xorbeog Titan (kepler) was a great deal at the end of the day. Maxwell Titan X sort of rustled my jimmies. I can't be the only one not planning on Pascal Titan X at $1200 this generation. I'm actually downgrading to 1060.

Well, OG Titan had more of a point than all the recent Titans. The original two were excellent as long as you were a professional rendering projects and such. Though they were still in my book overpriced, they had a purpose more than just a gamer card. The Maxwell one to me was the first one that felt completely necessary because it leaned much more heavily to the gaming aspect that round instead of the professional (Unless you needed high levels of VRAM). This one is probably going to be the same which is unfortunate but it has nothing to compare to so it will sit there happily.

Fact is we don't know what Nvidia will do this round since they have kinda changed from their norm in terms of releases. Not sure when they will release GTX 1080ti, but it maybe not until closer to Christmas this year. I may end up being a Hypocrite and buying one (One now, a second later) of these just because of the way things are going even though I am normally pretty against these cards and their prices....

GhostRydermay end up being a Hypocrite and buying one

+5 for honesty, hahaha

xorbeI get what you're saying, it's a relative thing, it wasn't cheap. But for day one buyers though, og Titan served us well for 2 years. Maxwell Titan X didn't duplicate the satisfaction, at least for me. Guessing Titan buyers probably don't look at the Radeon stuff much in general ...

So it seems we both agree that every successor Titan has been less and less impressive compared to the previous one.


But I still stand by the fact that even the original Titan in no way deserved the name "Titan". It should have just been called the 780, and the 780 should have been the 770. The strongest card at the time was the 7970, and the Titan was only 35-40% stronger than it. That is just a standard flagship card. Nothing special about it besides the name.

GhostRyderWell, OG Titan had more of a point than all the recent Titans. The original two were excellent as long as you were a professional rendering projects and such. Though they were still in my book overpriced, they had a purpose more than just a gamer card. The Maxwell one to me was the first one that felt completely necessary because it leaned much more heavily to the gaming aspect that round instead of the professional (Unless you needed high levels of VRAM). This one is probably going to be the same which is unfortunate but it has nothing to compare to so it will sit there happily.

Fact is we don't know what Nvidia will do this round since they have kinda changed from their norm in terms of releases. Not sure when they will release GTX 1080ti, but it maybe not until closer to Christmas this year. I may end up being a Hypocrite and buying one (One now, a second later) of these just because of the way things are going even though I am normally pretty against these cards and their prices....

Again, anyone who says the Titan line is anything but a gaming card is just lying to themselves. It says "GTX" in the name, and has terrible compute compared to even AMD's normal gaming cards. If it was truly meant for professionals it would use Tesla drivers.

Captain_TomSo it seems we both agree that every successor Titan has been less and less impressive compared to the previous one.


But I still stand by the fact that even the original Titan in no way deserved the name "Titan". It should have just been called the 780, and the 780 should have been the 770. The strongest card at the time was the 7970, and the Titan was only 35-40% stronger than it. That is just a standard flagship card. Nothing special about it besides the name.

I think you have things mixed up because the Original GTX Titan was slightly higher than the GTX 780 which is above the HD 7970 Ghz edition even with all the updates and such. The R9 290X and 290 matched and beat it but that was those cards and a new generation.

Captain_TomAgain, anyone who says the Titan line is anything but a gaming card is just lying to themselves. It says "GTX" in the name, and has terrible compute compared to even AMD's normal gaming cards. If it was truly meant for professionals it would use Tesla drivers.

By today's standards on the Titans (referring to the X), yes they are just glorified gaming cards. However, in the past they had more points that put them in the middle between the gaming cards and professional. Hence why I refer to it at times as a "Hybrid" card (regardless of what its actual name is, this is just how I refer to it) because they did in the Kepler generation have more purposes. Titan X removed alot of that and focused it way heavily on gaming so now the Titan lineup is indeed more of a gaming card than anything else.

xorbe+5 for honesty, hahaha

:) Hahaha. Its the year for me to upgrade, and honestly I bet one of those will match my three R9 290X with the way CFX scales and such so I'm just making it up however I can so to justify the purchase (If in being honest, part of my hurry to upgrade is before BF1 comes out.)

....we have this same discussion every year.....every year Nvdia still makes them. Every year people still buys them. Every year people complain....that shouldn't. Nvdia has a market completely dialed in that the Titian satisfies. For Nvdia and these customers...its a win win relationship.

GhostRyder:) Hahaha. Its the year for me to upgrade, and honestly I bet one of those will match my three R9 290X with the way CFX scales and such so I'm just making it up however I can so to justify the purchase (If in being honest, part of my hurry to upgrade is before BF1 comes out.)

That's my problem too - I want BF1 in 1080p 150Hz. I think I could get the 480 there if I turn down AA, but I would prefer a 480x2/490/vega. At this point for me Nvidia is just not an option. No Freesync, terrible mGPU support, a massive lack of future-proofing, and tons of problems like DVI/HDMI ports that just don't work correctly. These are no longer wants for me, these are constraints - and Nvidia isn't meeting them.

This is before we even get into their horrific pricing and abhorrent business practices, and the fact that their "stronger" GPU's still can't run 4K well (So what's the point?!). Ughhhhhhh I miss the old days...

So is this officially called the "GTX TITAN X Pascal" or just simply "TITAN X" per their website? Or was the "GTX TITAN X Pascal" name mentioned here merely to differentiate it from the "GTX TITAN X" previous card? :confused:

Captain_TomUghhhhhhh I miss the old days...

I don't. The things we see now running AAA games with modern cards.

As much as I disagree with much of what you say (against Nvidia) I agree the Titan range is a bit of a dick.

But like @GhostRyder ..... maybe....maybe.

They should have called it Titan XP. Best name ever! :D

ensabrenoir....we have this same discussion every year.....every year Nvdia still makes them. Every year people still buys them. Every year people complain....that shouldn't. Nvdia has a market completely dialed in that the Titian satisfies. For Nvdia and these customers...its a win win relationship.

It's like watching an old coupling arguing for the same thing over and over and over.

A little disappointed since I was hyped at 50% over the 1080 but I guess that's my fault. It's 23% faster than the GTX 1080 (1.6x of Titan X divided by 1.3x of Titan X) at its best since up to 60%

With the relative performance at "60% over Titan X," I've purchased a 1080 today to replace my Titan X and hope to get another down the road when the 1080 Ti releases. 900 CAD for 30% more performance (40% at ~1900MHz + AIB cooling) compared to maybe 1500-1600 CAD for up to 60% (no AIB cooler) is a no-brainer for me. Especially since my Titan X cooler struggles to keep it cool at an acceptable noise level and consistently runs over the power limit while not at 99% load.

ironwolfSo is this officially called the "GTX TITAN X Pascal" or just simply "TITAN X" per their website? Or was the "GTX TITAN X Pascal" name mentioned here merely to differentiate it from the "GTX TITAN X" previous card? :confused:

It's officially called Nvidia Titan X (Part of geforce gtx 10 series).

GhostRyderWell, OG Titan had more of a point than all the recent Titans. The original two were excellent as long as you were a professional rendering projects and such. Though they were still in my book overpriced, they had a purpose more than just a gamer card. The Maxwell one to me was the first one that felt completely necessary because it leaned much more heavily to the gaming aspect that round instead of the professional (Unless you needed high levels of VRAM). This one is probably going to be the same which is unfortunate but it has nothing to compare to so it will sit there happily.

Fact is we don't know what Nvidia will do this round since they have kinda changed from their norm in terms of releases. Not sure when they will release GTX 1080ti, but it maybe not until closer to Christmas this year. I may end up being a Hypocrite and buying one (One now, a second later) of these just because of the way things are going even though I am normally pretty against these cards and their prices....

