Friday, July 22nd 2016

NVIDIA Announces the GeForce GTX TITAN X Pascal

In a show of shock and awe, NVIDIA today announced its flagship graphics card based on the "Pascal" architecture, the GeForce GTX TITAN X Pascal. Market availability of the card is scheduled for August 2, 2016, priced at US $1,199. Based on the 16 nm "GP102" silicon, this graphics card is endowed with 3,584 CUDA cores spread across 56 streaming multiprocessors, 224 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and a 384-bit GDDR5X memory interface, holding 12 GB of memory.

The core is clocked at 1417 MHz, with 1531 MHz GPU Boost, and 10 Gbps memory, churning out 480 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The card draws power from a combination of 6-pin and 8-pin PCIe power connectors, the GPU's TDP is rated at 250W. NVIDIA claims that the GTX TITAN X Pascal is up to 60 percent faster than the GTX TITAN X (Maxwell), and up to 3 times faster than the original GeForce GTX TITAN.
Add your own comment

162 Comments on NVIDIA Announces the GeForce GTX TITAN X Pascal

#26
PerfectWave
how ppl can spend all those money in a GPU that does not dupport full async?
Posted on Reply
#27
geon2k2
Assimilator said:
Jaysus. 40% more CUDA cores, 40% more TMUs, 50% more ROPs, 50% more memory bandwidth, 50% more memory... this thing is gonna be a monster. And that means 1080 Ti will be even faster.

Seems NVIDIA is out to crush AMD absolutely this round. They could probably have got away with only releasing the GTX 1080 and 1070, but we also have the 1060 that rains on RX 480's parade, and now the TITAN X Pascal which is even faster than the 1080. If Vega is as much of a disappointment as Polaris was, AMD is in big trouble.
I'm not sure, I think they are going in a ridiculous direction. I don't understand why would someone pay >1000$ for a component only, which to be put into valor, needs at least 1000-2000 $ more. (nice cpu, storage, monitor). And all this for gaming alone ... you must have some real issues or to be really rich to buy something like this. I think the market should stay @ 2-300 $ for high end/performance segment, 300-500 for enthusiast. Even if you have good money, I'm sure you can find something better to do with 1000$, than to get few more frames in a game, or I don't know what extra anti aliasing setting for which you need a magnifying glass to see the difference.

Anyhow, I might be wrong, in the end the same happen with phones as well, and i see nobody complaining about it, and most of the people investing 6-800$ in a phone ... each 1-2 years.
Posted on Reply
#28
Prima.Vera
RejZoR said:
Anyone remembers what happened to 3dfx when they wanted to do everything by themselves? They seem to be heading in that direction...
Yeah, but 3dFX was EXACTLY in the same position AMD is now. Their new GPU release was slower and more power hungry than nVidia's, for 2 consecutive generations, just like AMD now... On 3rd strike they got bankrupted. Personally, I see AMD going into an a similar way if they don't release something good this year...
Posted on Reply
#29
xenocide
geon2k2 said:
Anyhow, I might be wrong, in the end the same happen with phones as well, and i see nobody complaining about it, and most of the people investing 6-800$ in a phone ... each 1-2 years.
As a nit-pick, most carriers are moving away from that model. When I upgraded to my iPhone 6S earlier this year I only had to pay tax on it (like $100) and the rest of the cost is rolled into my plan. I actually only upgraded because it would knock $20 off my bill each month. They changed the cost of plans to accommodate a change in payment--$24 of my phone bill goes towards the cost of the phone, $~60 is the actual plan, compared to in the past where it was basically $100 for the plan and I paid the cost of the phone up front.
Posted on Reply
#30
RejZoR
PerfectWave said:
how ppl can spend all those money in a GPU that does not dupport full async?
If I knew this back when I was buying GTX 980, I'd most probably pick a R9 Fury card even if it was slightly inferior at the time. Which is why I'll be paying special attention for async support with GTX 2000 series. If there won't be any (lets be honest, GTX 1080's async support is really weird to say the least), AMD will remain the only option.
Posted on Reply
#31
RejZoR
Prima.Vera said:
Yeah, but 3dFX was EXACTLY in the same position AMD is now. Their new GPU release was slower and more power hungry than nVidia's, for 2 consecutive generations, just like AMD now... On 3rd strike they got bankrupted. Personally, I see AMD going into an a similar way if they don't release something good this year...
With all 3 consoles secured, excelling at DX12 and Vulkan, their CPU's are still selling well and RX 480, despite shortages, are doing just fine. They've made drastic changes in financials as well. Things look far from grim even if they aren't crowned as king of the hill with the top end GPU.
Posted on Reply
#32
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
RejZoR said:
If I knew this back when I was buying GTX 980, I'd most probably pick a R9 Fury card even if it was slightly inferior at the time. Which is why I'll be paying special attention for async support with GTX 2000 series. If there won't be any (lets be honest, GTX 1080's async support is really weird to say the least), AMD will remain the only option.
Id wait for async compute to actually be relevant first.
Posted on Reply
#33
Ubersonic
The GTX780 arrived 3 months after the Titan.

The GTX980ti arrived 3 months after the Titan-X

Roll on October! :D
Posted on Reply
#34
Ubersonic
Prima.Vera said:
Yeah, but 3dFX was EXACTLY in the same position AMD is now. Their new GPU release was slower and more power hungry than nVidia's, for 2 consecutive generations, just like AMD now... On 3rd strike they got bankrupted. Personally, I see AMD going into an a similar way if they don't release something good this year...
3DFX didn't have to bankroll a CPU division that has been woefully trailing Intel for half a decade though!

Wait, that's not a positive is it lol.
Posted on Reply
#35
Assimilator
Ubersonic said:
3DFX didn't have to bankroll a CPU division that has been woefully trailing Intel for more than half a decade though!
FTFY ;)
Posted on Reply
#36
Nokiron
The title is wrong though, its just called the Titan X. They skipped the GTX and Geforce-moniker on this.
Posted on Reply
#37
bug
Keep in mind that for Pascal Nvidia actually uses different hardware for consumer and HPC cards (different FP unit count, SM grouping). So if GP102 is geared towards HPC, it will probably not be the base for 1080Ti.
Posted on Reply
#38
TheDeeGee
Chaitanya said:
1200$ and stil no HBM2. Interesting way to milk money by nVidia.
You don't have to buy it...
Posted on Reply
#39
dont whant to set it"'
Wander if its a full blown chip and not a harvested "crippeld" one , I would expect it to be for its announced price yet I'm not in the market for such graphics card.
Posted on Reply
#40
Ubersonic
Assimilator said:
FTFY ;)
It's actually only 4 years and 9 months since the FX series hit the scene and AMD descended into their own Netburst fiasco, previous CPU generations had been matching/beating Intel.
Posted on Reply
#41
buggalugs
Titans have never been worth it, Nvidia always release a Ti version that is faster within a few months, then your resale values drop like a stone. If you want the fastest nvidia card, just wait for the Ti.
Posted on Reply
#42
Assimilator
Ubersonic said:
It's actually only 4 years and 9 months since the FX series hit the scene and AMD descended into their own Netburst fiasco, previous CPU generations had been matching/beating Intel.
Yes, I was wrong - AMD's fall started way back in 2006 when Intel introduced the Core µarch. Coincidentally they bought ATI that same year, so it's more accurate to say that AMD's graphics division has been carrying the CPU division for nearly a decade.
Posted on Reply
#43
bug
Ubersonic said:
It's actually only 4 years and 9 months since the FX series hit the scene and AMD descended into their own Netburst fiasco, previous CPU generations had been matching/beating Intel.
Actually AMD CPUs have trailed intel since forever. They had their moment with Athlon/AthlonXP/Athlon64 (when I thought I'd never buy intel), but before Athlon, AMD still couldn't match intel's FP performance. Int performance was fine and that was important for games, but for many other applications, intel was still the way to go.
Then intel pulled that "rebate" thing on AMD, preventing them from cashing in on their success while simultaneously resurrecting PIII in the form of Core. AMD has been searching for an answer ever since.
AMD also never held the crown in the mobile space. This wasn't a big deal back in Athlon days, but it is today.
Posted on Reply
#44
trog100
it will be the "first" real 4K gaming card.. the 4K push is strong..

they make these things (over priced flagship products) just because they can.. a few people buy them for the same reasons.. just because they can.. :)

peoples desire for 4K gaming does kind of provide a reason for such silly things though..

trog
Posted on Reply
#45
bogami
Only 60% compared to the previous generation it sucks. As we can see are more and more greedy. Announced least 100% is therefore yet another lie. In order to praising not to mention 300% compared to the previous .And then we get a price of about € 1,500 in euros not dollars and even then it will not be enough since the introduction of tax importers outside the EU in us so that the price will be around € 1,700 in Slovenia suppose. For GTX1080 price moves with us from € 925 to 1485€ +. AMD It will certainly be more reasonable with price.
Posted on Reply
#46
Caring1
trog100 said:
it will be the "first" real 4K gaming card.. the 4K push is strong..

they make these things (over priced flagship products) just because they can.. a few people buy them for the same reasons.. just because they can.. :)

peoples desire for 4K gaming does kind of provide a reason for such silly things though..

trog
All those people that bought GTX 1080 in SLI must be kicking themselves, spending all that money when one card will do the job now.
Posted on Reply
#47
bug
Assimilator said:
Yes, I was wrong - AMD's fall started way back in 2006 when Intel introduced the Core µarch. Coincidentally they bought ATI that same year, so it's more accurate to say that AMD's graphics division has been carrying the CPU division for nearly a decade.
It would seem that way, but AMD(+ATI) today ($4.14B) is worth less than what AMD paid for ATI ($5.4B). They both sunk together.
Perhaps ironically, the only successful part is ATI's Imageon, which AMD sold to Qualcomm and which we know today as Adreno. They sold it because it was underperforming.
Posted on Reply
#48
bug
RejZoR said:
If I knew this back when I was buying GTX 980, I'd most probably pick a R9 Fury card even if it was slightly inferior at the time. Which is why I'll be paying special attention for async support with GTX 2000 series. If there won't be any (lets be honest, GTX 1080's async support is really weird to say the least), AMD will remain the only option.
You might wanna read Anandtech's take on 1080 and 1070. They explain pretty clearly that Nvidia's async support is perfectly fine and why it doesn't work as well as it does for AMD (in a nutshell, when you have less shaders, you also have less idle shaders that async can put to use). It's quite possible Nvidia will go for more shaders for their 2000 series and then async would have its hands full.
Posted on Reply
#49
trog100
Caring1 said:
All those people that bought GTX 1080 in SLI must be kicking themselves, spending all that money when one card will do the job now.
i doubt that many have done.. but when SLI is working (the new time spy for example) a pair of much cheaper 1070 cards will still keep up with the new flagship card.. that would be my choice for anything less than silly money.. :)

trog
Posted on Reply
#50
Crap Daddy
Titan X was announced at Stanford Uni at an AI meeting, deep learning stuff. It's the same approach as with the other Titans, offering a more affordable tool for productivity, research, scientific use while enticing the tech enthusiasts, gamers who can afford ultra high end products. Nothing wrong with the price, it's tried and tested. You don't buy a Lamborghini if you need a car to get you to your average income job place.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment