therealnickdanger
Senior member
- Oct 26, 2005
- 987
- 2
- 0
I could look through my CGW articles to double check, but I'm pretty sure this is still only for pre-vis and storyboarding, not final rendering.
Titan X could very well be a bust for DP performance. Point being, we won't know until the specs are detailed.
Who here is going to buy this card if it's ~$1350 as rumored, and why?
Here's a better question. How much better than a 780 it needs to be before you see the potential $1350 price point as reasonable?
Believe it or not brute force with X86 cores is still the preferred way for the professionals. I don't know the technical reasons why, but GPU rendering is much lower quality. That's why Pixar, for example, opts for 25,000 X86 cores in their render farm.
I believe (pretty sure?) that when rendering with multiple GPU's the cards don't run in SLI/Crossfire and the VRAM is not mirrored. Also, I don't think DP is used, either. You might be better off with multiple cheaper cards for what you do.
There is so much information about Pixar and nVidia from Raytracing to Latency.
From a reliable source, the Titan X will be priced at $999.95 like the OG Titan.
Just a week to go...
I'll throw this back at you another way, what do you think a card 60% faster than a 290X should cost today considering a 290X is $300? Do you not see how absurd it is for it to cost $1350? Even $999 is way overpriced. During ATI/NV era, we would get 60-100% faster cards for less than $700. Unless you think Titan X will beat 290X by more than 100%, anything above $699 is a starting to get questionalbe for gaming historically speaking that is. Obviously for those who need 12GB of VRAM for rendering or need the compute performance, it's different. However with 295X2 going for $599, if Titan X is $1350, it better be WAY faster than a 295X2!
.....
In 4-4.5 years a Titan X will get smashed by a $250 GPU.