 isn't too much further. You can do it!! Watch. :p
    High-Larious.
     
  10. VulgarDisplay

    VulgarDisplay Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,194
    Likes Received:
    1
    Enough. :sneaky:
     
  11. BoFox

    BoFox Senior member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    With this chart from Toms:
    [​IMG]
    Well, judging from this chart (using the same data as the above bar chart) below:
    [​IMG]
    Where GTX 690 is in fact averaging 85fps, or 11.67 ms.

    The "average" consecutive frame time difference is 14.1ms (from the first chart), which just for illusion's sake, translates to 70.9 fps if taken by itself. (Actual average is 85fps according to the blue line above.) So, with the ideal frame being only 11.67ms long (85fps), that means the average "slow" and "fast" frames would have to be alternating somewhere in between 23.3 (2 x 11.67) ms long and 0 ms long.

    Somebody who graduated at the top of Algebra 2++, who isn't so rusty, please calculate the consecutive max and minimum frametimes for the two frames, if the consecutive frame time difference is 14.1ms, in order for the total to average 85fps! Show your work!


    Answer: :p

    You don't really need algebra - just subtract half of 14.1ms (7ms) from the overall fps average to get the average "fast" frame time, and add half of 14.1ms (7ms) to the overall fps average to get the average "slow" frame time.

    Since the average fps is 85fps, that means 11.76ms average frame time.

    "Fast" alternating frame times would be 11.76 - 7 = 4.76ms
    "Slow" alternating frame times would be 11.76 + 7 = 18.76ms

    Welcome to the method for my new patented "EFFECTIVE MICROSTUTTER-ADJUSTED" FRAME RATE (TM): :D
    Translate the "slow" alternating frame time into FPS : 18.76ms = 53.3 fps


    That is because the "slow" alternating frames will be what we see EVERY other frame, so it is the actual "LAG" of what we are seeing. If both frames are equally fast, then it would have been a full 85fps. If every other frame is skipped (0ms), then the "slow" frame will be exactly twice as slow as the average, therefore effectively halving the frame rate.

    53.3 EFFECTIVE MICROSTUTTER-ADJUSTED fps is why Tomshardware didn't see a problem with it at all, even though microstuttering existed in its "micro" form (since 53.3 is still pretty smooth)!

    Compared against the actual 85 frames per second "COUNT".. 53.3 fps is about 37% less than 85 fps.
    It is due to microstuttering in this case that 37% of "effective" performance is lost.
    Even with such microstuttering, GTX 690 is still "effectively" 16% faster than GTX 680's 46 fps.

    However, I think I have figured thus far that FRAPs "cannot" measure consistent microstuttering frame times much less than 5ms in such graphs with severe microstuttering. It could be as low as 0ms, which would effectively "halve" the frame rate count in terms of effectiveness - which is what PCPer's contention was all about.

    Half of 85fps is still 42.5fps, so even with ABSOLUTE microstuttering, Tomshardware probably would still perceive that as "smooth".
     
    #61 BoFox, Feb 23, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2013
  12. rich_

    rich_ Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you guys are missing the point of the titan. And no, with boost 2 it's very overclock friendly, it doesnt limit the power to the card it in fact unlimited it for the user's discretion at the user's own risk.
    The point of titan:
    Titan is a single gpu, when clocked properly it is effectively giving the power of two gtx 670's (slightly lower clock speed however) because it has exactly double the cuda cores, on a single gpu.
    Tri-SLI is the most you can use and get your $ worth for performance increase.
    Yes the titan is expensive, but this is because it is the ONLY sli option that will give you full compliment of SIX 670's worth of performance. With a 690 you're gonna put in two of those, and you'll get a 75% scale approximately, with a titan, you put in 2 and you get 100% scale, you put in three and you still get that 100% scale.
     
  13. VulgarDisplay

    VulgarDisplay Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,194
    Likes Received:
    1
    You can overclock it but it's my understanding that you have a hard limit of 265w. It throttles once you hit that limit. Someone may release a hacked bios for the card eventually.
     
  14. rich_

    rich_ Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    You might be right, 265w overall, because the limit they removed was volt to core.
     
