# $2,999 Price of GeForce GTX TITAN-Z Not Justifiable: Review



## btarunr (May 13, 2014)

Here's why NVIDIA still hasn't launched the GeForce GTX TITAN-Z at the $2,999 price-point it so boldly announced at GTC 2014 - it's not worth its price by a long shot, at least not when stacked up against the Radeon R9 295X2, according to a review published by Hong Kong based print magazine E-Zone. In most tests, the two are evenly matched, with the R9 295X2 even outperforming it by a significant margin in some. In tests where the GTX TITAN-Z leads the R9 295X2, the lead isn't significant, at least nowhere close to justifying its price. The only way NVIDIA can sell the GTX TITAN-Z, if these numbers hold true, is by delivering on its 375W TDP figure. 

The review finds that a system running a single GTX TITAN-Z draws 33W less power than the same system running two GTX 780 Ti cards in SLI, and 60W less power than the same system running a single R9 295X2 (tested at FireStrike Extreme load). Unless you plan on future-proofing yourself for the next decade, the lower power draw doesn't justify the $1,500 higher price. So what explains the delay in launching the GTX TITAN-Z? Either a redesign with higher clocks (and proportionately higher power draw), or development of faster drivers.



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## jigar2speed (May 13, 2014)

Saves them the embarrassment - Bad product should always be called bad product, but in Nvidia's case TITAN - Z was suffering from bad pricing.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 13, 2014)

I feel like this was pretty much known.


----------



## Xzibit (May 13, 2014)

jigar2speed said:


> Saves them the embarrassment - Bad product should always be called bad product, but in Nvidia's case TITAN - Z was suffering from bad pricing.



Not only that.

Titan Z
706 / 876 / 1058

780 Ti
875 / 928 / 1019

39mhz boost more and still coming up short in every comparison.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 13, 2014)

It's very important that this fails. They said the Titan was an experiment in price points, and unfortunately it sold well. Now they're trying to see just how far they can push it, which in this case is way too far for that performance.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 13, 2014)

Only suckers paid 1K Euros for 1 card, when a 300 Eu cheaper and faster card was released just a couple of months after...


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 13, 2014)

Xzibit said:


> Not only that.
> Titan Z
> 706 / 876 / 1058
> 780 Ti
> ...


If you'd bothered to read the source material in the link provided:


> Although GTX Titan Z Boost clock can be auto pushed to 1058Mhz, it stay around 900Mhz for the entire time.





MxPhenom 216 said:


> I feel like this was pretty much known.


Only by everyone. Won't stop a bunch of people restating the obvious....this is the internet after all


Prima.Vera said:


> Only suckers paid 1K Euros for 1 card, when a 300 Eu cheaper and faster card was released just a couple of months after...


If the mark of a sucker is overpaying for performance then I'd suggest paying three times the price of a 290X for the 295X2 falls into the same category


----------



## micropage7 (May 13, 2014)

just for info, with that price i dont think many people would consider to put it in their list


----------



## GhostRyder (May 13, 2014)

Xzibit said:


> Not only that.
> 
> Titan Z
> 706 / 876 / 1058
> ...


Indeed, its pretty bad when the comparisons cannot even put it close to justification.

It needs a complete overhaul, its not going to do well with just a clock boost in all honesty unless the cooler can keep up under load.


----------



## 15th Warlock (May 13, 2014)

What a surprise!

Not! 

I could've told you that a month ago... Oh wait, I already did:

AMD Radeon R9 295 X2 8192 MB



15th Warlock said:


> The writing is on the wall, this card is probably going to be as fast if not faster than Titan-Z, and at half the price again, see boys and girls? this is the reason why we need a healthy AMD to bring the heat to Nvidia and create a competitive environment, at $1500 I would personally not buy this card, but you can bet the bean counters at the green team are at full alert mode trying to figure how to compete with this card at this price point, 780X2? Who knows.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (May 13, 2014)

What did people expect? Magical performance boost? It's just two Titans on one PCB, there's nothing interesting about it except for the fact the double precision performance is not crippled.


----------



## PhantomTaco (May 13, 2014)

Prima.Vera said:


> Only suckers paid 1K Euros for 1 card, when a 300 Eu cheaper and faster card was released just a couple of months after...


A couple months later? Pray tell me what card came out a few months after February of 2013? Nothing. The  780 came out in May and didn't outperform the Titan, and the 290/290x didn't come until October (8 months later). It was basically king of the hill for 8 months before anything challenged it.


----------



## 15th Warlock (May 13, 2014)

PhantomTaco said:


> A couple months later? Pray tell me what card came out a few months after February of 2013? Nothing. The  780 came out in May and didn't outperform the Titan, and the 290/290x didn't come until October (8 months later). It was basically king of the hill for 8 months before anything challenged it.



Yup! Certain people don't understand this joke didn't make sense a year ago, and still doesn't make sense today, it was not until 290X was released in November 2013 that any stock card could beat Titan, let alone when heavily OCd and water cooled! 

Granted 290X was almost half the price for all of 48hrs after its release, I'm glad I got my 290Xs at lower than retail value while some dumb suckers were caught paying north of $699 or $799 for them 

Anyway, at $2999 Nvidia shot itself in the foot, I hope this knocks them back to their senses and the card is priced more reasonably or they invest on a better cooling solution...


----------



## PhantomTaco (May 13, 2014)

15th Warlock said:


> What a surprise!
> 
> Not!
> 
> ...


Still waiting to see the final version. Theoretically 2 full GK110 cores (with adequate power and cooling) would outperform a 295x2.


----------



## 15th Warlock (May 13, 2014)

PhantomTaco said:


> Still waiting to see the final version. Theoretically 2 full GK110 cores (with adequate power and cooling) would outperform a 295x2.



I wish I could share your optimism, but it's not gonna happen, not unless Nvidia puts a closed loop water cooler on Titan-Z like AMD did with 295X...

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate, there's just certain laws of thermodynamics that cannot be easily broken


----------



## SKL_H (May 13, 2014)

The price tag is to much they reconsider their price it they want it to sell, but maybe nvidia will fine tune the deivers and increase its performance...


----------



## erixx (May 13, 2014)

Will be relaunched as the GTX TITANIC ....


----------



## Suka (May 13, 2014)

PhantomTaco said:


> Still waiting to see the final version. Theoretically 2 full GK110 cores (with adequate power and cooling) would outperform a 295x2.


What will also be interesting to see is the Titan Z power draw and temps.


----------



## RejZoR (May 13, 2014)

PhantomTaco said:


> A couple months later? Pray tell me what card came out a few months after February of 2013? Nothing. The  780 came out in May and didn't outperform the Titan, and the 290/290x didn't come until October (8 months later). It was basically king of the hill for 8 months before anything challenged it.



Because no one actually bothered to challenge it? It was priced at 1k and R290X is what, half that price?


----------



## JTristam (May 13, 2014)

For whatever happened to Titan Z development, I wish only for the good and positive outcome especially the release of Maxwell. Here's hoping the delay of Titan Z = faster, focused work on Maxwell.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 13, 2014)

Prima.Vera said:


> Only suckers paid 1K Euros for 1 card, when a 300 Eu cheaper and faster card was released just a couple of months after...



No, many people sick of broken AMD crossfire drivers ditched dual 7970's and went with the fastest single gpu available.  I'd class myself as a sucker for having bought 2 top line AMD cards that didn't properly work on many games at that time.  The fact AMD have publicly stated the issue has been resolved for DX10/11 (and a very good job they have done, especially with Hawaii) shows it WAS an issue.  So, no, Titan was not a Sucker's card.  It brought me smooth, perfect game play which my AMD solution did not.

*However*, Nvidia lost the plot with Titan Z.  They absolutely deserve scorn for such a terribly arrogant attempt at price manipulation.  Not saying it's not a free market but the fact AMD have a far better option at half the price puts Nvidia to shame.  The compute argument is also pretty lame.  Hardware enabled but software crippled, Titan is not a bona fide compute card - it isn't complete in that sense.  I'm sure it's missing ECC and other things.

They need to swallow their pride and knock it down to a dual Titan price point.


----------



## N3M3515 (May 13, 2014)

I don't get how some people defend this incredibly ultra hyper overpriced bs.
Not that i would buy a R9 295X2 either, but this card is just an even greater insult to one's intelligence...
I would buy a couple of R9 290/GTX 780 instead (in the remote case i wanted to have a crossfire/sli config.)


----------



## RejZoR (May 13, 2014)

I'm sticking to a high end single GPU philosophy. Never had any problems worth mentioning.


----------



## HammerON (May 13, 2014)

I find it sad and funny that NVidia has to re-think their dual Titan card release due to the fact that AMD's dual card offer came out first and their price to performance ratio versus what NVidia was thinking to price their card at makes them look greedy if nothing else. Their initial pricing of this card was absurd even after whatever success they realized from a highly priced Titan.


----------



## Relayer (May 13, 2014)

HumanSmoke said:


> If you'd bothered to read the source material in the link provided:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree that the 295X2 is overpriced. At this point in time I think the 290X and 290 should be $400 and $300 respectably. I blame the current market though on nVidia (Or their customers. Take your choice.). $1000 Titan, $700 780 non ti (when it was first released), $3000 Titan-Z, ... Hawaii forced them to adjust their prices, but not enough. I don't think the mining craze helped us any either not allowing for the natural degrading of prices.

Maybe it'll settle down a bit soon?



PhantomTaco said:


> Still waiting to see the final version. Theoretically 2 full GK110 cores (with adequate power and cooling) would outperform a 295x2.


Imagine the price on that one though!!!


----------



## Mathragh (May 13, 2014)

So when are they coming out with their dual dual GPU cards?

For the price they were gonna ask, it should be easy to include 4 high end chips and AMD wouldn't stand a chance against this would-be quad SLI monster!








Aaaaaaaalllrighty then, Back to reality.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (May 13, 2014)

We can thank AMD for ruining nvidia's intentions. Now that is delayed indefinitely.

THANKS GOD!

JHH is thinking now how to sell this crap at those price points when the competition offers similar for 50% price discount.


----------



## GreiverBlade (May 13, 2014)

PhantomTaco said:


> Still waiting to see the final version. Theoretically 2 full GK110 cores (with adequate power and cooling) would outperform a 295x2.



well a fully fledged Titan Black is not far above a 290X if we except Batman .... and the 295X2 has a slight OC on the Hawaii chips... so yes it would outperform it ... by a small margin as the Titan Black outperform the 290X 

i might read wrong but for me on those tests the Titan black is all but crushing the 290X






i am wondering what will be the "gpu to take on GTX780Ti/Titan Black" since the 290X already can take them head on. (not reference tho )


----------



## buggalugs (May 13, 2014)

PhantomTaco said:


> A couple months later? Pray tell me what card came out a few months after February of 2013? Nothing. The  780 came out in May and didn't outperform the Titan, and the 290/290x didn't come until October (8 months later). It was basically king of the hill for 8 months before anything challenged it.



The point is, the Titan was $1,000, the 780 was hundreds less and came out 3 months later with similar gaming performance. And most people who bought titan didn't buy it on day 1. They most likely bought it march or April only to find their $1,000 investment lost hundreds in value in a very short time.

 While Nvidia released the titan, they were already boxing up GTX 780's. That shows a lack of respect for consumers and is just a bit dodgy.

 Theres a lot of enthusiasts like me who upgrade almost every new  platform/CPU/Graphics cards and the only way to afford (or justify) that is getting a good price on the second hand market.

 Nvidia shows a  shocking disregard for consumers imo if it wasn't for AMD we would be screwed. How they even conceived charging $2,999 for this is unbelievable.


----------



## Relayer (May 13, 2014)

I know someone who bought 2xTitans when first released. When the 780 came out he sold the Titans for ~$800-$850 each (don't remember exactly) and bought a pair of 780's for $1400. When the 780 ti came out he sold his 2 780's for less than $500 each and bought 2x 780 ti's. He's fine with that. He fully realizes he got played, but doesn't care. He is a prime example of the Apple mentality among nVidia's customers. So he spent almost $5K on nVidia cards in less than a year. He got ~ 1/2 of that back selling the old cards, but nVidia still got $5K from him alone.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (May 13, 2014)

Relayer said:


> I know someone who bought 2xTitans when first released. When the 780 came out he sold the Titans for ~$800-$850 each (don't remember exactly) and bought a pair of 780's for $1400. When the 780 ti came out he sold his 2 780's for less than $500 each and bought 2x 780 ti's. He's fine with that. He fully realizes he got played, but doesn't care. He is a prime example of the Apple mentality among nVidia's customers. So he spent almost $5K on nVidia cards in less than a year. He got ~ 1/2 of that back selling the old cards, but nVidia still got $5K from him alone.



One day when that guy loses his money, he will regret for how stupid he had been. Instead of investing in his favourite company as a hardcore fanboy, he could give this money for something much more valuable, there are so many people in need who would thank him for life if he helps them...

Not to mention that with this amount of money he can also do many other things for himself.

GOD is watching and will judge him later.


----------



## Recus (May 13, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> One day when that guy loses his money, he will regret for how stupid he had been. Instead of investing in his favourite company as a hardcore fanboy, he could give this money for something much more valuable, there are so many people in need who would thank him for life if he helps them...
> 
> Not to mention that with this amount of money he can also do many other things for himself.
> 
> GOD is watching and will judge him later.



You could say buy AMD instead but now this is just fail. When you raid gas station for all lost money will you let me join?


----------



## the54thvoid (May 13, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> GOD is watching and will judge him later.



Would you please be so kind as to leave religion and faith out of this please? Is this the same God whose doctrine is used by believers across the globe to kill one another for spurious reasons?  If God is watching the guy buying 5k of gfx cards, then that shows why the world is a really a shitty place.  God needs to be rounding up all the murderous zealots, not watching people buying gfx cards.

Anyhow, back on topic - I think we're all agreed AMD shafted Nvidia on this one.


----------



## GreiverBlade (May 13, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> GOD is watching and will judge him later.



at last i had a good laugh today ... lucky you added a  



Recus said:


> You could say buy AMD instead but now this is just fail. When you raid gas station for all lost money will you let me join?



in the end even if my weather is cloudy ... it brighten my day 

oh well so then : the Titan-Z is a failure the price point doesn't make it worth it, well that was expected from the beginning (the 2nd statement) 
double precision make it worth something but again the price ruins all (oh well still cheaper than a Quadro or a Tesla)

in the end gamer : 295X2 
budget bound that has 1500-2000$ max : 295x2 
needing double P : Titan Z (since 2 295X2 make only around 2800dp g'flop and would eat more watt )
gamer with 3000$: "do what you want..." (still 2x295X2 would be quite good ... and not only in a QCFX... maybe you have 2 rigs and instead of upgrading one with a Titan Z you can upgrade both for the same price with 2 295X2)


----------



## PhantomTaco (May 13, 2014)

buggalugs said:


> The point is, the Titan was $1,000, the 780 was hundreds less and came out 3 months later with similar gaming performance. And most people who bought titan didn't buy it on day 1. They most likely bought it march or April only to find their $1,000 investment lost hundreds in value in a very short time.
> 
> While Nvidia released the titan, they were already boxing up GTX 780's. That shows a lack of respect for consumers and is just a bit dodgy.
> 
> ...



Lack of respect for the consumers? It's called early adopters, there's an implied meaning with it. People that went in buying them knew full well (and if they didn't they were idiots). Nvidia even said it was a halo product, implying a new flagship was on the way. What's more, we had rumors on the launch of the 700 series even before the titan came out, and we knew the times didn't match up. 

I bought two Titans the very day they were announced, and I still don't regret it. What's more the idea that people waited several months to get it is kinda of silly, within a month or so there was already rumors floating around about the 780. For several months nothing came close to the performance I was getting, several months where others were using 7970s and 680s. It was several months were I was able to comfortably game at a minimum average of 90 fps on 1440p @ 120hz and I loved it. And even when the 780 did come out it was still around 10-15% slower. I never had to care about VRAM usage at any point, even the idea of triple screen wasn't a problem on that front. And I was able to trade my Titans in and get 780 TI classified's without spending a dime out of my pocket for it.

The 290x has been out for how long now? And now there's a rumor that a 295x is incoming that will outperform it. Where's the anger for that? The 290x came out end of october, yet basically no one could buy it for anywhere near msrp until a few months ago in north america because of miners and shortages. Now people can finally get it and there's an update in the works.

Moral of the story? Get used to whatever you buy being obsolete soon. We all expect technology to progress rapidly, getting pissed because it meets our expectations makes us look like hyppocrites. Was it underhanded? I don't think so, they released a halo product and said it was. Hell, even their press release said:

"and designed to unleash the world's fastest gaming PCs including personal gaming *supercomputers"
*
One of their biggest marketing points was that they were being used to power one of the strongest supercomputers in the world. Who in their right mind would use a pure gaming gpu for a supercomputer? That was a tipoff then.


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 13, 2014)

The only good thing about this is what ever nvidia releases....hopefully a maxwell-lized  Titian will be beastly. Although Amd's card is in my opinion ugly....excellent job!!! Now  do the same in the cpu market. * OFF TOPIC*: And to correct some misconceptions out there:  God gave man free  will (which we will give an account for We're his children. If God controlled our every aspect and thoughts we'd be zombie slaves) hence we can do and believe what we choose.  Lets not blame man's  ignorance on God.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 13, 2014)

Relayer said:


> I know someone who bought 2xTitans when first released. When the 780 came out he sold the Titans for ~$800-$850 each (don't remember exactly) and bought a pair of 780's for $1400. When the 780 ti came out he sold his 2 780's for less than $500 each and bought 2x 780 ti's. He's fine with that. He fully realizes he got played, but doesn't care. He is a prime example of the Apple mentality among nVidia's customers. So he spent almost $5K on nVidia cards in less than a year. He got ~ 1/2 of that back selling the old cards, but nVidia still got $5K from him alone.


You could have shortened that to: "I hang out with retards". Forget the preamble.
Why would anyone sell two Titans for $1600 to buy two more crippled cards with less OC potential for $200 less? Hopefully he spread the love around and paid out $900 for a FX 9590, watched the price go into freefall, then bought an APU.


GreiverBlade said:


> in the end gamer : 295X2
> budget bound that has 1500-2000$ max : 295x2


Really? Sounds like you've been brainwashed. On what reasonable metric does a $1500 295X2 make more sense than two solid 290X's for $200-400 less?


buggalugs said:


> Theres a lot of enthusiasts like me who upgrade almost every new  platform/CPU/Graphics cards and the only way to afford (or justify) that is getting a good price on the second hand market.


Good luck with that. Last time I looked the bottom fell out of the 290/290X market. Locally, they are going for the same price as a new GTX770 (290), or reference design/clock 780 (290X) if you're lucky....maybe where you are is a different paradigm, but eBay and other online trade/auction sites seem swamped with ex-mining cards.


----------



## 20mmrain (May 13, 2014)

Serves Nvidia right for gouging prices. Hopefully they will learn from their mistakes.... but I doubt it!


----------



## 64K (May 13, 2014)

The price never made sense to me and the argument that it made sense for people wanting the card for professional work and gaming didn't make sense compared to a pair of Titan Blacks for less money and better performance. If Nvidia still does release the Titan Z at $3,000 it will be embarrassing for Nvidia imo.


