Geforce GTX Titan X or Titan Z?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

tachra

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2013
30
0
18,530
Hello,
we are a gaming/it related online mag in our country, and so we have gamers in office to review games and etc
currently all gaming stations are geared up with this config:
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770k
RAM: 16GB DDR3 Vengence
HDD: 1TB Seagate SSHD (Hybrid Harddrive) for OS
M/B: Asus Maximus VI Extreme
VGA: 2 x AMD Radeon R9 290X
Case: Cooler Master Trooper
Monitor: ASUS PB278Q
M/K: Razer Blackwidow and Razer Oroborus

in varoius games like CoD:AW or Watchdogs or i shall say EVERY game you cant play at ultra while playing with res more than 1080p
and even on 1080p we are facing numerous flickering, blinking and flashing issues.
we have thought of changing the VGA of stations and we are decided to buy Titan X or Titan Z
and i wanted to ask you guys which one do you recomend?
money is not a problem, so which card can perform games faster and etc?
ppl say multi GPU cars are not as good as they are meant to be and they have iossues with games ....
so please help me through this
 
Solution
Eggz
Well, you'll need multiple GPUs for that resolution no matter what right now, assuming you're going to run games at more than low settings.

Given the price of the Titan Z, it isn't competitive with the 980 ti or Titan X. The Titan Z costs about the same as two 980 ti cards, but it's a good amount slower than two 980 ti cards would be in SLI, though they both have 6 GB of VRAM.

The Titan X won't be noticeably faster than the 980 ti, even in SLI, but it will be able to handle more memory-hungry settings like textures. Anti-aliasing at 4K won't benefit from the Titan X because it not only requires more VRAM, but it's computationally intensive as well, so it will slow down both the 980 ti and the Titan X at 4K. Plus anti-aliasing...
Sort by date Sort by votes
titan z is old generation gpu, x is all the rage these days, for 4k gaming even they say...
more gpus you have in SLI worse gaming experience you will have, everything starts "tearing".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When SLI works, the Titan Z will be a good amount faster than a single Titan X. The Titan Z performs almost identically to 980 SLI, but it will be faster in games or applications that need a lot of VRAM. The Titan X is great, but it's just not possible to compare the cards fairly because the Titan Z is a dual GPU and the Titan X is just one GPU, and both GPUs are still relevant. The Titan X's GPU is faster on its own than one of the GPUs in the Titan Z, but the second GPU in the Titan Z makes up for the difference and then some, which is why it's faster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ty Eggz, but i have not got my answer:
i want this:
Will Titan Z work like a SLI card?? i mean will games which does not support SLI or CF, have issues with Titan Z?
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
The game needs to support SLI. But almost any game that doesn't support SLI is either too old or too new. Games too old for Ali will perform fine because just one of the GPUs in the Titan Z is very powerful and won't be challenged by old games. For very new games, you'd just have to wait a little while until an update with SLI support comes out, which is just part of SLI. On the upside, everything that needs all the power of a Titan Z either already supports SLI or will in the near future.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Multi-GPU for Nvidia is pretty good. I haven't played much with AMD's Crossfire, but I've read a lot about it being a little more buggy.

Have you considered the new GTX 980 ti that comes out today or tomorrow? It's pretty much the same performance as the Titan X but with 6 GB of VRAM for much less money. You can buy two of them for only about 20% more than a single Titan X.

[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQou5h0Zh2k"][/video]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, you'll need multiple GPUs for that resolution no matter what right now, assuming you're going to run games at more than low settings.

Given the price of the Titan Z, it isn't competitive with the 980 ti or Titan X. The Titan Z costs about the same as two 980 ti cards, but it's a good amount slower than two 980 ti cards would be in SLI, though they both have 6 GB of VRAM.

The Titan X won't be noticeably faster than the 980 ti, even in SLI, but it will be able to handle more memory-hungry settings like textures. Anti-aliasing at 4K won't benefit from the Titan X because it not only requires more VRAM, but it's computationally intensive as well, so it will slow down both the 980 ti and the Titan X at 4K. Plus anti-aliasing isn't that important at higher pixel densities. So if you're running 28in or less with a 4K resolution, then you won't even need it.

The next question is how long do you want the cards to last? VRAM requirements will increase in time, but they might not increase as fast as processing requirements. If VRAM requirements go crazy in the coming year or two, then the Titan X will keep you relevant for longer, but I'm not sure that will happen before the GPU chip on the Titan X and 980 ti just gets outdated.

I'd say get two Titan Xs per computer if you really don't care about money and just want to run 4k at decent settings without running out of VRAM. But if you don't want to spend more than $2,000 per computer, then the 980 ti cards seem like your best bet.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Very good that is the answer i was looking for 😀
now we will go for 7 x Titan X if we see that we need more GPu we will buy another 7 Titan Xs so that each station can have 2 x Titan X
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's going to be a lot of crazy-powerful gaming computers all in one location! If money isn't a concern, you might as well get a new Samsung 850 1 TB SSD for each of the computers. It will be WAY faster than those hybrid drives you have. The overall computing experience will just feel better, and outside of gaming, it will feel like more of an upgrade than the Titan Xs.

ALSO, if you're going to possibly buy 14 Titan Xs, I'd call EVGA or your board partner of choice about getting together a special purchase order. They might not cost $1,000 each at that volume.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, being on a true SSD is far superior to being on an HDD with SDD caching. You can still keep the spinning drives for media and stuff, but putting your programs and OS on either the 1 TB EVO or 1 TB Pro will be a huge improvement.

Drives now can transfer stuff fast enough for anyone's needs, but where the SSDs shine is tjust the day-to-day stuff. Running an OS with all of the background processes, constant scanning, and indexing requires a lot of low-level I/O (e.g. 3 kb here, 500 b, there, etc.). That random mix will prevent your system from dragging even though there's a bunch of things going on in the background that you won't notice unless you're running off any kind of HDD - whether hybrid or otherwise.

I also added a note to my last comment saying that you might want to call about ordering all of those cards at once. See above.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I just swapped out my hybrid HDD for the 1 TB EVO at work also. Worlds apart! And this machine is otherwise the same.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I shall check of these mainboards can suport RAID 0 if yes we can even put 2 x EVO 850 500GB in raid 0
u know im not familiar with raiding in desktop computers even if their MBs have onboard controllers or we need external controller?
but im specialized in server configs
i think i need to contact asus about raiding
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The Asus Maximus VII Extreme definitely supports RAID 0. It's nothing you need a separate controller for. Same with RAID 1, 10, and 5.

Keep in mind, though, that RAID 0 only really helps transfer rates, which don't matter that much. It won't help where it counts, since the drives still shuffle small bits of data at the same speed.

Also, RAID 0 is risky, because if one drive dies, you lose everything on both. You multiply your expected fail rate by the number of drives in your RAID 0 to get an expected RAID 0 fail rate. Assume the fail rate reaches 100% expectancy within 5 years, since that's the warranty period. If it's 5% per drive the first year, then your RAID 0 with two drives has a 10% chance to fail the first year. If that goes up to 15% chance per drive the third year, then you'll look at a 30% change of failure on a two drive RAID 0. And so on. I just don't think it's work it.

If you want that speed boost and don't care about money, but do care about dealing with failing drives, then do a RAID 10. It striped like RAID 0, but it also duplicates each drive like RAID 1. You'd need 4 drives, and you'd be able to lose any single drive without issue, and you'd still only be 50-50 on losing the RAID 10 if a second drive dies before replacing the first. Four 1 TB drives would give you 2 TB of storage, though. If that sounds annoying, I'd just stick with a single drive.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom