NVIDIA Announces GP102-based TITAN X with 3,584 CUDA cores

[apm]

On 7/22/2016 at 4:23 PM, Prysin said:

please do not compare DICE titles to other games. DICE have some of the best optimized games in history, not surprisingly so, since several of their engineers was part of the team who wrote Mantle. And as such KNOWS how to utilize every little tiny bit of a PC.

well only after they worked years on bf4 and the engine.

saying DICE games are the best optimized games in history is a bit much.

they always looked amazing but were a buggy mess until battlefront.

 

i would say rockstar makes the best optimized games, gta4 was years ahead of its time, but gta5 just looks amazing and runs just too good to be true.

 

frostbyte might be the best optimized engine now tho.

[Prysin]

6 minutes ago, apm said:

well only after they worked years on bf4 and the engine.

saying DICE games are the best optimized games in history is a bit much.

they always looked amazing but were a buggy mess until battlefront.

 

i would say rockstar makes the best optimized games, gta4 was years ahead of its time, but gta5 just looks amazing and runs just too good to be true.

 

frostbyte might be the best optimized engine now tho.

bugs yes. But those where issues not with OPTIMIZATION, but with the game itself. The Frostbite 3 engine, is amazingly well optimized.

The games you strap ONTOP of the Frostbite3 engine. does not neccessarily need to be that great.

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Prysin said:

bugs yes. But those where issues not with OPTIMIZATION, but with the game itself. The Frostbite 3 engine, is amazingly well optimized.

The games you strap ONTOP of the Frostbite3 engine. does not neccessarily need to be that great.

have you played forza on PC?!

i did that last night and honestly i was stunned by the visuals...and it run VERY well too i'm getting 100 to 120FPS on max settings...it's eally great...and it's free on the windows store.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

have you played forza on PC?!

i did that last night and honestly i was stunned by the visuals...and it run VERY well too i'm getting 100 to 120FPS on max settings...it's eally great...and it's free on the windows store.

no, i havent played the new Forza. Mainly because i dont like the Forza games. They come across a bit "confused". Like they want to be fun and filthy casual like Need for Speed and Burnout. But they also want to be serious and "true to reality" like Gran Turismo and Driveclub.

 

In the end. They succeed at none of these things.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, Prysin said:

no, i havent played Forza. Mainly because i dont like the Forza games. They come across a bit "confused". Like they want to be fun and filthy casual like Need for Speed and Burnout. But they also want to be serious and "true to reality" like Gran Turismo and Driveclub.

 

In the end. They succeed at none of these things.

i have to agree...the racing style is not my favorite...but the cars and the graphics it just look so so so good...i was not expecting that i downloaded it because it was free...

[Prysin]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

i have to agree...the racing style is not my favorite...but the cars and the graphics it just look so so so good...i was not expecting that i downloaded it because it was free...

As someone who has grown up on Gran Turismo and Need for Speed, and later on also been playing Driveclub (i have a stream of that on my Twitch page), i cannot be bothered to play it.

 

Driveclubs visuals are just astonashing. The physics are amazing (and i didnt even DARE to play it on "simulator" mode).

Gran Turismo has by far the best mechanics overall. Whilst the weathersystem and physics of Driveclub is impressive, it does not even come close to simulation mode on GT games. Taking into account vehicle damage, fuel, tyre temperature, road conditions and the fact that every track in GT5 and GT6 is laser-scanned copies of the real world, with a margin of error of 5cm (2inches), makes it just jaw dropping.

 

I honestly cannot wait for the GT Sport to come on PS4. It is one, if not the only game, that would make me want to buy PSVR just to play that game (game is officially stated to fully support PSVR from day 1).

 

 

And then, there is Need For Speed.

Nitrous and retarded collision mechanics make it great fun. Although i prefer Split-Second Velocity for "true" madness.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

snip!

i'll have to check driveclubs what it is...never even heard of it

[Prysin]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

i'll have to check driveclubs what it is...never even heard of it

Seems like video is gone. I can fire up the PS4 and do a few rounds if you want to see it.

[-BirdiE-]

3 hours ago, Notional said:

The issue with rebranding is that an x80ti is not essentially a rebrand. It's a cut down, so it's never used for Titans anyways. I get your point, it just doesn't apply here.

Just because it's not exactly the same as what AMD does with rebranding doesn't mean it's not the same practice. They take a chip they've designed, and repackage it at a lower cost. It doesn't take any extra design work to disable a few CUDA cores.

 

3 hours ago, Notional said:

NVidia made a new higher end segment than the x80 cards because they could due to lack of competition. Not because they needed to do so based on costs of the products, neither fixed nor variable. Great from NVidia's perspective, bad from a consumers perspective. You can disagree all you want on that point.

Nvidia created a new product for a new market segment because they felt there was a consumer demand for it... That is literally how every product and business gets created. 

 

4 hours ago, Notional said:

Still does not defend why a company should charge that much. Obviously the answer is because they can. But that is exactly why I criticize them from a consumer perspective.

 

4 hours ago, Notional said:

The problem is that [the 10xx series] starts too high and ends too high.

Again... You're basing these statements on... what? You have literally not used any facts or logic to support any of your claims of this. It's just statements being made by you that "they are charging too much". Just adding "obviously" or stating that it's "ridiculous" does not make it a valid argument.

 

If you're going to come out and say that "Nvidia's margins are too big" or "Nvidia is charging too much for their 10 series cards and the Titan" then back those statements up with some kind of proof. We're not just going to take your word for it because you said "obviously".

4 hours ago, Notional said:

No ones talking about inflation. Inflation cannot explain a shift to a 1000+$ new card segment. That's the whole point.

Clearly you weren't following along. Inflation shows that from the GTX 580 to the GTX 980 (all following the same 20-30% performance increase between generations) did not actually go up in price when measuring in real dollars. <- Undeniable fact.

The purpose of that, specifically, was to establish a baseline metric for the progression of GPUs. Again, x80 market segment... 20-30% performance increase for the same price in real dollars.

I was establishing this fact to support a later argument I would make. This is how you build VALID arguments .

At no point did I even come close to saying that inflation was the reason the Titan market segment was created. Dear lord...

 

4 hours ago, Notional said:

NVidia simply degraded their entire lines with 10, so a normal Gx100 chip is no longer an x80 chip but 2 cards higher via x80ti and Titan series.

Again, you keep arguing with your invalid logic, even though I've already disproved it... but just MAYBE this time you'll get it.

 

The presence of the Titan does not degrade anything. To look at it as "the x80 was the highest, and now it's not, so it does not occupy the same market segment" is not valid logic.

This is where my previous statement comes into play (handy)... From the 580 to the 680, consumers saw an increase in performance of 20-30%. The introduction of the Titan did not change the fact that consumer got a 20-30% increase in performance with the 780 for the same amount. And the release of the Titan X did not change the fact that the consumer got a 20-30% increase in performance with the 980 for the same amount.

^^ Now we've established that the creation of a new market segment with the titan did not affect the previous market segment, or degrade it in any way. This is based entirely in fact.

 

 

*recall your 10 series is priced too high comment*

 

Now the 10 series hits. THIS is where the segments start to shift. Why do they shift? Because the x80 no longer falls into the 20-30% performance increase. It is actually double the standard generational performance increase. Now time for some math 

 

From what previous generations have told us, we should expect a 20-30% increase for ~$549. Let's be generous and say we should expect a 30% performance increase (1.3). What we get is a 60% performance increase (1.6). From that we can easily calculate what is a reasonable price for the 1080.

 

1.6/1.3 = ~1.23   <- So that tells us that the 1080 is 23% faster than the card we should have expected based on previous generations

549*1.23 = ~675

 

With the same price/performance of the card we should have expected based on the pattern of the GPU market over the past decade, the 1080 should cost $675. This shows that, based on previous generations of cards, all the way back to at least the 580, that $599 MSRP for the 1080 is actually underpriced for new segment. (Yes, obviously the FE is overpriced)

 

This valid logic, based in fact, disproves your claims that the 10 series cards are overpriced.

 

5 hours ago, Notional said:

So the Titan XP being the highest priced consumer single GPU gaming card ever made (afaik), is not a fact or number that proves it overpriced? Are you that brainwashed by NVidia marketing? 

"It is the highest priced consumer single GPU gaming card ever made" Yes. That is a fact. But it is not a valid logical conclusion to say "It is the most expensive, therefore it is overpriced". Whether the Titan xp IS overpriced is a whole different discussion... But the fact that it's the most expensive yet is NOT proof of that.

 

5 hours ago, Notional said:

However with the XP we simply do not know the performance yet. If the up to 60% is similar to the retarded graph NVidia sent out comparing the 1060 to the 480, then I would seriously question the pricing.

I literally handed you an argument on a silver platter, and you still managed to screw it up.

 

Look at how the other guy laid out his argument. It was essentially:

• Directly from Nvidia is a credible source (number may be deceptive, but not technically a lie)
• It is reasonable to assume Nvidia (based on their best interests and past actions) would select a best case scenario, making it 60% at best and likely lower in a lot of scenarios
• A 60% increase over the XM shows it is only a 23% increase over the 1080, not the rumored 50%.
• Double the price for only a 23% performance gain is not reasonable, even at that performance level.

Perfectly valid argument... And I agreed with him. That essentially disproves the 50% over the 1080 rumor, and makes the Titan XP overpriced.

 

 

5 hours ago, Notional said:

Conclusion is that NVidia prices the Titan cards as high as possible, because the lack of competition allows it. Not because of costs in production/r&d/whatever, and not because the card is worth it as a whole, but because of simply supply and demand mechanics.

And.... We're back to baseless statements. "Nvidia CAN price gouge, therefore they ARE price gouging" is not a logical statement or proof of anything.

 

To say that they'd price it as high as the market forces will allow because there is no competition at this moment is a very narrow-minded statement. The Titan GPUs are probably the companies most visible GPUs (flagship, poster boy), yet probably account for the smallest amount of total revenue due to the low volume. I imagine they could charge much higher than $1200 and people would still buy it.. But is it worth the shitty PR to make an extra small amount (by Nvidia revenue standards) because you have a temporary window with little competition?

 

Probably not... but I don't actually know. The problem is, you don't actually know if they're price gouging either.. or have any proof either way, but you keep stating it as fact.

 

 

 

Le sigh. The worst part about this all is that, given the Nvida blog post numbers, the Titan XP probably IS going to be overpriced... But it doesn't make anything you've said valid... especially since you didn't have those numbers, and we were operating under the assumption of a 50% performance increase.

 

It's like.. If you had a friend who is about to flip a coin and says "I know with 100% certainty it's going to be heads". And you tell him he's wrong. He flips the coin, it's heads, and now he thinks that proves he was right.

 

[HKZeroFive]

1 hour ago, Prysin said:

Driveclubs visuals are just astonashing. The physics are amazing (and i didnt even DARE to play it on "simulator" mode).

Damn right.

https://gfycat.com/DistortedSmugHammerkop

[Prysin]

3 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Damn right.

https://gfycat.com/DistortedSmugHammerkop

i got Driveclub live at my Twitch stream atm. Its lagging in the upload for some unknown reason. But otherwise 1080p 60FPS enabled (although the game is 30?)

[Briggsy]

15 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Damn right.

https://gfycat.com/DistortedSmugHammerkop

If no one told me that was a video game, I would just assume that was real life with a pole-mounted or hood-mounted camera.

