Report: Nvidia Titan to Launch Feb. 18, New Specs Rumored

Page 2 - 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.
the 5870 was a beast of a card... which overclocked like mad.

Every few generations it seems like there is some random GPU that seems to work WAY better then advertised. the 5870 was one such... as was the 3850...
 
[citation][nom]Madjimms[/nom]I just want GTX 680 performance with 650Ti power consumption.[/citation]

I think we all want that but they won't give it to us. Only if Intel had kept their GPU project alive and e could once again have more than 2 companies running the show.
 
[citation][nom]hero1[/nom]I think we all want that but they won't give it to us. Only if Intel had kept their GPU project alive and e could once again have more than 2 companies running the show.[/citation]

Well, they did keep it alive, just not as a consumer graphics platform.
 


This has nothing to do with the next generation of cards. It's a one off.
 
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]All kidding aside, can it run Crysis 3 on ultra? That's what I want to know.[/citation]

If it has performance comparable to the 690, then it can probably handle Crysis 3 maxed out pretty well.
 
Just looked up the Radeon 5870, its teraflop(processing power) rating is impressive. Only about 5% lower than a 7950(non boost edition). Anyone looking to upgrade from a 5870 should get a GTX 680 or Radeon 7970; otherwise they will be disapointed.

Anyway the Titan's rating of 4.5 Tflops, makes it only 45% more powerful than a 680 (3.090 Tflops). Still a good improvement thou... if it only uses 235 watts (~20% more than a 680).
 



My 5870 still runs strong on WoW, D3, Civ V and BL2 all maxed and maintaining over 50 FPS or more depending on game. WoW I custom tweaked the settings a little. Not the most difficult titles out there but still demanding.
 
[citation][nom]hero1[/nom]I think we all want that but they won't give it to us. Only if Intel had kept their GPU project alive and e could once again have more than 2 companies running the show.[/citation]

It's better off dead. Intel can't compete when it comes to any sort of GPU or onboard graphics. AMD APU's crush them.
 
[citation][nom]mikenygmail[/nom]It's better off dead. Intel can't compete when it comes to any sort of GPU or onboard graphics. AMD APU's crush them.[/citation]
What a depressing comment. Do you know how many transistors are lost on the 3770K to HD4000 graphics and it's happening again with Haswell and HD4600. Completely wasted when enthusiasts (most of us) run discrete GPU's. And the three letters APU just make me cringe, the disease!
 
[citation][nom]wdmfiber[/nom]Just looked up the Radeon 5870, its teraflop(processing power) rating is impressive. Only about 5% lower than a 7950(non boost edition). Anyone looking to upgrade from a 5870 should get a GTX 680 or Radeon 7970; otherwise they will be disapointed.Anyway the Titan's rating of 4.5 Tflops, makes it only 45% more powerful than a 680 (3.090 Tflops). Still a good improvement thou... if it only uses 235 watts (~20% more than a 680).[/citation]

You can't make accurate comparisons between architectures by the FLOPs ratings. The 5870 is significantly inferior to the 7950 in gaming performance and is a minuscule fraction of the 7950 when it comes to compute performance in almost all compute workloads.

FLOPS without context is a useless number. For example, there's a huge difference between single-precision FLOPS and dual-precision FLOPS (on AMD's 7950, its DP is one fourth of its SP, yet the 680's DP is one twenty-fourth of its SP and the 5870's DP is at best one fifth of its SP). The VLIW5-based cards such as the 5870 were also infamous for very few compute workloads being able to run well on them. Having lots of nigh unreachable theoretical performance is usually less important than a good amount of practical performance .
 
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]@bystander, it seems more plausible to me that they designed a GK110 gaming card (as rumored), had crap yields (as rumored), and then scrapped it for the time being since they didn't really need it performance-wise. They didn't need the high yields to make a workstation card, and now that they've had another year to work on their fab process, they can release it (albeit I'm sure in limited quantities) to the gaming croud.[/citation]
That may very well be what happened, but that doesn't change that the initial reports were rumor and speculation. Until they release their plan to the public, it is rumor. They stopped before that point.
 
This is a terrible offering amidst global economic meltdown. Its a good 25% slower than a HD7990 and will likely cost more or as much. The Titan is all the unsold 680's powdered up and sold for a angel raping sum of money. This will be for a very small market and I think Nvidia got desperate here. they will be lucky to turn these over.
 
[citation][nom]sarinaide[/nom]This is a terrible offering amidst global economic meltdown. Its a good 25% slower than a HD7990 and will likely cost more or as much. The Titan is all the unsold 680's powdered up and sold for a angel raping sum of money. This will be for a very small market and I think Nvidia got desperate here. they will be lucky to turn these over.[/citation]

There is no proof of how it performs and it's definitely not using a GPU based on the 680.
 
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]it seems more plausible to me that they designed a GK110 gaming card (as rumored), had crap yields (as rumored), and then scrapped it for the time being since they didn't really need it performance-wise. They didn't need the high yields to make a workstation card, and now that they've had another year to work on their fab process, they can release it (albeit I'm sure in limited quantities) to the gaming croud.[/citation]
Yeah, probably...and now because the existing generation is so expensive despite being based on GK104, and because AMD doesn't have an answer to this yet, they'll jack the prices up as much as possible.

The 680 was supposed to be the 670 Ti, I discovered, but then something happened somewhere. I'm not sure if they had a GK110 based 680 or a derivative of it in the works, but then they must have realised they were equaling the 7970 (rather, the 670 was) so they probably scrapped it last minute.

EDIT: Here, have fun:
670Ti_zps268e5519.jpg


EDIT2: Never paid attention to the dates. It seems like 16 Feb 2012 is the approx date around which the decision was made.
 
to me GK104 suppose to be GTX660 line up. if amd really able to make perform a whole lot stronger from the beginning we might see Fermi 1.0 again with kepler. to me it is weird they go straight for GK110 and no mention of GK100 at all from the company.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom