Titan X Launch

[Cookie Monster]

it would be interesting to see the same test on the R9 285.

My thoughts precisely.

 

[SolMiester]

Cant say I would ever buy a USD$1k card, but I just dont get all the tears from those that arent either. Its an awesome single card and now gives the power to drive 4K for those with money. Me, I cant read the text on a 4k panel so a moot point.

 

[JDG1980]

it would be interesting to see the same test on the R9 285.

It wasn't the exact same test, but TechReport did include some benchmarks in their Tonga review that highlighted the GCN 1.2 color compression. Here is the link.

 

[JDG1980]

It was only recycled back to the 6970. The 5870 cooler was quite different and didn't have a vapour chamber. I actually think the heatsink portion of the 290X isn't the problem as much as the fan (which is about half the depth of the titan cooler).

The heatsink is a problem too, because its fins are very close together and this requires a fan with high static pressure (read: loud). They should have used a heatsink with wider fin spacing, and (as you noted) a deeper fan blower.

 

[Eymar]

SLI numbers look good. The power draw of 2x TiX is more than 3x 980s. I might have to rethink waiting for 980ti's. Link: http://www.digitalstormonline.com/u...li-performance-review-4k-benchmarks-idnum343/

 

[ocre]

Yesterday, i made a list of the people I expected would trash on the Titan X and what do ya know...........it was spot on!!!!!!


Lol,
Actually, I never wrote anything down but there is no doubt, you don't have to be a psychic to have predicted this. I have yet to be entertained, after 10 pages.

The chip itself is amazing for what it is. That said, 33% over 980 is disappointing. Overclocking needs to be a redeeming feature. $1,000 is a really bad joke. I really hope Fiji is straight up faster across the board at 1440p and 4k, overclocks well, comes in way cheaper, and has similar efficiency so Nvidia can't clutch onto perf/w as being the end all metric.

I agree, mostly anyway. There were actually people saying how sorry 980 owners were gonna be because we paid so much for our mid ranged chips. Haha. Here it is 6 months from the 980 launch and the Titan x changes nothing. The 980 has held its value, completely.
So much for the "too bad for 980 owners" claim. It is completely out of touch with reality. After months of gaming, we could sell our cards today and get just about what we paid for them. We could then take that money and put it towards the Titan X..........

if we wanted, that is.

But there is little reason to do that at all. An overclocked 980 stacks up pretty well against a Titan X, all while not becoming loud and hard to cool. The 980 overclocks gracefully and is still very powerful.

Titan x http://m.hardocp.com/article/2015/03/17/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_x_video_card_preview/2#.VQjZCZG9KK0
980 overclocked
http://m.hardocp.com/article/2015/0...980_platinum_video_card_review/9#.VQjZHpG9KK0

I don't know about you but I think we are just fine with our 980s. So, too bad for 980 owners..........yeah, right!!!! The world is fine and dandy for us right now and for the foreseeable future. Even when the 390x launches months down the road. If they do manage to move the bar in price vs performance, if they finally do dethrone the 980 and drive down its price, then we can just pick up another 980 and leap frog in performance.

So the price of the Titan x being a bad joke, well.....
Let nvidia charge whatever they think they can get for it. I know I am not in the market for one but surely they think some people will buy it. The high price of the Titan X keeps the 980 value high for that much longer. Nvidia may intend for this to be a low volume product and perhaps they didn't see a big reason to shake up the entire market. Down the line, the situation will change. I want nothing more than to see a strong 390x when it comes. If the 980 holds value for a couple more months (and it looks like it actually might), we can sell our cards just before the 390x launch. If they are still selling used for 500 and up, just think about that for a minute.
It is great time to be a 980 owner

 

[Silverforce11]

Yesterday, i made a list of the people I expected would trash on the Titan X and what do ya know...........it was spot on!!!!!!

Am I on that list? Because I haven't been trashing it at all. I've been expecting ~35% over a 980 and at ~780ti power use and so I wasn't surprised nor disappointed.

The only disappointment would be if NV does not allow custom models on the full GM200 SKU, because that blower is actually holding GM200 back a lot. Other reviewers have noted the same:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/36.html
"The Titan X's cooling seems to hold it back. Though NVIDIA's choice to reuse the original Titan cooler does not seem optimal, the card will be running at its 84°C temperature limit almost all the time during demanding games, which causes Boost clocks to go down. I also wonder why NVIDIA chose such a low temperature limit when it would have clearly made a performance difference.

Another shortcoming of the cooler, which looks fantastic with its black-powdered coat by the way, is fan noise. While not terribly noisy, it definitely emits more noise than NVIDIA's other recent releases, roughly matching the Radeon R9 290X's noise output. It was the wonderful Maxwell architecture that brought huge efficiency gains so cooling could be quieter yet still powerful enough to keep temperatures in check."

It will be interesting when they drop a 980ti 6GB mildly-neutered GM200 in a few months at ~$699, allowing custom AIB models that end up with beastly OC and beating Titan X OC vs OC.

I'm not even going to bash or trash the $999 price tag and Titan moniker without DP compute. Why? Because I know, you know, NV knows, there's a lot of gamers & benchers who would happily folk out that much for less performance increase than 35%.. and, its got 12GB VRAM!

NV is going to bank big time with 980ti at $699 and Titan X at $999. Hopefully AMD can bring the competition back so NV is inclined to lower the price a bit and we can all enjoy!

 

[Head1985]

Am I on that list? Because I haven't been trashing it at all. I've been expecting ~35% over a 980 and at ~780ti power use and so I wasn't surprised nor disappointed.

The only disappointment would be if NV does not allow custom models on the full GM200 SKU, because that blower is actually holding GM200 back a lot. Other reviewers have noted the same:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/36.html
"The Titan X's cooling seems to hold it back. Though NVIDIA's choice to reuse the original Titan cooler does not seem optimal, the card will be running at its 84°C temperature limit almost all the time during demanding games, which causes Boost clocks to go down. I also wonder why NVIDIA chose such a low temperature limit when it would have clearly made a performance difference.

Another shortcoming of the cooler, which looks fantastic with its black-powdered coat by the way, is fan noise. While not terribly noisy, it definitely emits more noise than NVIDIA's other recent releases, roughly matching the Radeon R9 290X's noise output. It was the wonderful Maxwell architecture that brought huge efficiency gains so cooling could be quieter yet still powerful enough to keep temperatures in check."

It will be interesting when they drop a 980ti 6GB mildly-neutered GM200 in a few months at ~$699, allowing custom AIB models that end up with beastly OC and beating Titan X OC vs OC.

I'm not even going to bash or trash the $999 price tag and Titan moniker without DP compute. Why? Because I know, you know, NV knows, there's a lot of gamers & benchers who would happily folk out that much for less performance increase than 35%.. and, its got 12GB VRAM!

NV is going to bank big time with 980ti at $699 and Titan X at $999. Hopefully AMD can bring the competition back so NV is inclined to lower the price a bit and we can all enjoy!

Even 980TI at 700 is overpriced as hell.
GTX980 mainstream GPU at 550 also.

how can someone say 700dolar gpu is good buy.
When GTX980 is 350 and full maxwell is 500 then it will be good buy.
And this TITANX is not TITAN card anymore.ITS 780TI successor with 300 more price and only Titan marketing name.
Where are times with 500dolars GTX480/580??
Or 550 dual GPU 5970?
Those last 2-3 years are worst times in GPU history.Most overpriced cards in all times and some people still thinks 780TI successor TITANX is good buy with 999 price.

 

[Majcric]

Am I on that list? Because I haven't been trashing it at all. I've been expecting ~35% over a 980 and at ~780ti power use and so I wasn't surprised nor disappointed.

The only disappointment would be if NV does not allow custom models on the full GM200 SKU, because that blower is actually holding GM200 back a lot. Other reviewers have noted the same:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/36.html
"The Titan X's cooling seems to hold it back. Though NVIDIA's choice to reuse the original Titan cooler does not seem optimal, the card will be running at its 84°C temperature limit almost all the time during demanding games, which causes Boost clocks to go down. I also wonder why NVIDIA chose such a low temperature limit when it would have clearly made a performance difference.

Another shortcoming of the cooler, which looks fantastic with its black-powdered coat by the way, is fan noise. While not terribly noisy, it definitely emits more noise than NVIDIA's other recent releases, roughly matching the Radeon R9 290X's noise output. It was the wonderful Maxwell architecture that brought huge efficiency gains so cooling could be quieter yet still powerful enough to keep temperatures in check."

It will be interesting when they drop a 980ti 6GB mildly-neutered GM200 in a few months at ~$699, allowing custom AIB models that end up with beastly OC and beating Titan X OC vs OC.

I'm not even going to bash or trash the $999 price tag and Titan moniker without DP compute. Why? Because I know, you know, NV knows, there's a lot of gamers & benchers who would happily folk out that much for less performance increase than 35%.. and, its got 12GB VRAM!

NV is going to bank big time with 980ti at $699 and Titan X at $999. Hopefully AMD can bring the competition back so NV is inclined to lower the price a bit and we can all enjoy!

I wonder if Nvidia knows something about AMD's upcoming card we don't. With the DP missing and $999 price it's starting to really make me wonder. As noted earlier they left it on the table for AMD.

