[Videocardz]First GTX Titan X 3DMark benchmarks!

[Head1985]

So roughly 41% faster than a GTX980, stock to stock.

30% stock to stock
Firestrike 30.51%
Firestrike extreme 30.53
Firestrike ULTRA 28.18%

I am not impressed.NV killed this card with low 230w TDP.I think FIJI will beat TITANX by 10%.

 

[hawtdawg]

Im buying 2 of something this summer, but I'm not sure what just yet. While the performance here is great, I'm expecting AMD to release something similar for half the price within a close time frame. I don't understand Nvidia's thinking on selling this for 999. It is at a disadvantage in 2 areas compared to the previous Titan, in that it doesn't offer advanced DP performance, and AMD will have something comparable, if not better out at almost the same time for a lot less money.

 

[exar333]

30% stock to stock
Firestrike 30.51%
Firestrike extreme 30.53
Firestrike ULTRA 28.18%

I am not impressed.NV killed this card with low 230w TDP.I think FIJI will beat TITANX by 10%.

Does anyone know if AIBs will be required to keep to the 2x6-pin power on the Titan X cards they sell? I could see this being an overclocking monster if it had 1x-pin + 1x8-pin or 2x8-pin configurations.

 

[happy medium]

If you look at 3D Mark Firestrike Extreme the perf lead is 36%. btw these are synthetic benchmarks. I expect avg game perf improvement over a wide range of games to be lesser. around 30 %.

If the leaked R9 390X benches are true then its going to take the GPU crown.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1539306/...-this-time-with-power-and-temperature-figures

looks like the titan z will hold the crown. if you go by the firestrike extreme graph like you did.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Am I the only one wondering why GTX980 SLI is over twice the performance of stock and G1 GTX980 in their charts.

 

[Head1985]

looks like the titan z will hold the crown. if you go by the firestrike extreme graph like you did.

yeah FIJI will beat IT 230w TDP is just too low.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Oh definitely will. But my biggest concern is of course price. Even if the 390X is 80-85% of the Titan X, depending where AMD pegs the price will sort of dictate where a probable GTX 980 Ti (GM200 with a few disables SIMMs) would land.

If the price tag for Titan X is gonna be >$1000, I'll assume the cards between it and GTX 980 will be in the $700-800 range, which just absolutely sucks.

EDIT:



This is my guess. And frankly, at current prices, I'd look at SLI 980's before Titan X IF the price is >$1,000. Shoot I've just about accepted the raising ceilings and have already budgeted $800 for my new card which breaks my cheap ass heart

Here is my guess:

R9 290X launch: $549
If rumors about 4000 shaders is correct, we are looking at a massive bigger die. Close to 600mm2 vs 440mm2. That will add up in price. Then we have HBM, stacked VRAM that will cost more to manufacture. Then add hybrid cooler, we know it will come with Cooler Master because of shipping data.
R9 390X will end up somewhere between $600-700 I think.

So I think it will all come down to $650ish R9 390X that is 80% of the Titan X in performance. Those who have the money and want the best go for single Titan X or Titan X SLI. Those who cherish performance/$ will go for R9 390X CF over single Titan X.
I can see both sides here.

I do wonder about the power requirements for R9 390X CF.
You have R9 290X which peaks at 280W in gaming. With 4000 cores, R9 390X will have 40% more cores. 390X will most likely build on GCN 1.x but AMD have improved its power consumption vs 290X. So 350W perhaps and 700W for the GPUs? 900W+ PSUs requirement?

 

[Cloudfire777]

Stock vs Stock:
3DMark11 Performance: +35%
3DMark11 Extreme: +40%

GTX 980 1228MHz vs GTX Titan X 1222MHz
3DMark11 Performance: +40%
3DMark11 Extreme: +47%

 

[ShintaiDK]

30% stock to stock
Firestrike 30.51%
Firestrike extreme 30.53
Firestrike ULTRA 28.18%

I am not impressed.NV killed this card with low 230w TDP.I think FIJI will beat TITANX by 10%.

Nv, mixed Firestrike and 3Dmark11.

 

[geoxile]

looks like the titan z will hold the crown. if you go by the firestrike extreme graph like you did.

Chiphell was pretty close. I wonder what else they're right about.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Chiphell was pretty close. I wonder what else they're right about.

Pretty close is relatively easy to reach using simulation. Their number still looks too much off to have been a real one.

 

[Head1985]

Nv, mixed Firestrike and 3Dmark11.

Yeah it is 36% they have it wrong
In both Firestrike and Firestrike extreme is TITANX 36% Faster than GTX980
But sill i am not impressed i am sure FIJI will beat it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yeah it is 36% they have it wrong
In both Firestrike and Firestrike extreme is TITANX 36% Faster than GTX980
But sill i am not impressed i am sure FIJI will beat it.

I wouldnt be so sure. Just look at 280X vs 290X. Even at 4096SPs something else is needed. Else it will be in the 6500-7000 ballpark for firestrike extreme.

 

[.vodka]

The "something else" is HBM, Tonga's improvements, and whatever else they could add.

The possibility for the 390x to beat this Titan X is there, it certainly is.