Well this card is more tailored to neural networks and low precision. Is there actually any news does this one have same half precision(fp16)=2*fp32 flops as p100 or is it neutered as it's been on gp104(fp16 flops=fp32 flops/64)?

matarGreat Announcement GTX Titan X Pascal BUT @ $1200 with 12GB they should have given it at least 16GB + it's way too high come on no GeForce GPU should be over $1000 they gave it this price so they can sell the GTX 1080 Ti @ $999.
Great GPU But a Bad price...

Are you new to this whole Titan GTX card thing from Nvidia? That wasnt the case with the original Titan and 780 so it won't be the case for this one. Titan cards are not your normal Geforce cards, though they are marketted as such. They have more compute performance than the standard geforce GTX cards to make for a cheaper option for professional uses, while also pertaining to the extreme enthusiasts and being solid for gaming. This could potentially be the ONLY card on the market right now to run 4k games maxed out at above 60fps in every title.

ensabrenoir....we have this same discussion every year.....every year Nvdia still makes them. Every year people still buys them. Every year people complain....that shouldn't. Nvdia has a market completely dialed in that the Titian satisfies. For Nvdia and these customers...its a win win relationship.

This. Now can we be done????

MxPhenom 216Are you new to this whole Titan GTX card thing from Nvidia? That wasnt the case with the original Titan and 780 so it won't be the case for this one. Titan cards are not your normal Geforce cards, though they are marketted as such. They have more compute performance than the standard geforce GTX cards to make for a cheaper option for professional uses, while also pertaining to the extreme enthusiasts and being solid for gaming. This could potentially be the ONLY card on the market right now to run 4k games maxed out at above 60fps in every title.

Well while true original titan x was an exception, it had no compute advantages against gtx980ti. It has more vram and only geforce with full gm200, but all the same compute capabilities as gtx980ti have. Prosumers had use for it for it's higher vram, but other than that it has no extra value for them.

4k@60fps, you should tell that ubisoft. But yeah we might finally get there, though isn't it moving target?

Personally, I don't care about the Titan. Except for the important fact that it provides a glimpse of what the 1080Ti will be - if they release it that is.

No HBM2? $1200 is not worth it.
Or maybe NVIDIA will announce another HBM2 version which cost $1500

the54thvoidI don't. The things we see now running AAA games with modern cards.

As much as I disagree with much of what you say (against Nvidia) I agree the Titan range is a bit of a dick.

But like @GhostRyder ..... maybe....maybe.

Come on buddy, nobody here is complaining about how good the graphics are. I just miss the days of the 5870 selling well because it was a good card, as opposed to almost all of Nvidia's recent line ups being sold on marketing alone.

MxPhenom 216Are you new to this whole Titan GTX card thing from Nvidia? That wasnt the case with the original Titan and 780 so it won't be the case for this one. Titan cards are not your normal Geforce cards, though they are marketted as such. They have more compute performance than the standard geforce GTX cards to make for a cheaper option for professional uses, while also pertaining to the extreme enthusiasts and being solid for gaming. This could potentially be the ONLY card on the market right now to run 4k games maxed out at above 60fps in every title.

What you just said is flat out wrong. Only the OG Titan had enhanced compute, and even then it wasn't better than a far cheaper Radeon card.

msamelisPersonally, I don't care about the Titan. Except for the important fact that it provides a glimpse of what the 1080Ti will be - if they release it that is.

Personally I think a 4600 - 6000 SP AMD Vega card will come out with 8 or 16GB of HBM2 in the December - February timeframe and absolutely crush this card. Then Nvidia will launch a full 3840 HBM2 card a couple months later as the 1180.

efikkanWith what did AMD push Nvidia to release GTX 780 Ti? No, not R9 290X.

R9 290X was faster than the GTX TITAN and the GTX 780, forcing NVIDIA to launch the GTX 780 Ti with the full 2,880 CUDA cores of the GK110 silicon.

efikkanGTX 980 Ti was scheduled before R9 Fury X was known to the public.

It was launched in response to the R9 Fury X, AMD had to readjust its pricing down to $650. Their performance was within 1% of each other, so NVIDIA designed the GTX 980 Ti as a response to the R9 Fury X. NVIDIA sacrificed the GTX TITAN X and GTX 980 to make GTX 980 Ti successful.

efikkanIf your logic made sense Nvidia would currently release no card more powerful than GTX 1060, since none of the new cards from AMD can beat it.

If yours made sense, TITAN X Pascal would have 3,840 CUDA cores.

NVIDIA doesn't want GTX 1080 to suffer the fate of the GTX 980 (market irrelevance, unsold Lightnings and AMP Extremes). There won't be a GTX 1080 Ti till Vega is on the horizon.

I bet someone just reused old slides from Titan X and sent those to management before realizing he forgot to change the X to something else like P. Marketing people go like "can we do that? yess excellent idea!" while the engineering team facepalms in their cubicles.
That is how it usually goes.

Captain_TomCome on buddy, nobody here is complaining about how good the graphics are. I just miss the days of the 5870 selling well because it was a good card, as opposed to almost all of Nvidia's recent line ups being sold on marketing alone.



What you just said is flat out wrong. Only the OG Titan had enhanced compute, and even then it wasn't better than a far cheaper Radeon card.



Personally I think a 4600 - 6000 SP AMD Vega card will come out with 8 or 16GB of HBM2 in the December - February timeframe and absolutely crush this card. Then Nvidia will launch a full 3840 HBM2 card a couple months later as the 1180.

Titan and Titan Black both held compute advantages over the 780 and 780ti. Titan X is a gamer card and was marketed as such, but on release it was quite a bit faster than the 980 and although we knew 980ti was coming it was 3 months ahead of it. Titan X has an advantage with Iray though, many of which don't know or think about due to the VRAM and cost. As much as people who can't afford or refuse to buy these cards like to stare at graphs and ponder on probable advantages of percentages the fact is they do add up. A 1070 is the same as a Titan X in relative performance, and a 1080 is about 25% faster than Titan X in 4k. If new Titan X is 30% or higher faster than the 1080 at 4k that's a phenomenal increase to those that can afford it and will buy it. The problem with people criticizing Nvidia with such scrutiny over their prices or "marketing" is the simple fact that these cards are aimed at top enthusiasts, prosumers, and enterprise markets. You don't need Quadro cards or "professional" drivers to run Iray. It'll take advantage of how many CUDA cores you throw at it, and guess what a Titan X can be purchased 5 times for the price of one M6000 which equates to 5x the performance per dollar. We have over 100 Titan X cards at my job alone, those of which won't show up on something like a Steam survey which people for some reason like to quote. So as much as people want to hate on it, Nvidia have their cake and eat it because of their position in the market. That is not their fault. I informed my boss of this card this morning and he said how many do you think we can get with separate emails on release. Trust me, even at their price they're sold but don't think for a minute this is Nvidia's bread and butter. It's not.

ensabrenoir....we have this same discussion every year.....every year Nvdia still makes them. Every year people still buys them. Every year people complain....that shouldn't. Nvdia has a market completely dialed in that the Titian satisfies. For Nvdia and these customers...its a win win relationship.

The funny thing is I think only 2 or 3 people that posted in 5 pages of this thread will even buy them and they're the most quite.

likewise gtx780 was released 3 years ago and look at it now, 1/3 slower than 1060. i mean thats gone from top insane level to pretty unusable weak for less than acceptable time frame. ill be perfectly satisfied if jayz2cents buys 2 or 3 titanxpascals but other than that games can wait.

btarunrR9 290X was faster than the GTX TITAN and the GTX 780, forcing NVIDIA to launch the GTX 780 Ti with the full 2,880 CUDA cores of the GK110 silicon.



It was launched in response to the R9 Fury X, AMD had to readjust its pricing down to $650. Their performance was within 1% of each other, so NVIDIA designed the GTX 980 Ti as a response to the R9 Fury X. NVIDIA sacrificed the GTX TITAN X and GTX 980 to make GTX 980 Ti successful.



If yours made sense, TITAN X Pascal would have 3,840 CUDA cores.

NVIDIA doesn't want GTX 1080 to suffer the fate of the GTX 980 (market irrelevance, unsold Lightnings and AMP Extremes). There won't be a GTX 1080 Ti till Vega is on the horizon.

Finally I can talk to someone with common sense. 100% agreed!

dalekdukesboy

efikkanGP100 isn't faster than GP102 for rendering, since GP102 is essentially GP100 with FP64, NVLink and HBM removed. A graphics card with GP100 will just use ~300W instead of 250W with no benefit for rendering. I'm very happy Nvidia made non-compute version of GP100, this way we can get graphics cards with better efficiency and availability.

Huh? So you are saying the "ti" will use 50 more watts but no additional rendering "benefit"?

I'm saying GP100 will use ~50W or so performing the same as GP100, or perhaps even more. The amount of CUDA cores are the same, but GP100 has a lot of extra features which have no extra benefits for rendering.
Just simply look at the Tesla P100 (GP100), 1328 MHz, 300W TDP.

btarunrR9 290X was faster than the GTX TITAN and the GTX 780, forcing NVIDIA to launch the GTX 780 Ti with the full 2,880 CUDA cores of the GK110 silicon.

R9 290X, GTX 780 and GTX Titan were all performing within a 2% margin, so roughly the same. Even in OC mode R9 290X didn't displace GTX 780. GTX 780 Ti and Titan Black was released because the yields of GK110 improved a lot, and R9 290X didn't even come close to the 10% advantage of GTX 780 Ti.

btarunrIt was launched in response to the R9 Fury X, AMD had to readjust its pricing down to $650. Their performance was within 1% of each other, so NVIDIA designed the GTX 980 Ti as a response to the R9 Fury X. NVIDIA sacrificed the GTX TITAN X and GTX 980 to make GTX 980 Ti successful.

You once again get the facts wrong. GTX 980 Ti was released before R9 Fury X, so it's impossible that GTX 980 Ti was a response to R9 Fury X. We know that GTX 980 Ti was planned several months ahead, and we know it was sent to testing a couple of months before release.

btarunrIf yours made sense, TITAN X Pascal would have 3,840 CUDA cores.

That have no relation to anything I said.

btarunrNVIDIA doesn't want GTX 1080 to suffer the fate of the GTX 980 (market irrelevance, unsold Lightnings and AMP Extremes). There won't be a GTX 1080 Ti till Vega is on the horizon.

GTX 980 was "irrelevant" because it only performed 12% better than GTX 970(because GTX 970 was "too good"), leaving GTX 970 and GTX 980Ti as the only sensible choices in the upper segment. GTX 1080 is way better positioned vs GTX 1070, so that's not the case any more. If Nvidia releases a "GTX 1080 Ti" performing ~30% or so over GTX 1080, Nvidia actually have a perfect scale ranging from GTX 1060 to "GTX 1080 Ti" with nice increments.

I've still seen no confirmation that "GTX 1080 Ti" is coming anytime soon, so it's probably three or more months away, if it's coming at all. But I do see two problems; (I don't expect you to answer, these are just general questions)
* Titan X offered more memory over GTX 980 Ti, which matters to it's target semi-professional customers doing CUDA and professional graphics. A "GTX 1080 Ti" will obviously not have just 6 GB, so what will be the configuration?
* I would argue that a "GTX 1080 Ti" should rather be called "GTX 1090", to position it better, granted there are no dual-GPU products scheduled to use this name.