Radeon R9 295X2 vs Nvidia Titan Z

Page 7 - 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.
I guess the R9295x2 wins here if you're talking about price to performance ratio obviously. But the Titan Z runs 125 watts less on load and is 5 decibels or so quieter (which dosen't make much difference to me at least) I guess if the Titan Z was the same price I would rather have the Titan Z because of of the TDP and noise. But at twice the price of the R9 295x2 I don't think I want it.
 
OK. To answer the original question the Titan Z is slightly better than The R9 295x2 as u can see in these benchmarks http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html. However the R9 295x2 is half the price therefore u can buy 2 of the 295s for the one Titan. However there are 2 significant points people are forgetting. Firstly the Nvidia card runs alot cooler therefore it will last longer as because of the less heat. Secondly the Titan draws over 150 less watts of power therefore using less power. So in the long run with the longer life and less power consumption therefore the Titan is worth its money. Furthermore on the topic of the 2 295x2 to for the price of one titan z u will be drawing 1000 watts of power and creating almost 4 times the amount of heat that 1 titan z will create.
So really it depends on what card u would prefer because both cards perform very well and the amd being half the price but the life of it will be significantly shorter.
 
I am not a "Fanboy" of nividia in fact i actually have a amd GPU in my system however i stick by the TITAN Z performing better while drawing less power and remaining cooler. Even if passmark isnt the best benchmarking website the difference between the 2 cards is significant, furthermore Toms Hardware places the two cards on teh same line, therefore they perform similar.
 
i would also prefer if my computer didn't sound like it was housing a aircraft when playing demanding games another reason to choose the nvidia
 




1) Like he said, it has a better cooler, and all tests show the 295X2 running 10 - 15 C cooler than the Titan Z.
2) The 295X2 has an extra 3 Tflops of compute power, 20 GTexels, and (roughly) 40 GPixels. it's kinda hard to argue with those specs.
3) The difference between the two cards is actually pretty small (unless you're using Mantle), and those higher specs are the reason that it's the one being called the fastest card on the market.
4) Both of those fans are going to be ridiculously loud. It's kinda like the difference between standing 10 feet away from a helicopter, and standing 100 feet away from a jumbo jet. Is one louder than the other? Yes. Do you actually care about which one is louder? No, because either way you can't hear what the person next to you is saying, and after that it's all the same unless your eardrums are bleeding.

 


The power draw is really insignificant.

Quoting myself from the previous page (this is all assuming that the difference in power draw is about 150W):
24h*365*0.15kW=1314kWh
Lets say that electricity costs $0.10/kWh, so that's about $131.4/year.
$1500/$131.4/year = 11.41years. So yeah, it would 'only' take 11.41 years to save $1500 in electricity, and that's assuming that the cards perform equally.
Click to expand...
 


That's the point; There is absolutely no way to make back the $1500 that you have to spend to get the Titan Z over the R9 295X2 before both of those cards are outdated.
 
If you see the reviews of the Titan Z on Amazon they're all troll reviews, not a single real review lol. Nobody is going to buy that overpriced card ... Am I wrong? Somebody who has $1,500 or more to blow on a GPU will probably change his card every 5 years or sooner anyway. The only people who will actually buy the Titan Z are people who too much money to waste >.< Or are people who hate AMD and will go with Nvidia and Nvidia only. I don't think there are any advantages worth $500 if the R9 295x2 beats it at gaming and supposedly computing? Let alone $1,500 xD People who need the 'best' GPU out there won't really bother about TDP anyway.
So say, if they were both the same price which one would you go with? I would say the Titan Z if it were the same price. I would get it only because of the lower TDP which would help save about $200 or so in the long run before I replace the card and the FPS difference is so minimal anyway. So for Gaming I would go with the R9 295x2 and for all the other heavy VRam intensive crap The Titan Z if they were the same price. But then again at twice the price of the R9 295x2 it's just a really bad deal .... It should be at least 30% better than the R9 295x2 overall but yet it still only beats it by 5% or so overall? So I would say overall the R9 295x2 slays the Titan Z with its bare hands without a scratch, except for one or two very minor bruises.
 
Alright I'm kinda done with this thread. I'd say for all purpose computing r9295x2 wins also for the games that require physicx you can just buy a cheap 8800gts and it will work fine.

Is everyone in agreement?
 
TL;DR.

I would like to clear up a few things

When people compare Nvidia and AMD/ATI products, they really need to ask the question in context of the application we're rendering for.

Gaming.. Nvidia

Brute force GPU power requiring less streams/cores and higher clock speed.. ATI. (Like video encoding and bitmap rendering! woo tesselation!)

This is a rough summary but..

Nvidia cards = 2x the core count (or streams.. as ATI/AMD calls it) with only 70-80% the clock speed on each core.
AMD cards = 1/2 the core/stream count as a nvidia but with say 1ghz speed vs. an equally matched nvidia card which cores only come to 800ish mhz.
(While this is by far not an accurate representation of what streams and CUDA cores/technology is.. bear with me as I'm just simplifying. I know, it's like comparing apples and oranges.)

Think of this.. Nvidia cards utilize a much more polished and complete software architecture.

The reason why Nvidia generally has more expensive products is because they put A TON MORE money and time into developing the software foundation of their cards. AMD does not. Only recently has AMD kicked their butts into gear and started this "Mantle" w/ "GCN" architecture software development. In a nutshell-- Nvidia cards are loads smarter. This is why they're fast.

I suspect the Z will be faster than the 295-- not just because the GPUs they're doubling are already faster.. but because they do it better. always.
 
Well why doesn't nvidia use Maxwell architecture on their "strongest" card? Keppler as we all know is bested. You have a better architecture but you don't use it on somethin that u claim to be your best. That's not logical. they gonna get all they can, before serving a new meal if u know what I mean.
Their intentions are no good. Its all just sales strategy.
 
Because the maxwell a.k.a 800 series architecture is designed for notebooks. it uses less power, but is not necessarily better performing.

The goal of the Z isn't to make a platform that scales for notebooks and gaming laptops. It's a full-on no "green" mentality balls-to-the-wall "lets see how much unneeded power we can put on one PCB without melting it and give it an arbitrary price point for no reason."

Its very clear these cards are NOT for the average consumer. They're going to be targeted towards enthusiasts who want to build the BEST rig for no reason and for those who wish to accomplish other tasks like DNA profiling.
 
Performance progression in Nvidia cards is not linear whatsoever. Just like how the 690 > 760 and so on so forth, Nvidia is pushing the current architecture to it's limit before releasing their next line of chips.

Would it have made sense to release the original Titan, then release the 760, 770, and 780 afterwards?
 
I also would like to add that i agree with cjkupers nvidia does put a lot more time into producing their cards with software significantly superior to AMD. Furthermore Nvidia will not keep their price of their Titan Z at $3000 because similar performing AMD cards will be released for a lot cheaper. It will be like what happened with the 780 and the r9 290x, nividia brought their pricing down because they werent competing with the cheap price and decent performance of the 290x
 


i am sorry to say but the 8800 gts would be incompetent at playing the latest games at decent settings its sooo old haha.
 
Great discussion guys,

coming from both camp .. 780 sli and 295x2s cf ..may I add my own personal experiences.
1. drivers seemed to be better on the green side. I had less problem with drivers with the 780 sli but still; sli or cf, problems abound.
2. heat output and power consumption ... green team better but not by a lot once you go sli and cf.
3. performance is dependent on the softwares and games but 295x2s are definitely faster than 780 sli. I would say a single 295x2 is about 10-15% faster in general than my msi 780 sli (this card is clock at 1045Mhz boost)
4. price point - red team wins hands down. you can probably get 3 780s for the price of ONE 295x2, but then you have to invest in a better motherboard to support the 3way sli, better case and cooling which in the end you spend more than the 295x2.
5. form factor - red team wins at the moment. two slots 295x2 CF in a miniATX case will be a killer! Titan Z sli will need a full 3 slots free each card on a motherboard ie 4 way SLI form factor, EATX.

Thanks, and I am a fan of both camp.





Overall
 
Where in the hell are you guys reading that the Titan runs cooler. The 295x is one of the coolest high end cards. Anand saying it hovers around the 70's while the Titan is your average 80's. That argument is moot. The Titan's only chance of being on par with the 295x is if it is overclocked and Volts are turned up. The 295x has won this round. Face it.

Temps Anand:http://www.anandtech.com/show/7930/the-amd-radeon-r9-295x2-review/17
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom