GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition Listed for Order

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't care about this nonsense. We've been on Kepler for too dang long. I'm ready for Maxwell. I'll dump a grand on a new GPU, but not unless it is Maxwell.
 
In fact the titan is only a "money saver" for cuda applications. The respective quadro card is on the 4-5k price range. I'm pretty sick of nvidia making you pay more for the same card with unlocked dp performance.
 
I don't care about this nonsense. We've been on Kepler for too dang long. I'm ready for Maxwell. I'll dump a grand on a new GPU, but not unless it is Maxwell.
Click to expand...
Maxwell is going to be like Intel's Haswell don't get to excited till amd just flat out surpasses Nvidia and Intel there is no longer a reason to be excited about the next platform. A GeForce GTX 480 and a Intel Core i5-2500 can still max almost any game those are 3-4 year old parts that is freaking crazy also think of the fact that next gen consoles are=to those parts damn near.
 
If we think only about gaming - is having "only" 3 GB of memory an noticeable bottle neck (compared to 6 GB) when gaming on 1440p ? Does anyone knows?
 
In fact the titan is only a "money saver" for cuda applications.
Click to expand...
And only if you dont care for accuracy, these cards dont come with Error correction like the quadro cards do, only really worth using for test runs of applications rather than actual heavy grunt work because of this.Cant wait for people to start defending that its a compute card instead of a gaming card like the titan when it was advertised from the start and still is advertised on nvidias site primarily as a gaming card, but it can also do compute.
 
he price tag that the card was rumored to carry was $999, and the listing supports this. The Asus GTX Titan 6 GB Black is listed for €974.90 including tax, and €786.21 without tax. This translates to $1333 and $1075..
Click to expand...

Holy crap, how much is tax over there? That's nearly 25%! No wonder health care is free in much of Europe! It's probably to take care of the Americans who visit and have a heart attack when they go to pay.

Seriously, though, I'm curious how competitive/attractive this card will be when compared in performance to a 780Ti. The Ti is a beast of a card and I have a feeling that at least one aftermarket manufacturer will offer at least a 4GB version which is more than sufficient.

Seems like this card is probably targeted more toward those doing video and 3D rendering rather than gaming.
 
Taxes are high in such nations, but social provision is strong. It's a balance/tradeoff
that varies from one nation to another. Some people don't like these ideas for purely
political reasons, irrespective of whether these setups work. Tends to be though that
such places (mainly Scandinavian countries) also have high levels of education,
less crime, etc.


Re the Titan, I should imagine what gamers with 1K budgets really want atm
is a 780Ti with 6GB; that would make a lot more sense than a souped-up Titan.
You're right that really the Titan is more interesting to CUDA developers than
gamers (despite the lack of ECC and other features missing from gamer cards),
so it's a little odd that NVIDIA's PR is so game-focused.


boytitan2, you're wrong about a 480 being able to max out any game. I like to play older
games maxed out, as in 16x AA, 16x AF, all in-game settings at max/ultra, custom settings
to increase view/draw distances way up, LOD systems turned off if possible, etc. Trying this
with Crysis (the first one I mean), using e_view_dist_ratio set to 350 (among other changes),
a single 783MHz GTX 580 3GB is enough to get about 25fps. So a 480? No chance, simply not
fast enough. Hence why I have two 580 3GB SLI, giving a nice 50+ fps for Crysis, somewhat
more for Warhead with its tweaked engine. A GTX 480 is enough to run many games with
good settings, but not maxed out, not by a long way. Besides, the 480's 1.5GB will be limiting
in some scenarios.

I'd love to have a 780Ti, but the cost... ouch. Thus, two 580 3GB cost almost half as much
and is about the same speed as a 780 (host system is an M4E with a 5GHz 2700K, GSkill
16GB @ 2133, SSDs). Here's the CPU-Z and some 3DMark11 data with a comparison chart
from guru3d.com:

http://valid.canardpc.com/hal1j6
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7898310
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7898341
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_780_ti_review,26.html

(I've had higher scores by testing with a 3930K, but that's a bias from the Physics tests)

Of course people have different opinions about what level of visual detail they're happy with.
I like to run games the best they can be. New cards are too costly, and I don't have the time
to play the latest games to any sensible degree, so I play older games and make use of 2nd-hand
previous generation top-end cards to get good performance at much less cost (the two 3GB 580s
cost me 290 UKP total, whereas a 780Ti is more than 500 UKP here in the UK). One of my 580s is
eBay item 190964461544, the other has dropped off the previous listings records.

Ian.

PS. I took some pics yesterday for a friend: http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/crysispics.zip

 
I'd be all over a GTX 790 with 5 GBs of vram for a grand. I'd demote my GTX 690 to Sandy bridge service and when Maxwell comes out I'll see what it brings to the game. If a single Maxwell card is faster than dual GTX 780's it will be time to upgrade again.
 


For that to happen, the Maxwell card would need to be over 40% faster than a 780 Ti.... There is definitely not going to be that large of a jump.
 


Considering they both use the same GPU, I'm curious on the rest of the specs that might differentiate this card from a 780Ti other than VRAM in terms of gaming. For gamers, I can't see the price being worth it if it's only VRAM. If it was 2GB vs 3 or 4GB, then it would make sense. But 3GB vs 6GB - you'll never take advantage of that extra RAM unless you're running ridiculous resolutions.

 
Well yeah, that's the point of trying to get 4k gaming to happen. And Surround eats up a lot of VRAM as well.

VRAM definitely is not the most important thing right now, but considering a 4k screen needs 4x what 1080p needs, it will soon become something to look for. I would assume 3 or 4 to become the midrange like 1GB is now, with 6 being highend, and 8 being extreme (in the future, of course)
 


And some games have issues using a lot of RAM aswell (I've read Skyrim used to be one such
title, but maybe they've patched the issue by now).

However, for those looking towards 2560 or 4K gaming, and/or multiple displays, 6GB cards make a lot
of sense. On the OCN Skyrim pics thread I noticed one poster had a 3970X with four Titans for his setup.
Alas, at 4K, the raw GPU power of the current top-end cards isn't sufficent for one GPU to drive a display
as high as 4K that well for most of the latest games - it needs at least two in SLI/CF for smooth motion.
Others will probably wait until monitors are available that can do 4K without tiling, and GPUs have advanced
to the point where one card can handle current games of the day at that res with decent detail

Ian.

 
I bought an msi lightning 7970 when it first launched and it still plays everything on ultra. I was almost worried with BF4 but on ultra im pushing 60-70 fps with dips as low as 50. Perfectly playable. Why would I want to shell out that kind of money or twice that? Ill wait until I cannot play on ultra anymore. Thx but no thx Nvidia.
 




I've been trying to figure out a way to force some games to take better advantage of my 4GB 770's VRAM. I know some games will allow this via the config file, but I cannot figure it out on BF4 for the life of me.

Also, the 4K idea makes sense; we'll chalk it up to Nvidia forward-thinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom