NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X 3DMark performance From [ videocardz ] & [ChipHell]

[i_build_nanosuits]

But they cut down the number of cores.

The end of the day performance difference between the 780Ti and 980 or 970/780 are pretty mediocre.

i agree...but that's what this TITAN card is all about...delivering those much improved cores in a very significant amount...

[Syte]

One thing to remember is 144Hz panel owners want to drive games at 144 FPS. The ROG Swift, for example, has to do this at 1440p which means if a game does not support SLI (World of Warcraft, as a prime example) 144FPS will be hard to drive in extremely crowded scenes or in other games that do not support proper SLI scaling. One GTX 980 isn't enough for games like Battlefield to maintain 144FPS@1440p and 2 GTX 980 run into scaling issues with non-SLI games trying to push the full 144FPS@1440p. So to those people a single Titan X is much better than two GTX 980s, especially if you're like me and water cool every GPU you put in your system.

[EpicAdom]

The tears of wallets everywhere will run deep

[Opcode]

Pssst.... hey.... AMD. Guess what? You be fooked

 

 

- snip -

Could you be any more biased? These numbers are quite disappointing especially factoring that it still gets outperformed by the R9 295x2 quite effortlessly. Which means there's a lot of room for the R9 390X to claw at these numbers. GCN 1.3/2.0 brings a lot to the table (delta compression, FP16, 2-4x tessellation, HBM, etc). So I reserve my right to conclude that the TITAN X is the best buy on the market.

[FabulousOtter]

They should've just called it 980 Ti and be done with it, the performance isn't much above a 980, certainly not enough for the price

 

I'd say between 24 - 30% performance increase over a reference 980 is a massive difference.

[Memphaestus]

So you're telling me I can go buy a 295x2 for 2/3 the price and still have 20% better performance.  Yeah I'm totally sold, NOT!

[AdmiralGeneralPauleyD]

Now if only I had a job and could afford that card

[Memphaestus]

OP left out some important graphs from the source.

 

 

Worse than the Titan Z is pretty laughable if you ask me.

[Pandorarama]

I guess everyone will have their own reasons why or why not with buying this card. For me as with most people its comes down to "What do I want?" I tried rolling Red when I first started building about maybe a little over a year ago, but didn't much care for that side of the fence. So to people saying Just buy a R9 295x2 because it beats the Titan X whilst only being around $650ish, then  Meh I guess if all your care for is pure unadulterated gaming power and price matching you'd buy that Dual chip Card. But if you Roll with both the gaming market and actual production then this card might have good possibilities. Most people will overclock the Titan X to begin with.  Then the power proficiency of Maxwell has become a tried and true reality. Meaning with two of these guys in sli overclocked you probably wont need to upgrade that PSU you bought for those 2 what ever you crossfired or Sli'ed Cards you bought last time. Like a lot of people mentioned these benchmarks are still up in the air if they are 100% accurate. Plus no one should ever forget the silicon lottery. Did the people who benchmarked those 4 TX's get a good stock or not. I speculate (Better word then assume based on cogitation) That the Ti version of the 980's won't exist because Pascal is in route and the first series Keplar only got their dual Chip 690. This card Will probably be a good median before the whole Tick- tok system Kicks in and the Pascal's X80 is up for grabs. But for now what we know is this card looks to be hitting the market befor the R9 300 series, and it doesn't need to be watercooled as the R9 300 Flag has too. So for those of us waiting for a FCWB the possibilities to take the Titan X to those extremes has higher potential.  I want to run 2 of these cards in a quasi workstation and gaming main rig so for me as long as the price point per card holds at $1000 like the last Titan's did then I am all aboard this hype train to fun town. Will it be good for driving a 4K Moniter to that 60Hz gold point. I hope so.  Will it's Earlier release over shadow The ever loaming R9 390X cresting the horizon. I'll put my money down on that bet. But that's me. I ran the original Titan in my first rig because I found it at a great deal for $770 USD in Japan because The national exchange dropped and the price of it never change to reflect the economic change. Now that beauty( and great deal) will be heading over to my buddy's new rig For the price of Free-trity so he can animate and do 3D application rendering at the level he will need as a professional. I am happy with what I have seen so far from this card and await its total release on the 17th (hopefully those quirky NDA's end there too.) So to digress the point This card will be for this card is meant to before. It's niche will be seen and potential salivated over for the foreseeable future.

[Dabombinable]

Yeah, bottom-of-the-barrel ELPIDA NAND in a triple-PCI slot consuming design on a card that uses twice the power, that you can't even buy from anywhere on the planet apart from the EU, or if you're economically suicidal, importing it with all the import fees associated.

 

Straw man argument more please.

Wait, it has Elipida vRAM? Oh some people are going to regret buying an R9 290X if it has vRAM made by them. No matter which type of standard RAM (SDRAM, DDR2 and DDR3 are the examples I've had) they make, it will fail well before other brands. And that's if you look after it as well.

[Valentyn]

OP left out some important graphs from the source.

 

 

 

 

Worse than the Titan Z is pretty laughable if you ask me.

 

Titan Z is a dual GPU card, just like the R9 295X2. Both with their inherent issues that stem from multi GPU solutions.

 

The Titan X at ~2-8% less than the Z is fantastic value then.

[Silent_Xaxal]

Put two in mineral oil.

[patrickjp93]

Could you be any more biased? These numbers are quite disappointing especially factoring that it still gets outperformed by the R9 295x2 quite effortlessly. Which means there's a lot of room for the R9 390X to claw at these numbers. GCN 1.3/2.0 brings a lot to the table (delta compression, FP16, 2-4x tessellation, HBM, etc). So I reserve my right to conclude that the TITAN X is the best buy on the market.

It's not by that much, and it's a single card against a dual. If the 295x2 got beaten that easily I'd be laughing at AMD's expense. 

 

No single card in history has beaten the previous generation's dual flagship.

[patrickjp93]

Wait, it has Elipida vRAM? Oh some people are going to regret buying an R9 290X if it has vRAM made by them. No matter which type of standard RAM (SDRAM, DDR2 and DDR3 are the examples I've had) they make, it will fail well before other brands. And that's if you look after it as well.

Oh that's not true. Mushkin Redline have an extremely good reputation, and it uses Elpida chips exclusively.

[patrickjp93]

So you're telling me I can go buy a 295x2 for 2/3 the price and still have 20% better performance.  Yeah I'm totally sold, NOT!

Single GPU card vs. dual. No single GPU card in history has beaten the previous generation's dual-chip flagship.

[JustCallMeVlad]

Single GPU card vs. dual. No single GPU card in history has beaten the previous generation's dual-chip flagship.

Stop with the dual card vs single card excuses. Money talks and a 295X2 will be more than half the price than the Titan X and still be faster than it

[Dabombinable]

Oh that's not true. Mushkin Redline have an extremely good reputation, and it uses Elpida chips exclusively.

Its true for me as every time I've had RAM that uses their chips, it fails well before my other kits.

[Victorious Secret]

OP left out some important graphs from the source.

 

 

 

 

Worse than the Titan Z is pretty laughable if you ask me.

 

You're comparing a single GPU card to a dual GPU card. 

 

Your failure in actually reading the graphs and understanding them is spectacular. 

[patrickjp93]

Stop with the dual card vs single card excuses. Money talks and a 295X2 will be more than half the price than the Titan X and still be faster than it

And be completely impractical for a number of markets (ITX Builders being one of them). It's not an excuse. It's a prediction of things to come. The 390X won't beat out the 295x2 either. You're dreaming to expect that. 4096 SPs at an equal clock rate to the 295x2's 5832 will not be able to beat it, just as 3072 of Nvidia's at a significantly higher clock don't seem to be able to.

[Deletive]

well...1664 (GTX 970) maxwell cuda cores is roughly equals to 2688 (vanilla titan) kepler cuda cores...so it's roughly a 60% performance increase PER CORE...i call that nothing short of spectacular personally.

 

now, what a 3072 maxwell cuda cores can deliver in terms of performance...wow

It's ~45% per core (35% was in 1st gen maxwell and an extra ~10-12% in 2nd gen) Rest is clocks and and the whole efficency of the Architecture, Plus drivers. 

OT: Thats exactly where I said Gm200 would be around a year ago. The math i used actually makes a lot more sense now though.

[BuckGup]

Hmmm I'll take 6.

[ErickS89]

C'mon $999.99, daddy needs a new GFX card!

 

The benchmarks look great and I think I found the card for my system, sorry not gonna wait for the 8gb 980s when a 12gb titan comes around.

Will I finally get to play games smoothly at 11520x2160?  4x 980s get me "good" frame rates and at very high settings, but will 4x titan xs fare better? 

[mr moose]

Fanboys ruining this forum again.  If money is an issue then buy the AMD, if power is what you want then buy the Nvidia,  price does not dictate performance.  Only a moron thinks card X performs better than card Y because it's cheaper/more expensive.

[Opcode]

It's not by that much, and it's a single card against a dual. If the 295x2 got beaten that easily I'd be laughing at AMD's expense. 

 

No single card in history has beaten the previous generation's dual flagship.

That's wasn't the point of my post at all. Price to performance ratio is the single biggest factor in this market. The R9 390X performance is expected to fall somewhere around the TITAN X while speculation suggests the card to drop at a MSRP of $599 (seems about right). I don't know about you but I'm not ready to pay double for a GPU that doesn't offer any difference in performance. At the end of the day the value is simply not there. You could home brew your own Bermuda for the same price and that's really saying something.

[mr moose]

Fanboys ruining this forum again.  If money is an issue then buy the AMD, if power is what you want then buy the Nvidia,  price does not dictate performance.  Only a moron thinks card X performs better than card Y because it's cheaper/more expensive.

 

And just to add to this, price/performance is only relevant if you want it to be, it's not a hard and fast rule that applies to everything and you can't use price performance to argue the relevance of a product for someone else if they don't care about price.