 

[alcoholbob]

Got $450 for my 980 off craigslist. Titan X should be coming on Thursday. I briefly tried 980 SLI but it didn't work in some games and also had microstutter in some, so Titan X is the card I've been waiting for.

Depends on how long it takes for Pascal to come out, but if its a long time then I'll probably just throw a water block on the TiX or an aftermarket cooler when they become available. My 980 could barely hold a 100MHz overclock without artifacts so if my Titan X can then do at least that then I'm looking at a great upgrade at 4K.

Even just getting 40fps is a big deal at 4K, especially if you've been looking at 25-30fps for the last 5 months :O

 

[garagisti]

Got $450 for my 980 off craigslist. Titan X should be coming on Thursday. I briefly tried 980 SLI but it didn't work in some games and also had microstutter in some, so Titan X is the card I've been waiting for.

Depends on how long it takes for Pascal to come out, but if its a long time then I'll probably just throw a water block on the TiX or an aftermarket cooler when they become available. My 980 could barely hold a 100MHz overclock without artifacts so if my Titan X can then do at least that then I'm looking at a great upgrade at 4K.

Even just getting 40fps is a big deal at 4K, especially if you've been looking at 25-30fps for the last 5 months :O

Oye vei.

I thought that Pascal will be out only in h2 of 2016. That's a year or so away i'd think, and if you're lucky, the first card out will certainly not be a replacement for your card, but rather a mainstream part.

 

[lavaheadache]

I really wish the reviews were showing the card vs a Titan Z

 

[altairauditore]

AT's power tests are different from so many other sites. Almost all the other sites I've checked say that a TitanX consumes less power that a R290X

 

[Silverforce11]

AT's power tests are different from so many other sites. Almost all the other sites I've checked say that a TitanX consumes less power that a R290X

Depends on the test, some games have wildly different results.
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-03/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-im-test/8/

 

[schmuckley]

They didn't show the result of running 8 x MSAA though, its a slideshow, irrelevant. Pushing vram for the sake of it is stupid, [H] has dropped in quality?

They even did this:

"Amazing performance and efficiency strikes again. These wattage numbers are full system wattages taken at the wall. Our average performance increase at 1440p and 4K was 33% over the GeForce GTX 980. Consider above that the power increase is only 21% at full-load to achieve this.

All of this is also contained in the same video card size package as the GeForce GTX 980, no size differences, no exotic cooling differences needed."

.. like duh, it would be less % when using TOTAL SYSTEM power. Even took a swipe at the upcoming 390X with "no exotic cooling"..

Their own readers on forums are taking note of how bias they have become of late, pushing more GameWorks into their tests and endlessly bashing/blaming AMD for lack of CF support in NV games! Yeah, nice one guys. Even Tomshardware is more respectable!

I told Kyle Bennet about himself the other day

 

[Enigmoid]

Depends on the test, some games have wildly different results.
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-03/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-im-test/8/

Its more than the throttled 290X, less than the uber mode (closer to aftermarket clocks).

Note also that system power includes the CPU, and titan X is pulling 40-50% higher fps than the 290X.

 

[BrentJ]

They didn't show the result of running 8 x MSAA though, its a slideshow, irrelevant. Pushing vram for the sake of it is stupid, [H] has dropped in quality?

I actually did run the performance, but did not have time to include it in the preview. Performance wasn't as bad as you'd think. Our full-evaluation will show very high settings, pushing all video cards to compare them at high settings to show what that looks like.

Their own readers on forums are taking note of how bias they have become of late, pushing more GameWorks into their tests and endlessly bashing/blaming AMD for lack of CF support in NV games! Yeah, nice one guys. Even Tomshardware is more respectable!

We are using newer games, a lot of newer games are using some GameWorks features. We don't chose games based on which IHV has injected 3D effects into said game. No one complained when we used Tomb Raider for 2 years which favored AMD cards via TressFX. We pick games that are popular, well played, forward looking, and GPU demanding, among other factors. The influence of GameWorks features is exagerated. For the record, the newest game we added, Dying Light, only contains two GameWorks features: Depth of Field and HBAO+, which seem to perform similarly on AMD and NV GPUs. So let's stick to the facts on that topic.

With no support for CrossFire in FC4 since November, and it is now March, AMD rightly deserves criticism for lack of CrossFire support in newer games. When there have been over 3 months of no new drivers, yet several new games being released, with no driver optimizations or CF profiles, this should definitely concern AMD and CrossFire users who want to play new games. It is a valid concern, just thinking from a gamer perspective.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I actually did run the performance, but did not have time to include it in the preview. Performance wasn't as bad as you'd think. Our full-evaluation will show very high settings, pushing all video cards to compare them at high settings to show what that looks like.



