Discussion in 'Reviews' started by W1zzard, May 21, 2013.
To read this review go to: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_Titan_Amp_Edition/
Question for W1zzard.
I've always wondered how far above the baseline my card runs at. I can see for the overclocking section the listed clock speed is at 1020 base, 1073 boost. But can you confirm if that is the top boost level or what the average boost was to give the score it gave.
The reason I ask is that under water my card is game stable at 1110 @ 1.16volts. Memory is at 6700Mhz. It'd be good to know the comparison between my 24/7 clocks and the review sample. I know other Titan guys with good cards running at 1215MHz core. Bastards!
This is not the single highest clock reading possible, but a value much lower. It's the "boost clock" that NVIDIA uses, however that is derived.
Default boost clock is read as 954 MHz. When observing clocks, we see that 954 is roughly in the middle somewhere
Suffice to say clocks of 1100 were above the overclock achieved on stock with air?
When reviewing a nVidia based card why not include a screenshot of the "Read ASIC quality..." from GPU-Z in the review? This way you could check your suspicions about if Zotac is cherry picking parts or not.
Adding 14% more cash provides 6% in performance...
The card never boosted over 1050? Is that what Post #3 indicates above? Was that when overclocked or not overclocked?
As in any market, you get diminishing marginal returns to your money.
Is a Ferrari 20 times as fast as a Volkswagen?
No but this is a Ferrari Vs a Ferrari, not a Ferrari Vs Volkswagen. That analogy would be more comparable with Titan Vs GTX 670/7950 etc IMO anyway.
As nice as Titan is it is extremely overpriced for me and I would never dream of splurging so much on a single component, though it has it's market.
Fine, is a Bugatti Veyron four times as fast as a Ferrari?
The price is sure to have been set at a profit maximising level. Of course it's terrible value for money - anything else for a luxury product would be idiotic. Nvidia have other products for people who care about value for money.
that graph is available in every nvidia review, on the page before conclusion. stock, not oc
The fact that this has the worst performance per dollar is funny to me (and that the standard titan isnt far behind is also funny).
Great review as always W1zzard
Just a quick question, I believe this has been pointed out before in the 7990 review, on page 5, the benchmarks for AC3 show all Radeon cards running higher frame rates at 5760x1080 than at 2560x1600:
Not only that but dual GPU cards are beat by cards like the 7950, which seems a very unlikely scenario at such high resolution, is this an artifact in the way the framerate was meassured in this particular game?
please w1zzard upload the bios!!
i love you!!
Nice review as per usual.
Just out of interest, I notice the HD 7990 is missing from the power consumption test charts, but present in those for performance-per-watt.
And the 7970GHZ actually gets higher FPS at the higher resolution. Very weird.
Must be either a quirk of the game version/patch and/or settings used. Computerbase also tested AC3 at 2560 and 5760, as did Hardware Canucks- although the link from the TPU database shows nothing except some ad for AMD processors ATM
Look like GTX 690 Generally is the BEST card among all...
Wish i have spare money to buy this card...
Hard to believe it's already a year old. A fine card no doubt.
I wonder if the 11.0" vs 10.5" length affected 690 sales? Titan barely fits in my average sized CM case.
For a moment there upon loading the homepage, I thought it was a GTX780 review
simply forgot to update the list, remade power graphs and uploaded
Separate names with a comma.