  15. Elfear

    Elfear VC&G Moderator
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    6,475
    Likes Received:
    4
    Looks like multiple websites are reporting the degradation in performance over time so I think it warrants some further investigation.


    That actually makes a lot of sense because the average performance gain of Titan over the 680 and 7970 varies widely between review sites. Some of that is normal because the games and settings tested are different but it seems like the swing with Titan is greater than average.

    So the best case results we've seen in reviews are probably representative of someone living in Alaska with all the windows open or someone with liquid cooling. Otherwise performance drops off after 5-10 minutes of gaming.
     
  16. notty22

    notty22 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,376
    Likes Received:
    0
    And then there are posters that tell us they run two and three cards stacked-multi-gpu, and run higher o/c's than reported from tech sites, supposedly for 24/7 gaming. You know those people are dreaming.

    Here at Anands, Ryan noted that Nvidia is again leading in the AAA game of the year.
    Battlefield 3

    Wow.
     
  17. VulgarDisplay

    VulgarDisplay Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,194
    Likes Received:
    1
    This also sucks for those trying to fit this card into a small enclosure to get a lot of performance. The smaller hotter enclosure will make your investment slower. Pair it up with a good case.
     
  18. BoFox

    BoFox Senior member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, 2x 660 Ti specs, pretty much.
    The low default temperature target was set with SLI / Tri-SLI, and with longevity in mind. However, I'm pretty sure that the majority of those who have only 1 Titan would definitely move the sliders to the right.

    What should I call it then? Titan "Boost" or Titan "Chill Boost"? "Cool Boost"? "Cold Boost"? 265W Boost? It's mainly the temperature that affects benchmark runs for review sites out there, not the power target, but then voltage control is linked with the temperature. So, I'll not call it 265W - since these sites do not adjust the power slider past 250W for non-overclocked tests.

    Therefore I shall call it "Temp Boost" - it can mean either "Temporary Boost", or "Temperature Boost". ;) 342 Voodoopower

    Without the Temp Boost, it'd be at least 5% lower, or no more than 327 VP.
     
    #68 BoFox, Feb 23, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2013
  19. wand3r3r

    wand3r3r Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, lots of FUD & BS there, your whole post is FUD. Did you just innocently miss all of these details or was your marketing handbook misleading you?

    Go read an SLI review (and a Titan review).

    SLI scaling varies. You will almost never see 3x gains with tri-SLI.

    http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_titan_3_way_sli_review,11.html

    Far Cry 3.
    First game in the review, results vary, but already proves your post wrong. This is not the best scaling seen by SLI, but your claims was that you will see 100%, 200%, 300% results which is certainly not true.

    Titan 53
    2x 90 = 1.7x scaling (70% scaling, not 100%)
    3x 97 = 1.83x scaling (83% scaling, 13% for the third card, 70 for the second.)

    In the best cases you will see significant gains especially for 2 cards, but after that it's generally diminishing returns.

    Next up, overclocking.

    Um, I guess you didn't read the reviews.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6774/nvidias-geforce-gtx-titan-part-2-titans-performance-unveiled/2
     
    #69 wand3r3r, Feb 23, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2013
  20. Elfear

    Elfear VC&G Moderator
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    6,475
    Likes Received:
    4
    Uhhh. Not sure who that is in reference to...:confused:
     
  21. VulgarDisplay

    VulgarDisplay Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,194
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes all the posters who have this GPU that hasn't even been made available at retail yet...
     
  22. The Alias

    The Alias Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    3
    just one review versus every other one posted lol
     
  23. BallaTheFeared

    BallaTheFeared Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    8,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    I say leave it alone, the fan is what is causing the reduced clocks, it's set at stupid low noise levels.

    Unless we're taking into account fan noise on reference cards vs performance, I don't think in the overall scheme of things it matters.
     
  24. blackened23

    blackened23 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    8,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was "voodoopower" inspired by the original 3dfx brand? Anyway, you've put a lot of work into this and it shows. I like it, kudos.
     
  25. Elfear

    Elfear VC&G Moderator
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    6,475
    Likes Received:
    4
    If the performance delta were small I would agree with you, but sites are reporting anywhere from 5-19% difference depending on how long they let the card warm up. That's worth noting.
     
Loading...