[MageTank]

18 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

Just because it's not exactly the same as what AMD does with rebranding doesn't mean it's not the same practice. They take a chip they've designed, and repackage it at a lower cost. It doesn't take any extra design work to disable a few CUDA cores.

While I would not like to put words in Notional's mouth, I will say this. rebadging and cut-downs are two entirely different things. A rebadge is when you take an already existing product, slap a new name on it, and sell it again. Cut-downs is where you take a product that is already made, and use the chips that didn't quite make the cut (A 980 Ti that failed to be a Titan X) and sell it at a cheaper price to recover material cost. The cut-down product is its own entity. The rebadge however, is not. When you can flash older hardware using newer hardware BIOS's (Like you could on the R9 200 series) and it work as if it was the newer product, you can see that the product has not changed. Now AMD is not the only guilty party in this, as you were able to do the same on some of the Kepler cards (being able to SLI the 680 and 770 in some cases after flashing). 

 

Calling it the same practice is just not accurate. One is recovering material costs from cards that did not make the cut. The other is selling the exact same product, nearly unchanged, just to avoid taking a loss. It requires little to no R&D to rebadge a card. Simply slap a new name on it. Bonus points if you make it slightly more efficient by toying around with voltage/clock speeds via binning. 

 

26 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

Again... You're basing these statements on... what? You have literally not used any facts or logic to support any of your claims of this. It's just statements being made by you that "they are charging too much". Just adding "obviously" or stating that it's "ridiculous" does not make it a valid argument.

 

If you're going to come out and say that "Nvidia's margins are too big" or "Nvidia is charging too much for their 10 series cards and the Titan" then back those statements up with some kind of proof. We're not just going to take your word for it because you said "obviously".

This is where both of you are right. Worth is subjective, and anyone can say something is "too expensive" based on their own opinion. Asking for proof of this is silly, as it's nearly impossible to prove that something is overpriced. How does one define worth? If we are talking from a price to performance standpoint: yes, its overpriced at $1200. However, every single Titan that has ever been released, has been overpriced using that metric. Looking at previous generations, you can see that they are slowly charging more this generation, than they had in previous generations. Blame it on inflation, manufacturing costs, or "gouging". Without real competition in this market, it will likely remain unchanged. 

 

29 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

Clearly you weren't following along. Inflation shows that from the GTX 580 to the GTX 980 (all following the same 20-30% performance increase between generations) did not actually go up in price when measuring in real dollars. <- Undeniable fact.

The purpose of that, specifically, was to establish a baseline metric for the progression of GPUs. Again, x80 market segment... 20-30% performance increase for the same price in real dollars.

I was establishing this fact to support a later argument I would make. This is how you build VALID arguments .

At no point did I even come close to saying that inflation was the reason the Titan market segment was created. Dear lord...

This falls in line with my previous paragraph in this post. Solid argument.

 

33 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

To say that they'd price it as high as the market forces will allow because there is no competition at this moment is a very narrow-minded statement. The Titan GPUs are probably the companies most visible GPUs (flagship, poster boy), yet probably account for the smallest amount of total revenue due to the low volume. I imagine they could charge much higher than $1200 and people would still buy it.. But is it worth the shitty PR to make an extra small amount (by Nvidia revenue standards) because you have a temporary window with little competition?

This is 100% true. The Titan class GPU's (Especially the Titan X, with its lack of real compute power compared to previous Titan class cards) is their smallest margin as far as sales go. It might be their highest profit margin per unit sold (as in, the cost of the card is much lower than what it sells for) they still don't sell a lot of them for it to actually be an important part of their total profits. The card exists simply because it looks amazing in benchmarks. When consumers see Nvidia's Titan cards beating other flagships, they automatically assume their other cards are also faster than the competitions similarly priced cards. What the Titan class cards really do, is bolster the image of the brand itself. 

 

The general consumer should only care about one metric, and that is price:performance. If that is a metric you care about, then the Titan class cards (or any flagship product in general) should not be anywhere on your list. Flagships exist as temporary bragging rights. Both for the company, and the consumer that buys them. After all, the flagship won't be the best come next year. As for the rest of the 1080 lineup, the pricing is fine by me. It's not really breaking previous trends. The 770 launched at $400. The 1070 is still around that price, but completely destroys the 770's performance. We've come a long way in such a short amount of time. Price:Performance for consumers has improved each year on the mainstream cards, and that is what is most important. 

[Dackzy]

37 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Damn right.

https://gfycat.com/DistortedSmugHammerkop

I want that game at 4k on PC, then it would look even more epic  

[-BirdiE-]

35 minutes ago, MageTank said:

This is where both of you are right. Worth is subjective, and anyone can say something is "too expensive" based on their own opinion. Asking for proof of this is silly, as it's nearly impossible to prove that something is overpriced. How does one define worth? If we are talking from a price to performance standpoint: yes, its overpriced at $1200. However, every single Titan that has ever been released, has been overpriced using that metric. Looking at previous generations, you can see that they are slowly charging more this generation, than they had in previous generations. Blame it on inflation, manufacturing costs, or "gouging". Without real competition in this market, it will likely remain unchanged. 

While "too expensive" in itself doesn't really mean anything, it does when you make it relative to something.

 

In the GPU market, if you take all the price and performance numbers of GPUs and their relative performance, you can make a curve that shows the performance you'd expect for $1200. We both agreed that you can create a curve that shows what a reasonable price for the market is. This curve will obviously show diminishing performance per extra dollar spent as you go up in performance.

 

My argument (based on what we thought was the best information at the time, 50% increase over the 1080), was that, if you do the math, the cost per extra unit of performance is the same from the 1070 to the 1080, as it is from the 1080 to the Titan XP. Therefore, given that the curve shows DIMINISHING performance per dollar, we can logically deduce that it would fall below the curve.

 

Beautiful graph, I know... Not exact, but it illustrated the idea.

 

His argument, on the other hand, was "No. It's the most expensive ever... So it's overpriced and Nvidia is price gouging."

 

He was making baseless, absolute statements based on nothing but his own opinion stated as fact.

 

"The curve is set too high by the overpriced 10 series" <- proven wrong

"Nvidia has been pumping up the prices for years" <- proven wrong

"The Titan XP lies above the curve" <- based on zero calculations or knowledge (and wrong based on the assumptions we were operating under at the time)

"Nvidia is price gouging" <- baseless statement

"The only thing these cards could ever be is a ripoff" <- baseless statement

 

It's not that he is sharing his opinion, which I may not agree with... It's that he's stating all these things as facts.

 

 

35 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Calling it the same practice is just not accurate. One is recovering material costs from cards that did not make the cut. The other is selling the exact same product, nearly unchanged, just to avoid taking a loss. It requires little to no R&D to rebadge a card. Simply slap a new name on it. Bonus points if you make it slightly more efficient by toying around with voltage/clock speeds via binning. 

Well said. Good points.

Gotta love a person who can actually construct a logical argument.

 

 

[BARBKING1337]

I see people mentioning that they would have preferred it to have HBM 2.0 memory, but would it have made that big of a difference? It's got 10 gigs of GDDR5X and they probably had a reason to stick with that, as they are capable of using HBM if they wanted, no?

Nontheless holy cow that's one beast of a card lol. The best card I ever used or owned is my current 750 ti ftw and this makes it look like ant fodder

[Kunter]

1 hour ago, BARBKING1337 said:

I see people mentioning that they would have preferred it to have HBM 2.0 memory, but would it have made that big of a difference? It's got 10 gigs of GDDR5X and they probably had a reason to stick with that, as they are capable of using HBM if they wanted, no?

Nontheless holy cow that's one beast of a card lol. The best card I ever used or owned is my current 750 ti ftw and this makes it look like ant fodder

The GDDR5X with the 384-Bit Interface is just way slower than HBM2 would have been. Hell, its even slower than the HBM on the Fury series. 

Thats just a little disappointing.

 

For most Gaming applications the bandwidth wont matter, but since this is a prosumer card and (at least german) media sells this as a deep learning card 480GB/s is really a disapointment..

[Notional]

22 hours ago, -BirdiE- said:

While "too expensive" in itself doesn't really mean anything, it does when you make it relative to something.

 

In the GPU market, if you take all the price and performance numbers of GPUs and their relative performance, you can make a curve that shows the performance you'd expect for $1200. We both agreed that you can create a curve that shows what a reasonable price for the market is. This curve will obviously show diminishing performance per extra dollar spent as you go up in performance.

 

My argument (based on what we thought was the best information at the time, 50% increase over the 1080), was that, if you do the math, the cost per extra unit of performance is the same from the 1070 to the 1080, as it is from the 1080 to the Titan XP. Therefore, given that the curve shows DIMINISHING performance per dollar, we can logically deduce that it would fall below the curve.

 

Beautiful graph, I know... Not exact, but it illustrated the idea.

 

His argument, on the other hand, was "No. It's the most expensive ever... So it's overpriced and Nvidia is price gouging."

 

He was making baseless, absolute statements based on nothing but his own opinion stated as fact.

 

"The curve is set too high by the overpriced 10 series" <- proven wrong

"Nvidia has been pumping up the prices for years" <- proven wrong

"The Titan XP lies above the curve" <- based on zero calculations or knowledge (and wrong based on the assumptions we were operating under at the time)

"Nvidia is price gouging" <- baseless statement

"The only thing these cards could ever be is a ripoff" <- baseless statement

 

It's not that he is sharing his opinion, which I may not agree with... It's that he's stating all these things as facts.

 

Well said. Good points.

Gotta love a person who can actually construct a logical argument.

You talk a lot about what NVidia has done, but you don't really seem to understand why or how, so allow me to elaborate.

 

When NVidia made Kepler, they were surprised by how underwhelming AMD's cards where. The results were that Kepler not only was launched with smaller chips than what they expected to make, but also that they ended up making 2 entire lines of cards with Kepler, the 600 and 700 series. That is also why the 700 series just rebranded the 680 to 770. Now since AMD didn't have anything faster than the 680, NVidia decided to launch the first Titan card as a fairly cut down GK110 chip. This was a lot faster than anything else on the market, which lead NVidia to create a new price bracket of 1k$. They could do this because there was no competition, so they price skimmed the hell out of the chip.

3 months (may 2013) later they released a further cut down GK110 chip in the form of 780 that got a "normal" price bracket and a normal moniker in the 700 series.

Now in October 2013, AMD launched the 290x that was faster than both the Titan and 780. The titan was dead in the water. NVidia swiftly launched yet another GK110 chip, but less cut down than the original Titan. New koth card, new high price, but not a 1k$ titan price, as the competition of the 290x was too close in perf.

3 months later they released the Titan Black, full GK110 chip. Again, no competition, so new Titan 1k$ price.

 

The Titan cards has never been that expensive to make, design or anything else. The ONLY reason for their pricing, has been the lack of competition. We saw this with the original Titan when the 290x launched and the utter fail of the Titan Z, due to 295x2 not only being faster, but half the price.

 

I'm sure this little history lesson won't be enough for you, so allow me to show my own graph. I used TFlops as perf, as the entire 700 series uses the same architecture. Prices are MSRP reference, as are the tflops.

 

As you can see the Titan and Titan Black lies above what would be expected. Interestingly the 780 also does, due to the same reason: No competition at time of launch.

 

The Titan has a 4.5 gflops per $

The 780 has a 6.13 gflops per $

 

The Titan black has a 5.13 gflops per $

The 780 Titanium has a 7.22 gflops per $

 

Considering the 780ti equals the Titan black in most games, as it tends to OC better, the value is very poor on the Titan Black. The original Titan was a scam after the 290x and the 780ti launched and was promptly discontinued (I wonder why). Unless you needed 6GB of vram for some specific reason.

 

The Titan Z needs no mention, as it was twice the price of the 295x2 and worse performing due to massive thermal throttling and lower base+boost clock than the normal Titan Black, due to the crappy cooler.

---

 

You have talked about perceived value of the customer, but that is nothing but marketing, pricing and performance in one hefty marketing campaign. The Titan cards were never supposed to exist, and the GK110 chips were never designed to be a thousand dollars. Only the lack of competition made it possible. The result is that marketing has worked, and now people are "used to" 1+k$ single GPU graphics cards. And somehow consumers are applauding this? The Titan moniker was always concocted to explain/defend the ridiculous price.

 

As for the 1000 series, we have no clue what performance a Titan XP or a 1080Titanium will have. NVidia's words certainly are nothing to go by. Need I link the 1060 NVidia bench graph again?

 

If we look only at the x80 models, the 780 launched at 649$ due to the lack of competition. The 980 launched at 549$ because there were competition, and because the x80 series had now been officially downgraded as a different lower tier chip (GM204). The high end chips are now the x80ti/Titan cards. Yet the 1080 GP104 (not the highest end chip) launched at 649$ despite not being the highest tier chip. In comparison the 980ti (highest tier chip), launched at 649$ and the 780ti launched at 699$ (highest tier chip).

 

So not only has the 1080 launched with a price tag of the highest tier chip in the series, the Titan XP has launched with an all time high price of 1200$. All because there is no competition for these cards yet. Now do you see how and why NVidia not only is guilty of price skimming, but also pushing up the price of their cards significantly?

[SansVarnic]

Nvidia’s new Pascal-based Titan X leaves the 10 Series in the dust.

By: Brad Jones

 

Source: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/gp-102-titan-x/

 

 

Quote

Nvidia has announced a new version of its Titan X graphics card, based on a previously unseen Pascal GP102 GPU. The company’s CEO, Jen-Hsun Huang, made an appearance at an artificial intelligence event in Stanford, CA to show off the hardware.

Quote

The new Titan X is the absolute pinnacle of performance, and is only a relevant choice to a small group of gamers. It’s much more likely to end up in home rendering, production, and editing rigs – somewhere it can help pay for itself, because at $1,200, the Titan X doesn’t come cheap. It’s also a $200 increase over the Maxwell 2-based Titan that launched in 2015.

 

I am fairly impressed by what's revealed here. I would like to see some hard numbers but I guess I'll have to wait.

 

Thoughts?

 

[posted via my windows phone ? ]

Edited July 25, 2016 by Godlygamer23
Fixed embedded video.

[LeapFrogMasterRace]

30% faster than the 1080 for almost 2x the price.. 

[Energycore]

Quote

The new Titan X is the absolute pinnacle of performance

Oh GTFO. For something to be the pinnacle it must mean that no other similar product can overcome it. Every time a new gen of GPUs they're the new "best ever" when the clear correct wording is the much less enticing "best so far".

 

Pretty much anyone that dares call a GPU the best ever or the pinnacle is an outlet that I will not give my internet traffic to.

[Knaj]

But can it max out 4k as a single card?

[Centurius]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

Oh GTFO. For something to be the pinnacle it must mean that no other similar product can overcome it. Every time a new gen of GPUs they're the new "best ever" when the clear correct wording is the much less enticing "best so far".

 

Pretty much anyone that dares call a GPU the best ever or the pinnacle is an outlet that I will not give my internet traffic to.

Technically speaking every generation they say best ever it is true  

[Godlygamer23]

I fixed the YouTube video embedding for you.

[Energycore]

Just now, Centurius said:

Technically speaking every generation they say best ever it is true  

No, best ever includes the future

 

"Ever before" would be clearer by a long shot