We are using newer games, a lot of newer games are using some GameWorks features. We don't chose games based on which IHV has injected 3D effects into said game. No one complained when we used Tomb Raider for 2 years which favored AMD cards via TressFX. We pick games that are popular, well played, forward looking, and GPU demanding, among other factors. The influence of GameWorks features is exagerated. For the record, the newest game we added, Dying Light, only contains two GameWorks features: Depth of Field and HBAO+, which seem to perform similarly on AMD and NV GPUs. So let's stick to the facts on that topic.

With no support for CrossFire in FC4 since November, and it is now March, AMD rightly deserves criticism for lack of CrossFire support in newer games. When there have been over 3 months of no new drivers, yet several new games being released, with no driver optimizations or CF profiles, this should definitely concern AMD and CrossFire users who want to play new games. It is a valid concern, just thinking from a gamer perspective.

You guys planning to do some indepth analysis into overclocking/SLi at 4K testing?

Would be awesome if the likes of say heavily overclocked R290X/GTX980 was in the mix.

 

[Silverforce11]

I actually did run the performance, but did not have time to include it in the preview. Performance wasn't as bad as you'd think. Our full-evaluation will show very high settings, pushing all video cards to compare them at high settings to show what that looks like.



We are using newer games, a lot of newer games are using some GameWorks features. We don't chose games based on which IHV has injected 3D effects into said game. No one complained when we used Tomb Raider for 2 years which favored AMD cards via TressFX. We pick games that are popular, well played, forward looking, and GPU demanding, among other factors. The influence of GameWorks features is exagerated. For the record, the newest game we added, Dying Light, only contains two GameWorks features: Depth of Field and HBAO+, which seem to perform similarly on AMD and NV GPUs. So let's stick to the facts on that topic.

With no support for CrossFire in FC4 since November, and it is now March, AMD rightly deserves criticism for lack of CrossFire support in newer games. When there have been over 3 months of no new drivers, yet several new games being released, with no driver optimizations or CF profiles, this should definitely concern AMD and CrossFire users who want to play new games. It is a valid concern, just thinking from a gamer perspective.

Thanks for addressing some concerns, your site has been respectable over the years.

The problem with CF in GameWorks title is not entirely the blame of AMD, as your posters & reviewers noted, a patch was required to enable CF for some of the GameWorks title. It's clearly in the control of developers and not at AMD's whims.

Edit: It is a valid concern, one which I recently raised here, making me lean towards going towards NV GPUs because GTA & Witcher 3 are both great games I am looking forward to, if they perform badly on AMD it would hurt many gamers.

 

[BrentJ]

You guys planning to do some indepth analysis into overclocking/SLi at 4K testing?

Would be awesome if the likes of say heavily overclocked R290X/GTX980 was in the mix.

Most definitely.

 

[AnandThenMan]

No one complained when we used Tomb Raider for 2 years which favored AMD cards via TressFX.

I actually recall quite a few people complaining, but that has gone away because TressFX source was made available so anyone could optimize for it. GameWorks is not like this which I am sure you are well aware, it is a closed system.

 

[Eymar]

Thanks for addressing some concerns, your site has been respectable over the years.

The problem with CF in GameWorks title is not entirely the blame of AMD, as your posters & reviewers noted, a patch was required to enable CF for some of the GameWorks title. It's clearly in the control of developers and not at AMD's whims.

Yeah I would think their is equal blame to go around (between Devs and AMD).

 

[96Firebird]

Don't take it personally Brent, I swear some people here think half the review sites are biased for one reason or another. It is an ever-changing list as well, it is hard to keep up with which site is biased towards which brand...

 

[BrentJ]

I personally think AMD can do better with its drivers. It has in the past, when they did monthly driver updates, but then they stopped. Now with the yearly Omega release people are concerned they will slack off on driver updates, instead saving them for big updates, with less frequency. Overall, this doesn't track well with the release of new games. A new game will be released, and you may end up waiting months before AMD address optimizations or CF profile support in said game. This is a valid concern any gamer would have.

Yes developers have a lot of impact on a game's support and performance at launch, but so do AMD and NVIDIA for their own cards in said game. They have the ability to get in there, before games are launched, and make sure the developer has what they need to optimize for their cards. It goes both ways.

I am pro frequent driver updates to support new games.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I am pro frequent driver updates to support new games.

GW endeavors to prevent this on the AMD side, which is why I'm confused as to why you compared it to TressFX which is open to Nvidia. GW is part of a special license that devs sign preventing them from revealing what Nvidia is supplying to the dev, and makes it difficult for AMD to optimize.

So it seems unfair to only blame AMD and never mention the negative effects GW has. AMD has been going through some driver issues but as you say it goes both ways the devs need to get on board and cooperate with AMD. GW puts a barrier up for this to happen.