 

[Creig]

This is my guess. And frankly, at current prices, I'd look at SLI 980's before Titan X IF the price is >$1,000. Shoot I've just about accepted the raising ceilings and have already budgeted $800 for my new card which breaks my cheap ass heart

Then why not go with an AMD R9 295X2?

1. The 295X2 appears to be over 20% faster than the Titan X
2. The 295X2 is extremely quiet with its AIO cooler
3. The 295X2 is only $600 while the Titan X is $1,000 or higher

Of course, the downsides are that not every game works well with CrossFire and the 295X2 requires a hefty power supply. But for around half the price of a Titan X, the tradeoffs seem acceptable. Even if you would need to upgrade your PS, you'd still be a couple hundred dollars ahead by going with the 295X2. And you'd have a new power supply.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Yeah it is 36% they have it wrong
In both Firestrike and Firestrike extreme is TITANX 36% Faster than GTX980
But sill i am not impressed i am sure FIJI will beat it.

R9 290X: 2816 shaders
R9 390X: 4096 shaders
4096/2816 = 1,45

R9 390X: 3DMark11 Extreme: 3800 * 1.45 = 5510
GTX Titan X 3DMark11 Extreme: 7427

Thats +35% in GTX Titan X advantage.

 

[n0x1ous]

R9 290X: 2816 shaders
R9 390X: 4096 shaders
4096/2816 = 1,45

R9 390X: 3DMark11 Extreme: 3800 * 1.45 = 5510
GTX Titan X 3DMark11 Extreme: 7427

Thats +35% in GTX Titan X advantage.

the 3800 was for the 280x. 1.45 X 290x would give it a score of 7420 - or about even with titan x

 

[ShintaiDK]

the 3800 was for the 280x. 1.45 X 290x would give it a score of 7420 - or about even with titan x

But that would require perfect scaling. And the 290X in the chart is OCed.

Just purely theoretical with perfect scaling:
5091/1080Mhz*1000Mhz=4714
4096SP/2816SP*4714=6857

 

[FatherMurphy]

R9 290X: 2816 shaders
R9 390X: 4096 shaders
4096/2816 = 1,45

R9 390X: 3DMark11 Extreme: 3800 * 1.45 = 5510
GTX Titan X 3DMark11 Extreme: 7427

Thats +35% in GTX Titan X advantage.

For Fiji to beat Titan X at these numbers, you'll have to see (1) a tremendous increase in performance per watt in this next revision of GCN 1.x, and (2) a sizable increase in the IPC of each GCN shader. Hawaii had little TDP headroom left.

Then again, NV increased the perf/watt by nearly 2x with Maxwell, and increased the IPC of its shader cores by 35%, so it isn't impossible that AMD could do something similar. It would just be such a big leap that it does not seem likely.

 

[happy medium]

Then why not go with an AMD R9 295X2?

1. The 295X2 appears to be over 20% faster than the Titan X
2. The 295X2 is extremely quiet with its AIO cooler
3. The 295X2 is only $600 while the Titan X is $1,000 or higher

Of course, the downsides are that not every game works well with CrossFire and the 295X2 requires a hefty power supply. But for around half the price of a Titan X, the tradeoffs seem acceptable. Even if you would need to upgrade your PS, you'd still be a couple hundred dollars ahead by going with the 295X2. And you'd have a new power supply.

Been out of the gpu loop for a while, does the 295x2 use all its 8gb of vram or is it like the older dual gpu cards and only use 4gb?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Been out of the gpu loop for a while, does the 295x2 use all its 8gb of vram or is it like the older dual gpu cards and only use 4gb?

4GB, 2 GPUs each with 4GB individually.

 

[Head1985]

R9 290X: 2816 shaders
R9 390X: 4096 shaders
4096/2816 = 1,45

R9 390X: 3DMark11 Extreme: 3800 * 1.45 = 5510
GTX Titan X 3DMark11 Extreme: 7427

Thats +35% in GTX Titan X advantage.

Your math is wrong + you really think AMD cant increase after 2 years old hawaii IPC for SP or perf/watt?
+FIJI have HBM memory with lower latence vs DDR5 that add some performance for sure.
+ most likely water cooling=better clock
+SP IPC increase and perf/wat increase
Fiji can be easilly 60% faster than 290x =faster than Titanx

 

[ShintaiDK]

Your math is wrong + you really think AMD cant increase after 2 years old hawaii IPC for SP or perf/watt?
+FIJI have HBM memory with lower latence vs DDR5 that add some performance for sure.
+ most likely water cooling=better clock
+SP IPC increase and perf/wat increase
Fiji can be easilly 60% faster than 290x =faster than Titanx

At what, 450W? They need something to radically reduce power consumption first.

Even a perfect scaling from 290X leaves them at 6857.

 

[Creig]

Been out of the gpu loop for a while, does the 295x2 use all its 8gb of vram or is it like the older dual gpu cards and only use 4gb?

It doesn't matter if it's older or newer, CrossFire or SLI. No current system will allow you to add VRAM together on multi-GPU setups.

 

[Head1985]

At what, 450W?

i think TDP will be +- same as 290x.
Why all you think AMD cant after 2 years lower power consuption or increase IPC per SP?
If they increase IPC per SP/perf/watt + HBM memory then FIJI can be 60% faster than 290x