Move Over GTX 1080, There’s A New Titan X In Town

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.

If you were already making generous margins on you current products, would you risk wasting some of that margin on an emerging future standard that is currently beset with limited availability and high prices when you don't need any of its potential benefits to maintain your position?

At the moment, HBM is still in the "unnecessary risk" category for Nvidia. AMD has a much harder time with making their GPUs bandwidth-efficient and will need to push HBM2 more aggressively to compensate.

 
An article about a bet is an interesting side note but otherwise I just don't see the purpose. The Titan has never been a real viable gaming card but rather the solution for those who where torn between a Quadro for workstation work and the desire to game after hours.

As for HBM. nVidia's decision to forgo HBM1 was a brilliant move, in the sizes available it did nothing for AMD but increase costs. I thought we'd see HBM2 adopted more quickly but whether the production issues or cost / benefit decisions have carried the day to date, we can't know. Selecting memory is not about being able to wave around press releases saying "we have something new", it should be about we have selected a memory technology suitable for the GPU from a cost / benefit standpoint.

 
I don't agree. It gave them an edge on bandwidth and 4k gaming. It also reduced power dissipation, since they could make the interface wide enough to clock it very low. This provided more power budget for their shaders, etc.

As for why Fury X didn't absolutely stomp the 980 Ti, I cannot say. But I wouldn't write off HBM.
 


Most likely that whats going on. Nvidia usually has its finger on AMD's pulse. I hope that is the case I would like to see a bit more of a battle to combat these higher prices.
 

Size is of no importance when most games at the time did not need anywhere near 4GB. Most games today still don't need more than 4GB VRAM if you look at how little difference there is between the RX480 at 4GB and 8GB when they are clocked the same until you crank details to a level where neither card is playable anyway.
 


There might be a market for 1440p users with high refresh screens.
 


If you are going to wait for the 1080Ti, might as well wait for the 1170! or the 1180! The "might as well wait" case can be made at any time. There is always something better around the corner. Just get what works for you at the time you are ready to build.
 


Yeah, I just donated $1,500 to a Nigerian homeless cat fund, which is to help feed homeless cats in Nigeria. So I'm gonna have to wait till January before I can get one of these new Titans. Once I seen that pic below in the email I received, I knew I had to help out.

Thank God I checked my Spam folder yesterday, or I would have missed this opportunity to help!

6c25684dd6c5048cd533b5cb4ef61d1b.jpg
 
The timing of the release is surprising, totally expected it to come out a lot closer to the usual holiday shopping season.
So why did they announce and release it so soon? Theory: remember the rumors from awhile back that were about VEGA launching a lot sooner than expected? What if those rumors are true?
 


So your argument is that AMD should have improved their ,market position with this advantage.... and yet

1. Less than 0.1% of the gaming population has 4k monitors
2. No last generation card was capable of doing 4k at 60 fps / highest settings
3. The GTX 970 outsold all AMD 2xx and beyond cards by a factor of 2 to1. The HBM equipped cards were a complete failure in the marketplace.
4. Let's look at what HBM1 delivers:

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/213069-is-4gb-of-vram-enough-amds-fury-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x/2

In Far Cry 4, the Radeon R9 Fury X is fully playable at 1080p and 1440p, as are the GeForce GTX 980 Ti and the GeForce GTX Titan X. By 4K, with all features maximized, however, only the GTX 980 Ti is managing 30 FPS. The minimum frame times, however, consistently favor Nvidia at every point. We’ve decided to include the 0.1% frame rate ratio as a measure of how high the lowest frame rate was in relation to the highest. This ratio holds steady for every GPU at 1080p and 1440p, but AMD takes a hit at 4K.

Had HBM1 not been limited to 4 GB, AMD might have done well here.

As in Far Cry 4, AMD takes a much heavier minimum frame rate hit [in ACU] at every resolution, even those that fit well within the 1080p frame buffer. AMD’s low 0.1% frame rates in 1080p and 1440p could be tied to GameWorks-related optimization issues, but the ratio drop in 4K could be evidence of a RAM limitation. Again, however, the GTX 980 Ti and Fury X just don’t do much better. All three cards are stuck below 30 FPS at these settings, which makes the 4GB question less relevant.
Click to expand...

AMD manages a 1 fps advantage here but craps out with the min frame rate tests

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/213069-is-4gb-of-vram-enough-amds-fury-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x

So what AMD essentially accomplished was to put a more capable memory technology but suffered from 2 problems

a) The only advantage they might have gained here at 4k res was if they provided > 4 GB, HBM1 could not deliver that.
b) As delivered, where they might have gained an advantage with better performance at 4k if their GPU could deliver > 30 fps, it couldn't... no card could.

While we do see some evidence of a 4GB barrier on AMD cards that the NV hardware does not experience, provoking this problem in current-generation titles required us to use settings that rendered the games unplayable any current GPU

If you’re a gamer who wants 4K and ultra-high quality visual settings, none of the current GPUs on the market are going to suit you. HBM2 and 14/16nm GPUs may change that, but for now playing in 4K is intrinsically a balancing act.
Click to expand...

In short .... any perceived advantage is just that. If you are going to read this article and look just at average fps and say "ooh in the games tested, had a 1 fps advantage", and ignore the minimum frame rates issues ... it's quite clear that HBM1 brought nothing to the table here. AMD got nothing out if HBM1 other than be ably to issue press releases that say "We used some new tech":

perfrel_3840.gif


Looks close .. doesn't it ?

But it wasn't ... not when the FuryX Oc'd 5.1%(108.1 / 102.9) and the 980 Ti could OC 32.3% (136.0 / 102.8).

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/34.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/26.html

Using a faster memory technology does allow one to realize an advantage when that benefit is nerfed by

a) being able to provide enough of it to make a difference, want to improve 4GB gaming ? ... you need more than 4 GB to play at higher settings
b) not having a GPU that can deliver performance in the realm where it could have made a difference
c) if you can't bring home a "win", it's a fail ... and being 26% slower means you don't have a horse in the race




I agree... to an extent. Sometimes the change i just a matter of degree, but other times it means having or not having a significantly different experience. Buying a 4k monitor at this point in time is hard to justify under any circumstance since today's cards are Display Port 1.4a and no monitor exists that can handle DP 1.4's bandwidth. Two 1080s can deliver 60+ fps minimum in every game Ti's are expected to deliver 80ish in the most demanding games. That means most games will be hitting 100+ fps
 

AMD's Vega 10 hardware design team had their "completion party" in June. If that means that they have received production chips and confirmed them viable as-is, then an October launch as the rumors have been saying would be possible. If it means that the (hopefully) final set of lithography mask changes have been sent out, then 2016 would be optimistic for commercial availability.
 
I wish Nvidia would come up with a better naming convention than Titan black, X, new X? It makes it pretty much impossible to search and find detailed info on a specific model. I have 2 of the first titan models and google is NOT my friend when I'm trying to look for projects to reuse them in.
 


Nvidia did it so the old cards hold its value. Even though the OG Titan is a little faster than a GTX 780, they still sell for $400+. They are completely worthless now. I was just playing with someone online yesterday and they were telling me how their Titan is the fastest and the best on the market. They weren't talking about the X either lol, just the OG one. I didn't have the heart to break it to them that my 1070 was more than twice as fast and cheaper than he paid for a used Titan.

GTX Titan = Something betweena 780 and 780TI
GTX Titan Black = IS the GXT 780 TI with 6GB of vram
GTX Titan X = GTX 980 Ti with 12gb of vram. (nothing more)
 
Talk about stepping on your dawber; the 1080 isn't released yet and they're releasing a more advanced card already? The nut case enthusiast will just ignore the 1080 and go for the Titan X. They could have sold him both if they had held off and not even announced the Titan for a few months.
r
 
yes.

I think you're off track by making the Fury-series' shortcomings about HBM. It's not. Specs-wise, I think they needed that bandwidth to fuel the compute they had onboard, and the power savings of HBM is what enabled them to load it up with so much. Why this GPU didn't make a better showing has a lot more to do with AMDs brute-force approach vs. Nvidia's prowess for extracting the most usable performance from the hardware.

I'm sorry I said anything about 4k, as it had little to do with my point.

Really? How do you know it wasn't profitable, for them? It would only be a complete failure, if they lost money on it - not because something else sold in higher volumes.

Disagree. What someone deems worth the upgrade depends on the amount of funds they have and the amount of benefit they'd derive from said upgrade. Most people don't just upgrade their CPU every generation or two. We wait until the performance difference is worth the cost, to us.

And, if you pay attention to the news and trends, then you should have a fair idea of what's coming along. It's uncommon that some product is a complete surprise.
 
Not true. Anyone who needs fp64 performance for a GPU-compute application will pay good money for it.

And a friend recently bought a Titan X with the 1080 launch around the corner, because he needed 12 GB to train bigger neural nets. Now, if he'd known the new Titan X would launch this soon, maybe he'd have waited.
 
Why would you cry? Is probably 25% more performance really worth nearly twice the price? For most people, I think not.

For those who can wait, experience with the 980 Ti tells us the best option is not to buy until some good factory-overclocked 1080 Ti's hit the market. They'll be cheaper and likely have better gaming performance than the new Titan X.

At that time, you could even ebay your 1080, and still get back at least 50% of its purchase price. Just keep the box and accessories all together. Total price will still be <= than the new Titan X, and you'll have gotten to enjoy the 1080 while waiting for the upgrade to something even faster than this card.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom