NVIDIA’s TITAN X 3DMark Performance Results Unveiled

[Mr_Troll]

NVIDIAs TITAN X 3DMark Performance unveiled

Quote

 

The 3DMark Performance results of TITAN X is based on two conducted tests:

 

1. Fire Strike Performance
2. Fire Strike Ultra

•  

VideoCardz has managed to compile the previous conducted scores of the GTX 10 series of GPUs, and they all have been shown in the image below. According to the test results, it should be noted that TITAN X is able to deliver around 1.3 times the performance of a GTX 1080 running at stock clock speeds, and it is able to slip past the overclocked variant of the same GPU by reporting a performance result that’s 1.13 times that of the tweaked GTX 1080.

 

Compared to the lesser performing GPUs, TITAN X is able to perform 1.5 times faster than a GTX 1070 (which we’re assuming that GTX 1070 is running at stock clock speeds), and around 1.87 times the speed of an overclock GTX 1060. While the price of the upcoming GPU is a steep $1,200, here is a specifications breakdown that will convince you slightly that the price is justified.

 

 

Am i the only one that finds those results a little bit meh for a titan card? maybe thats the reason Nvidia is releasing volta in 2017 instead of 2018. cant squeze out more powah from pascal.

 

Source:http://videocardz.com/62738/nvidia-titan-x-pascal-3dmark-performance

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-titan-x-3dmark-performance-results/

 

[Octavialicious]

Meh, it looks bad because it's stock Titan XP vs OC'd 1080. I'd be curious to see the OC Titan XP results, though

[blu4]

2 minutes ago, Octavialicious said:

Meh, it looks bad because it's stock Titan XP vs OC'd 1080. I'd be curious to see the OC Titan XP results, though

It's got 1000 more CUDA cores and costs twice as much, this is very dissapointing performance, to say the least.

[Octavialicious]

3 minutes ago, blu4 said:

It's got 1000 more CUDA cores and costs twice as much, this is very dissapointing performance, to say the least.

Where did I say it wasn't disappointing? I said I wanted to see OC results before drawing a conclusion.

[TheLaserCucumber]

Lol could it be that Nvidia has no SLI Support on 1060 cause 2 of them are as fast as a Titan?

For like 700$ (or how much 2 1060 would cost in the US)

[Bensemus]

2 minutes ago, TheLaserCucumber said:

Lol could it be that Nvidia has no SLI Support on 1060 cause 2 of them are as fast as a Titan?

For like 700$ (or how much 2 1060 would cost in the US)

You'd be at the mercy of crappy sli support though. 

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, Bensemus said:

You'd be at the mercy of crappy sli support though. 

Exactly, SLI never scales as well irl than it does in benchmarks. You'd have theoretical TXP performance but real world would be closer to 1070/1080.

[Thony]

36 minutes ago, blu4 said:

It's got 1000 more CUDA cores and costs twice as much, this is very dissapointing performance, to say the least.

I feel completely same. Worried gaming performance will also be dissapointing. They might  be saving the best for the last (1080ti)

 

 

[arvark]

Was the same with GTX TitanX 2015 regarding Cuda Cores, GTX 980 = 2048 @ 500-600€, GTX Titan X = 3072 @ 1200€. 

[Carclis]

3 minutes ago, arvark said:

Was the same with GTX TitanX 2015 regarding Cuda Cores, GTX 980 = 2048 @ 500-600€, GTX Titan X = 3072 @ 1200€. 

The last Titan X was cheaper and relative to the 980 had a much larger increase in performance. Here we have +15-25% in performance compared to the 40% boost that the previous Titan X was over the 980. Not that price/performance was ever important to someone looking at the Titan X.

[blu4]

47 minutes ago, Octavialicious said:

Where did I say it wasn't disappointing? I said I wanted to see OC results before drawing a conclusion.

Where did I say that you said that is was disappointing? OC? I'd say max 200Mhz on the core.

[Octavialicious]

23 minutes ago, blu4 said:

Where did I say that you said that is was disappointing? OC? I'd say max 200Mhz on the core.

By quoting me and saying it's disappointing, it implies that my post in someway said it was impressive/not disappointing.

 

If you simply wanted to state it was disappointing, it doesn't make sense to quote my post as it isn't relevant to what I was saying  

[ThinkWithPortals]

Makes me wonder why anyone would buy the new Titan even more.

[iDeFecZx]

You cant expect double the performance just because its double the price. It becomes more and more expensive to squeeze out more power once you get to levels like the 1080/Titan X. Its around 25% faster than a stock 1080, not saying its not overpriced, but so is the 1080.

[Deli]

Some people will starve themselves to save up enough money to own "the Fastest Card" ever. It will sell like hot cakes. Just like other Nvidia cards, because there are so many Nvidia supporters out there and here. Money is no object.

[RagnarokDel]

1 hour ago, Octavialicious said:

Meh, it looks bad because it's stock Titan XP vs OC'd 1080. I'd be curious to see the OC Titan XP results, though

Even so for twice the price, you'd expect more then that.

[VagabondWraith]

I was expecting a bigger jump but eh. Looks like the 1080 is the best bargain out of all. Close enough to TX performance at $600 less.

[Deli]

59 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

I was expecting a bigger jump but eh. Looks like the 1080 is the best bargain out of all. Close enough to TX performance at $600 less.

1080 and bargain in the same sentence doesn't look right.

[VagabondWraith]

Just now, Deli said:

1080 and bargain in the same sentence doesn't look right.

Compared to TX it is.

[Deli]

58 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

Compared to TX it is.

Almost any card will be a bargain compares to TX.

[SteveGrabowski0]

What a garbage card. Titan X Maxwell beat out the 980 by 34% in Firestrike graphics score and this piece of shit only outdoes 1080 by 23%. Fuck Nvidia, trying to pass off a cutdown not even big die as a Titan and adding $200 to the price.

[Tech Inquisition]

Say what you may about the Titan Xp... But one thing is very possible... The first single GPU card that should be able to handle the 4K@60fps requirement easily.

[Octavialicious]

22 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

Even so for twice the price, you'd expect more then that.

Perhaps, but for how unimpressive it is in my mind has yet to be determined

[SteveGrabowski0]

12 minutes ago, Tech Inquisition said:

Say what you may about the Titan Xp... But one thing is very possible... The first single GPU card that should be able to handle the 4K@60fps requirement easily.

Digital Foundry showed the 1080 doing 37.2 fps in The Division, 43.7 fps in The Witcher 3 (no hairworks), 45.7 fps in Rise of the Tomb Raider, 42.4 fps in Far Cry Primal, 47.0 fps in Hitman, 38.5 fps in Project Cars, and 32.5 fps in AC Unity at 4k. Add the best case 29.5% bump the Titan XP gets over 1080 at 4k in Firestrike Ultra and your averages become 

 

The Division: 48.2

The Witcher 3: 56.6

Rise of the Tomb Raider: 59.2

Far Cry Primal: 54.9

Hitman: 60.9

Project Cars: 49.9

AC Unity: 42.1

 

So that's not 4k/60 either,

 

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 minute ago, Arokhantos said:

I score 25k overclocking my gtx 1080, seems bit underwhelming i doubt we see a ti this time, that might explain why the gtx 1080 was 700 rather then around 500

The 1080 was $700 because Nvidia has something approaching a monopoly on gpus and they do have an unquestionable monopoly at the high end.