Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bosco

NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan X Reviewed

Recommended Posts

The price should go down once the R9 390X gets released. It's supposed to be on par with the Titan X. I don't see AMD pricing the R9 390X that high, maybe... maybe, $650? By then, NVIDIA will drop the price of the Titan X to $650, then release the Titan X Black or whatever to replace the $999 price for a graphics card, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not a card for the faint of wallet for sure! But for those that want a single GPU system it is bad ass! I think back to what I paid for a pair of 8800GTS 640Mb cards and figure Titan X is about $400 cheaper than the pair from around 07 or 08!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe they crippled the double precision performance on this one. The whole point of the Titan line was that it could do both gaming and heavy GPU compute...

 

Still, it's fast as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the maxwell wasnt good for fp64 to begin with. That's why the new Quaros are kelper based.

 

edit: looks like the Quadro M6000 (same chip) has FP64 @ 1/32 so it's a chip issue and not limited by nvidia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice review, loving that we have the OC'ed card charts again - makes it easy for me to comapare my OC'ed 980 to the Titan X
 
Here's a rough summary for 1920x1080 :
 
Metro LL
980 OC 1.3% slower than stock X
OC X 21.5% faster than OC 980
 
Bioshock Infinite
980 OC 0.2% slower than stock X
OC X 16.4% faster than OC 980
 
Crysis 3
980 OC 11% slower than stock X
OC X 38% faster than OC 980
 
Far Cry 4
980 OC 11.3% slower than stock X
OC X 32% faster than OC 980
 
BF4
980OC 11.3% slower than stock X
OC X 25.4% faster than OC 980
 
ACU 
980 OC 9% slower than stock X
OC X 29.5% faster than OC 980
 
So an OC'ed GTX980 is on average 7.35% slower than a stock X at 1080p. I know we're comparing apples to oranges with stock vs OC, but it is interesting to see that means for $559 with a bit of slight tweaking in Afterburner you can get close to stock Titan X performance which will cost $999. 
And an OC'ed X is on average 27% faster than an OC'ed GTX980 at 1080p, while the price is probably 78.7% more. 
 
The Titan series used to be for those looking for improved DPP, but now it seems like a way to take a gaming card, throw on extra VRAM and price it out of the reach of most gamers.
 
Hoping to see a 980Ti with similar specs and 6Gb VRAM arrive around the time the HBM AMD Fiji card comes out, so we can see a battle between the brands for performance and value for money in the segment between the $559 GTX980 and $999 Titan X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nice review, loving that we have the OC'ed card charts again - makes it easy for me to comapare my OC'ed 980 to the Titan X
 
Here's a rough summary for 1920x1080 :

 

Metro LL
980 OC 1.3% slower than stock X
OC X 21.5% faster than OC 980
 
Bioshock Infinite
980 OC 0.2% slower than stock X
OC X 16.4% faster than OC 980
 
Crysis 3
980 OC 11% slower than stock X
OC X 38% faster than OC 980
 
Far Cry 4
980 OC 11.3% slower than stock X
OC X 32% faster than OC 980
 
BF4
980OC 11.3% slower than stock X
OC X 25.4% faster than OC 980
 
ACU 
980 OC 9% slower than stock X
OC X 29.5% faster than OC 980
 
So an OC'ed GTX980 is on average 7.35% slower than a stock X at 1080p. I know we're comparing apples to oranges with stock vs OC, but it is interesting to see that means for $559 with a bit of slight tweaking in Afterburner you can get close to stock Titan X performance which will cost $999. 
And an OC'ed X is on average 27% faster than an OC'ed GTX980 at 1080p, while the price is probably 78.7% more. 
 
The Titan series used to be for those looking for improved DPP, but now it seems like a way to take a gaming card, throw on extra VRAM and price it out of the reach of most gamers.
 
Hoping to see a 980Ti with similar specs and 6Gb VRAM arrive around the time the HBM AMD Fiji card comes out, so we can see a battle between the brands for performance and value for money in the segment between the $559 GTX980 and $999 Titan X.

 

At 1920x1080 There will be some CPU bottlenecking that limits performance. Titan X is not made to run at 1920 x 1080. Its built to run 2560x1440 and higher. When you move to this resolution the performance scales even higher. Looking at your first comparison. Metro Last Light at 2560x1440 shows the stock Titan X is 26+% faster than the GTX 980 at stock speeds. When overclocked the Titan X is 23% faster than the GTX 980.

If you play at 1920x1080 don't spend the coin on the Titan X and stick with a 980X. If you want to play at a higher resolution and want to only run one card then Titan X is a good option. If SLI is in your future then you can choose your poison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the maxwell wasnt good for fp64 to begin with. That's why the new Quaros are kelper based.

 

edit: looks like the Quadro M6000 (same chip) has FP64 @ 1/32 so it's a chip issue and not limited by nvidia.

Oh it's definitely a design choice, I'm just shocked they decided to make it both a Quadro and Titan chip when both lines have been traditionally DP heavy...kinda throws away the naming convention IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More so forcing the professionals to the Quadro for that higher price point and eliminating the inexpensive compute cards. I understand your point though. At $1k Titan X is not cheap but a Tesla card goes for $3.5K.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×