Tuesday, February 5th 2013

6 GB Standard Memory Amount for GeForce Titan

NVIDIA's next high-end graphics card, the GeForce "Titan" 780, is shaping up to be a dreadnought of sorts. It reportedly ships with 6 GB of GDDR5 memory as its standard amount. It's known from GK110 block diagrams released alongside the Tesla K20X GPU compute accelerator, that the chip features a 384-bit wide memory interface. With 4 Gbit memory chips still eluding the mainstream, it's quite likely that NVIDIA could cram twenty four 2 Gbit chips to total up 6,144 MB, and hence the chips could be spread on either sides of the PCB, and the back-plate could make a comeback on NVIDIA's single-GPU lineup.

On its Radeon HD 7900 series single-GPU graphics cards based on the "Tahiti" silicon (which features the same memory bus width), AMD used 3 GB as the standard amount; while 2 GB is standard for the GeForce GTX 680; although non-reference design 4 GB and 6 GB variants of the GTX 680 and HD 7970, respectively, are quite common. SweClockers also learned that NVIDIA preparing to price the new card in the neighborhood of $899.


Source: SweClockers
Add your own comment

106 Comments on 6 GB Standard Memory Amount for GeForce Titan

#1
D007
by: Dj-ElectriC
Yes, in some games it is, in some it's on its knees. Unless you give up on some major details
Lmfao u must be kidding.. What games? :confused:
Don't just say "Blah blah blah the 6 is bad and blah blah games run bad"
post proof or it never happened..

As it is every single game I have played with my 680 is maxed and it breezes through it like a dream..

As for 4k gaming.. Yea 1000 for the card. 5000 for the TV.. Have fun with that..
Posted on Reply
#2
erocker
The price sets a bad precedent. Aren't the next generation of cards supposed to perform better? Are we to expect with every new generation of cards, there's going to be a price increase? Double the performance (if that is to be believed), so what. GTX 680 was released a year ago, the price of this card should be at the price of the (already inflated price) of the 680. I can easily afford the $899 price tag, but it is asking too much in a world of console ports and dying PC exclusives.
Posted on Reply
#3
Casecutter
Just a Halo product... not the second coming (7XX)... Just "Titan" for those that articulated it couldn't be done, Jen Hsun Huang can put a check in the box. It's not supposed to make sense to us. While as to price, if you have to get a pry bar to the wallet step aside, they'll have enough fish that step-up! With limited production they can control the channel and can cut it off once sales tapper back. I'd say it will have Boost and all probably voltage locked. We wait for its eventual release.

Is it that hard to understand?
Posted on Reply
#4
erocker
by: Casecutter
Is it that hard to understand?
If you're replying to me, no it is not. Best of luck to those who shell out money for it. Good for them. :)
Posted on Reply
#6
HumanSmoke
by: erocker
The price sets a bad precedent.
With all due respect, it sets nothing.

The latest'n'Greatest single GPU cards of this generation debuted at $499-549, and Nvidia seem keen on distancing the Titan from the GTX nomenclature indicating that the card, like other limited editions, resides outside of the standard consumer model.

If $899 were setting a precedent, then we would already be experiencing it, since the GeForce 6800 Ultra 512MB (14 March 2005) debuted at that exact same price (and $999 for the BFG OCéd version)
Posted on Reply
#7
erocker
by: HumanSmoke
With all due respect, it sets nothing.

The latest'n'Greatest single GPU cards of this generation debuted at $499-549, and Nvidia seem keen on distancing the Titan from the GTX nomenclature indicating that the card, like other limited editions, resides outside of the standard consumer model.

If $899 were setting a precedent, then we would already be experiencing it, since the GeForce 6800 Ultra 512MB (14 March 2005) debuted at that exact same price (and $999 for the BFG OCéd version)
Yes, I'm referring to the past few years. I'm fully aware how expensive cards used to be. But that's fine, people can pay what they want, the point of my post was that I will not. We are also getting pretty darn close to the to the time frame of "next generation" with this high performance "limited edition" card.
Posted on Reply
#8
Fluffmeister
The card will sell just fine, and nVidia knows it.
Posted on Reply
#9
HumanSmoke
by: erocker
Yes, I'm referring to the past few years. I'm fully aware how expensive cards used to be. But that's fine, people can pay what they want, the point of my post was that I will not.
You wont be alone. 99.99999% of consumers wouldn't buy the card either...but then, someone who buys a $450 pre-built would probably say the same thing about buying a card at $349. If you can't evince an interest in OTT high-dollar tech on a tech enthusiast site, where you gonna go?
If value for money and performance-per-dollar were the ultimate criteria for everyone (and just not the 99.99999% majority) then where does that leave multi-GPU, bespoke water/chiller cooling and the like ?
As a passion and hobby, I personally don't have to find justification for the expenditure. It is what it is.
by: erocker
We are also getting pretty darn close to the to the time frame of "next generation" with this high performance "limited edition" card.
Firstly, I doubt whether any of the refreshed GK114/Curacao parts are going to top this card, so from a purely performance pov the only real argument would be whether spending $1k on SLI/CFX from the upcoming generation makes a convincing argument for those with the cash, and whether the 6GB framebuffer is required for the intended workload. As for perf/$ the Titan is already way down the list without taking into account the next gen since SLIéd GTX670/680 océd or CFX'd HD 7970's are guaranteed to beat it in most (if not all ) benchmarks...Hasn't stopped a slew of AMD's board partners selling HD 7990's or Sapphire hawking the ridiculously priced 6GB 7970 Toxic.

By all accounts TSMC's 20nm process could be late arriving, so I don't see any huge increases in performance from refreshes of the current parts- not unless Nvidia and AMD want to throw die size and power budget out the window.
Posted on Reply
#10
erocker
You seem to be mistaking me with someone who thinks no one will buy this card. Never did I say that nor do I dispute anything you have said.


So, okay I'm glad you state your opinion.
Posted on Reply
#11
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
by: HumanSmoke
/not sure if you're playing the ironic card

Just a wild guess on my part, but there could be an outside possibility that someone spending $900 on graphics could possibly be using a 64-bit OS. And I'm not sure that "thousands" of prospective Titan owners would still be tied to a 32-bit operating system...if indeed, thousands of Titan cards are actually produced.
Last time I looked, there were considerably more 32 bit OS sales than 64 bit and that was including OEM's, when I say considerably more it was about 4 times more, but that was probably a year or 18 months ago so things may have significantly changed...... as I said, in the big wide world.... avid gamers are not necessarily hardware enthusiasts however you are right...... thousands of the cards probably won't be sold so I should have put something like "all those 32 bit OS owners who buy this card are going to get very upset". :D At the very least, limiting potential sales by being tied to an OS is not really a good idea IMO, what would be though is to ditch 32bit possibly altogehter.... I dunno..... a lot of businesses would probably be unhappy with that.
Posted on Reply
#12
Ikaruga
by: Tatty_One
Last time I looked, there were considerably more 32 bit OS sales than 64 bit and that was including OEM's, when I say considerably more it was about 4 times more, but that was probably a year or 18 months ago so things may have significantly changed......
Just a quick note: I think the target audience (e.g.:gamers ) is more likely to use 64bit win7. Steam survey also reflects this showing win7x64 a massive 55.55% lead over all the rest.
Posted on Reply
#13
jmcslob
I love how people are expecting 4k games to become the norm because a new gen of consoles will be out soon....which btw will be another gen of 1080p consoles but with better frame rates, field of view and overall speed...which means pc's will get slightly better ports...

News flash 4k still isn't standard for anything yet game devs aren't going to tailor to the pc market and the glory days where a single piece of pc hardware is acceptably priced at $900 is long gone specially when anyone can build a better than console gaming machine for $500.

There's PC Enthusiasm and PC reality and right now reality is ports are sucking the enthusiasm right out of PC's.
Posted on Reply
#14
Prima.Vera
by: Ikaruga
Steam survey also reflects this showing win7x64 a massive 55.55% lead over all the rest.
55% is masive lead to you ?? :laugh::laugh::roll:
Posted on Reply
#15
Recus
by: Prima.Vera
55% is masive lead to you ?? :laugh::laugh::roll:
Sure.

Posted on Reply
#17
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
by: Ikaruga
Just a quick note: I think the target audience (e.g.:gamers ) is more likely to use 64bit win7. Steam survey also reflects this showing win7x64 a massive 55.55% lead over all the rest.
I agree but am willing to bet there will still be a decent proportion of 32bit gamers out there, lets face it, 50% of users probably don't know the difference between 32 and 64bit, your steam survey link kind of suggests there are millions of 32bit OS users? I am not suggesting it will be an issue, although it will be to any 32bit users who do buy the card.
Posted on Reply
#18
Solidstate89
by: Prima.Vera
Yeah, I get it now, but is kinda misleading. They should have a comparison between win7/8 x64 and x32 just to see the real percentage ;)
They do. Look at the versions without the x64.
Posted on Reply
#19
Ikaruga
by: Tatty_One
I agree but am willing to bet there will still be a decent proportion of 32bit gamers out there, lets face it, 50% of users probably don't know the difference between 32 and 64bit, your steam survey link kind of suggests there are millions of 32bit OS users? I am not suggesting it will be an issue, although it will be to any 32bit users who do buy the card.
Indeed, but I only posted it to add some data to the conversation, and not to argue. :toast:
Btw, they don't have to know if it's 32 or 64 bit because the survey is automatic after the user agrees to participate. They have more than 20 million active accounts and the sample they take is quite large, so we can consider it as a good representation of PC gamers. So it's about 13 million 64bit windows vs 5 million 32bit windows on Steam (win7, Vista and XP combined).
Posted on Reply
#20
drdeathx
by: Dj-ElectriC
I feel bad for non-reviewers :X
Even if it costs 800$
This will undoubtably be a loaner card for most reviewers
Posted on Reply
#21
AsRock
TPU addict
Makes me so happy that AMD did just a refresh as at least they should not be at these prices, although i do hope they did some nice tweaks for the none oem versions.
Posted on Reply
#22
TheMailMan78
Big Member
900 dollar card for console ports.
Posted on Reply
#23
jihadjoe
Those steam results are interesting. Left to my own devices, I never wouldn't have guessed 64-bit adoption was already that high.
Posted on Reply
#24
xtremesv
$900!!!??? Anyway considering I would buy the 770 instead but if this price is right for the 780 then the 770 would cost around $700!!! I ain't paying that gentlemen.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment