• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

First NVIDIA GeForce Titan 780 Performance Numbers Revealed

Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
3,338 (1.04/day)
Likes
1,087
Location
Ohio
System Name Spanky
Processor Ryzen 1400
Motherboard MSI 350 gaming pro
Cooling NZXT Kracken X42
Memory 8gb Crucial 2133 at 2667
Video Card(s) Nvidia 1060
Storage 250gb WD blue
Display(s) Acer 32" 2560x1440
Case Raidmax Sigma
Audio Device(s) Sound Blaster Audigy FX
Power Supply Seasonic
Mouse Epicgear
Keyboard Razer Deatstalker
Software Windows 10Pro x64
Lol, yes. But really, it is entertaining to see people get carried away with obviously bad/fake information. :)
I think TPU should have an official turd pic for instances just like this...Perhaps one of somebody holding a fresh squeezed one in their hand with a toilet in the background...just saying
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
377 (0.18/day)
Likes
35
Location
Rizal, Philippines
System Name Poor Man's Build
Processor Intel i7 3960X 4.9Ghz Sandy Bridge E
Motherboard MSi X79A-GD65 8D
Cooling XSPC 240mm and 360MM (External) Rad
Memory 64Gb Corsair Dominator Platinum
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX770 SC ACX SLI (non water cooled yet)
Storage Intel 520 240GB SSD x2 /x2 WD Caviar Black 3TB 7200RPM 64MB Cache
Display(s) ASUS 27" 2560X1440 x3
Case Corsair 900D (upgraded from my lvl 10 gt and 600T)
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar Essence STX
Power Supply Corsair AX1200i 80PLUS Platinum
Software Windows 7 Ultimate (FPP)
oh my freaking graphics card. ima get one
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
5,614 (1.90/day)
Likes
1,678
Location
San Diego, CA
System Name White Boy
Processor Core i7 3770k @4.6 Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P8Z77-I Deluxe
Cooling CORSAIR H100
Memory CORSAIR Vengeance 16GB @ 2177
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 680 CLASSIEFIED @ 1250 Core
Storage 2 Samsung 830 256 GB (Raid 0) 1 Hitachi 4 TB
Display(s) 1 Dell 30U11 30"
Case BIT FENIX Prodigy
Audio Device(s) none
Power Supply SeaSonic X750 Gold 750W Modular
Software Windows Pro 7 64 bit || Ubuntu 64 Bit
Benchmark Scores 2017 Unigine Heaven :: P37239 3D Mark Vantage
If this is true I am excite!
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
282 (0.13/day)
Likes
62
System Name 3D Vision & Sound Blaster
Processor Intel Core i5 2500K @ 4.4GHz (stock voltage, 60C on hottest core)
Motherboard Gigabyte P67A-D3-B3
Cooling Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E Special Edition (with 3x 140mm Black Thermalright fans)
Memory Crucial 16GB (2x8GB 1600MHz CL8)
Video Card(s) Nvidia GTX TITAN X 12288MB Maxwell @1350MHz (from 4890>5870>460>660>680>460)
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB SSD (Steam) + 840 250GB SSD (Origin) + 840 EVO 1TB (work install)
Display(s) Samsung 34" S34E790C (3440x1440) + BenQ XL2420T 120Hz @ 1080p + 24" PHILIPS Touchscreen IPS
Case Fractal Design Define R4 Windowed with 6x 140mm Corsair AFs
Audio Device(s) Creative SoundBlaster Recon3D Fatal1ty + Z506 5.1 speakers/Logitech UE9000
Power Supply Corsair RM750i 750W 80PLUS Gold
Mouse Logitech G700
Keyboard Logitech PS/2 keyboard
Software Windows 7 Pro 64bit (not sidegrading to Windoze 10 until I have to...)
Benchmark Scores 2fast4u,bro...
Hold up a freaking second...this directly contradicts the other rumour

Other reports suggest that the upcoming GeForce Titan will also not be called the GeForce GTX 780, nor will it take a GTX 600 series name. It will simply be called the GeForce Titan, likely inspired by the by the Cray Titan supercomputer, which houses nearly 19 thousand Nvidia Tesla K20X cards.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/GeForce-Titan-GK110-GTX690,20797.html

I can see the GTX branding on the screenshot. And to add insult to injury, this moronic Chinese site called it a GTX 780 Ti. Class A bullshit right there. Even if the Titan had all 2880 cores/15 SMX units enabled, it cannot possibly beat a GTX 690 on paper (or carry a mid-range series name). The only way it could even come close would have to be at some ridiculously VRAM-intensive resolution, like 3840x2160 or higher and even then it would be a struggle. Don't believe a word of this shit.

Oh and it won't have 6GB of VRAM. Not a chance in hell of that happening. If we take a look at Nvidia's timeline (reference designs only, 3rd party non-reference designs with extra VRAM are NOT included in this comparison)

7000 to 8000 series (512MB to 768MB) = 50% more VRAM
8000 to 200 series (768MB to 1024MB) = 33% more VRAM
200 to 400 series (1024MB to 1536MB) = 50% more VRAM
400 to 600 series (1536MB to 2048MB) = 33% more VRAM

as you can see, they follow the same pattern. Since the 700 series is essentially a resale of the same architecture, the best you can expect is 3GB of VRAM. Since this is their king of the hill halo card just like their GTX 690, you will not see 3rd party re-designs with double the VRAM since Nvidia will not allow it. Oh and since Nvidia's partners will still have loads of GTX 690s to get rid of, and the Titan will be priced under the 690, therefore the Titan will never beat the GTX 690, at least not in gaming.

This whole story reeks of horse shit. 85% of performance of a GTX 690 sounds about right, and that's the best anyone should expect.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,286 (0.93/day)
Likes
528
Location
Burlington, VT
Processor Intel i5-2500k
Motherboard MSI P67A-GD65
Cooling Deep Cool Gammax 400
Memory 8GB (4x2GB) G.Skill Ripjaws X DDR3-1600
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 1060 Windforce OC 6GB
Storage Samsung EVO 850 256GB / WD Caviar Black 1TB
Display(s) Acer GD235HZbid 120hz LCD
Case Rosewill Challenger Mid-Tower
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair 650W 650-TX
Software Windows 10
The only way it could even come close would have to be at some ridiculously VRAM-intensive resolution, like 3840x2160 or higher and even then it would be a struggle.
Anyone that buys a top of the line GPU to play anything less than high resolution is--generally speaking--a fool. Nobody buys a GTX690 to play WoW at 800x600.

This whole story reeks of horse shit. 85% of performance of a GTX 690 sounds about right, and that's the best anyone should expect.
For starters, it's a rumor. The first line of the post reads "The rumor mill is spinning". If you're taking this as fact you're doing it wrong. Also, even 85% the performance of a GTX690 would be pretty damn impressive.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
533 (0.20/day)
Likes
101
Processor Intel Core I5 2500K @ 4.5 Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P8Z68-V
Cooling Zalman CNPS 9900Max
Memory Corsair Vengeance & Kingston Black 4x4GB DDR3 1600 Mhz
Video Card(s) SAPPHIRE Dual-X OC R9 280X 3GB
Storage OCZ Vertex 4 256GB Sata 3 / Ultrastar 2TB / Seagate 2TB
Display(s) Samsung UN32EH5300 / LG 39LN5700
Case Lian Li PC-K63
Power Supply OCZ ZT 750W
Software Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64 Bits
It's somewhat very unlikely that performance will be more than 2x of its predecessor. Usually 2x is the limit at which they hold onto. Though they rarely do it. For AMD i only remember it happening with HD4800 -> HD5800 transition where HD5800 was twice as fast.
3870 -> 4870 was 2.5 times performance increase!
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
533 (0.20/day)
Likes
101
Processor Intel Core I5 2500K @ 4.5 Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P8Z68-V
Cooling Zalman CNPS 9900Max
Memory Corsair Vengeance & Kingston Black 4x4GB DDR3 1600 Mhz
Video Card(s) SAPPHIRE Dual-X OC R9 280X 3GB
Storage OCZ Vertex 4 256GB Sata 3 / Ultrastar 2TB / Seagate 2TB
Display(s) Samsung UN32EH5300 / LG 39LN5700
Case Lian Li PC-K63
Power Supply OCZ ZT 750W
Software Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64 Bits
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
990 (0.43/day)
Likes
473
Processor Core i7 6800k @ 4.1GHz @ 1.325v
Motherboard MSI X99A Raider
Cooling LEPA AquaChanger 240
Memory 4x8GB Corsair Vengence LED @3000MHz
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Aorus GTX 1080 Ti @ +25core +400mem
Storage 960 EVO 1TB, OCZ Vector 512GB, 2x Samsung 830 128GB, 750GB Samsung, 1.5TB Caviar Green
Display(s) Acer XB270HU, Qnix QX2710
Case Corsair Carbide 500R White
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar DX
Power Supply EVGA P2 850W
Mouse RAT8
Keyboard Razer Black Widow Ultimate 2016 Edition
Software Win 10 x64
3870 -> 4870 was 2.5 times performance increase!
That's more because of the huge issues ATi had at the time of producing that card. Was a huge mis-step on their end.

Same with the 79xx series cards in a way. Although all we have is speculation as to why nVidia chose to release GK104 as their top end chip rather than GK100.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
533 (0.20/day)
Likes
101
Processor Intel Core I5 2500K @ 4.5 Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P8Z68-V
Cooling Zalman CNPS 9900Max
Memory Corsair Vengeance & Kingston Black 4x4GB DDR3 1600 Mhz
Video Card(s) SAPPHIRE Dual-X OC R9 280X 3GB
Storage OCZ Vertex 4 256GB Sata 3 / Ultrastar 2TB / Seagate 2TB
Display(s) Samsung UN32EH5300 / LG 39LN5700
Case Lian Li PC-K63
Power Supply OCZ ZT 750W
Software Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64 Bits
That's more because of the huge issues ATi had at the time of producing that card. Was a huge mis-step on their end.

Same with the 79xx series cards in a way. Although all we have is speculation as to why nVidia chose to release GK104 as their top end chip rather than GK100.
Whatever the reason is, the fact is that they couldn't do it.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
990 (0.43/day)
Likes
473
Processor Core i7 6800k @ 4.1GHz @ 1.325v
Motherboard MSI X99A Raider
Cooling LEPA AquaChanger 240
Memory 4x8GB Corsair Vengence LED @3000MHz
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Aorus GTX 1080 Ti @ +25core +400mem
Storage 960 EVO 1TB, OCZ Vector 512GB, 2x Samsung 830 128GB, 750GB Samsung, 1.5TB Caviar Green
Display(s) Acer XB270HU, Qnix QX2710
Case Corsair Carbide 500R White
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar DX
Power Supply EVGA P2 850W
Mouse RAT8
Keyboard Razer Black Widow Ultimate 2016 Edition
Software Win 10 x64
Whatever the reason is, the fact is that they couldn't do it.
Couldn't, or wouldn't? We just don't know. No information was released, and nVidia released their usually mid-range GPU as a top tier product. Mainly because AMD's performance just wasn't there.
 

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
10,401 (4.84/day)
Likes
5,481
Location
Concord, NH
System Name Kratos
Processor Intel Core i7 3930k @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Deluxe
Cooling Zalman CPNS9900MAX 130mm
Memory G.Skill DDR3-2133, 16gb (4x4gb) @ 9-11-10-28-108-1T 1.65v
Video Card(s) MSI AMD Radeon R9 390 GAMING 8GB @ PCI-E 3.0
Storage 2x120Gb SATA3 Corsair Force GT Raid-0, 4x1Tb RAID-5, 1x500GB
Display(s) 1x LG 27UD69P (4k), 2x Dell S2340M (1080p)
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek® ALC898 8-Channel High Definition Audio
Power Supply Seasonic 1000-watt 80 PLUS Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Rosewill RK-9100
Software Ubuntu 17.10
Benchmark Scores Benchmarks aren't everything.
Couldn't, or wouldn't? We just don't know. No information was released, and nVidia released their usually mid-range GPU as a top tier product. Mainly because AMD's performance just wasn't there.
...but it's not like the GTX 680 walked over the 7970. If they had something faster that was working would have made those number easily favor nVidia if that is the case. You're right though, we don't know, so something faster than the 680 could have been ready, then again it might not. It also did take a while for nVidia to roll out the 680, so I think to say a faster card was ready to be marketted would be a hell of a stretch.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
990 (0.43/day)
Likes
473
Processor Core i7 6800k @ 4.1GHz @ 1.325v
Motherboard MSI X99A Raider
Cooling LEPA AquaChanger 240
Memory 4x8GB Corsair Vengence LED @3000MHz
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Aorus GTX 1080 Ti @ +25core +400mem
Storage 960 EVO 1TB, OCZ Vector 512GB, 2x Samsung 830 128GB, 750GB Samsung, 1.5TB Caviar Green
Display(s) Acer XB270HU, Qnix QX2710
Case Corsair Carbide 500R White
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar DX
Power Supply EVGA P2 850W
Mouse RAT8
Keyboard Razer Black Widow Ultimate 2016 Edition
Software Win 10 x64
...but it's not like the GTX 680 walked over the 7970. If they had something faster that was working would have made those number easily favor nVidia if that is the case. You're right though, we don't know, so something faster than the 680 could have been ready, then again it might not. It also did take a while for nVidia to roll out the 680, so I think to say a faster card was ready to be marketted would be a hell of a stretch.
It's true the 680 didn't walk all over the 7970, but nVidia realized they could match the performance of the 7970 with their GK104 chip, and decided to roll that out instead of the GK100. Whether they were able to produce great quantities of the GK100 or not we will never really know. However, if the 7970 performed at the level that the GK100 was supposed to be capable of, you bet your bacon that nVidia would have held off longer and released that chip as top tier.

Take a look at what they did for GF100. nVidia waited a LONG time to release their GF100 because they had yield issues and needed something that would match the 5870.

EDIT: Additionally, nVidia typically releases their top tier first then back fills the line up. So it's entirely possible GK100 was ready to go, and they decided to wait until GK104 was ready and released that to compete with the 7970.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,286 (0.93/day)
Likes
528
Location
Burlington, VT
Processor Intel i5-2500k
Motherboard MSI P67A-GD65
Cooling Deep Cool Gammax 400
Memory 8GB (4x2GB) G.Skill Ripjaws X DDR3-1600
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 1060 Windforce OC 6GB
Storage Samsung EVO 850 256GB / WD Caviar Black 1TB
Display(s) Acer GD235HZbid 120hz LCD
Case Rosewill Challenger Mid-Tower
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair 650W 650-TX
Software Windows 10
...but it's not like the GTX 680 walked over the 7970. If they had something faster that was working would have made those number easily favor nVidia if that is the case. You're right though, we don't know, so something faster than the 680 could have been ready, then again it might not. It also did take a while for nVidia to roll out the 680, so I think to say a faster card was ready to be marketted would be a hell of a stretch.
They were in the position where they could release a mid-range card, as a high-end card (according to the gaming performance of their competitors) and double their profit margins. They would have been insane not to do it--from a business perspective. If AMD had released the HD7970, and it was 15-20% faster than it was at launch, Nvidia would have launched GK104 as the GTX660, GTX650Ti, and the GTX650, and filled the $200-300 price range. Instead, they were able to overclock it to high hell and sell it for $350-550. Why would they not do that? It meant for every GTX680 they would sell, they'd make something like $200 in pure profit.