----------



## GreiverBlade (May 13, 2014)

HumanSmoke said:


> Really? Sounds like you've been brainwashed. On what reasonable metric does a $1500 295X2 make more sense than two solid 290X's for $200-400 less?


oh please ... 

ok let me rephrase : gamer with a mITX/uATX mobo and a case that can fit it or any one with a mobo that doesn't handle CFX ... well the cooling of the 295X2 is nice tho .... and even if my FM2A88M Ex4+ can CFX i wouldn't put 2 290X in my Sugo SG09B 
brainwashed ... pfah what a joke. (btw i was talking about dual gpu single board ... ok ... let say a 7990 or a 690 would be better price wise.


better?


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2014)

Bad premise. People with small reproductive organs will always find paying more for something justifyable regardless of its actual value.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 13, 2014)

Two 670's hang with a single Titan for less money.....they play all games maxed on the most common resolution (1080P). Not seeing a point to ANY of these cards lately. I'm pretty sure its safe to say gaming as a whole is dead.

Thank you extended lifespan of consoles. You have successfully did what ET couldn't do.


----------



## radrok (May 13, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Two 670's hang with a single Titan for less money.....they play all games maxed on the most common resolution (1080P). Not seeing a point to ANY of these cards lately. I'm pretty sure its safe to say gaming as a whole is dead.
> 
> Thank you extended lifespan of consoles. You have successfully did what ET couldn't do.



And a single 780 Ti does better than both 670s and Titan. Overclock the 780 Ti to roughly 1250 Mhz (almost all 780Ti do that on stock voltage) and you have something that smokes everything.

Titan is obsolete, get over it guys. No point in forcing it in any discussion at all when there's a cheaper version that does the same of just about everything.


----------



## 64K (May 13, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Two 670's hang with a single Titan for less money.....they play all games maxed on the most common resolution (1080P). Not seeing a point to ANY of these cards lately. I'm pretty sure its safe to say gaming as a whole is dead.
> 
> Thank you extended lifespan of consoles. You have successfully did what ET couldn't do.



I saw an article on Ars Technica last month that said that PC game sales alone was ~26 billion dollars last year. Far from dead.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Two 670's hang with a single Titan for less money.....they play all games maxed on the most common resolution (1080P). Not seeing a point to ANY of these cards lately. I'm pretty sure its safe to say gaming as a whole is dead.
> 
> Thank you extended lifespan of consoles. You have successfully did what ET couldn't do.



Troll much? PC gaming is doing pretty well if you consider the scope of games these days. Developers are simply not doing enough to push the new hardware which is far outpacing software developement. Thankfully there is a lot more to a good game then just intense L33t Epik W!nz! OMG Grafx.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 13, 2014)

Not trolling at all. There is hardly a damn thing out worth buying now that isn't a rehash of older crap. Best thing coming out IF it lives up to the hype is Star Citizen. Everything is has been junk for a while now.



radrok said:


> And a single 780 Ti does better than both 670s and Titan. Overclock the 780 Ti to roughly 1250 Mhz (almost all 780Ti do that on stock voltage) and you have something that smokes everything.
> Titan is obsolete, get over it guys. No point in forcing it in any discussion at all when there's a cheaper version that does the same of just about everything.



Hardly and two 670's are still cheaper.


----------



## Jorge (May 13, 2014)

Few people are dumb enough to pay $3K for a GPU card, even those with money to burn.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Not trolling at all. There is hardly a damn thing out worth buying now that isn't a rehash of older crap. Best thing coming out IF it lives up to the hype is Star Citizen. Everything is has been junk for a while now.



Well that is just your opinion. That doesn't mean PC gaming is dead.


----------



## 15th Warlock (May 13, 2014)

I bought Titan on day one (two them actually) and continue to thoroughly enjoy them to this day, in fact the drive my triple monitor setup flawlessly, absolutely no regrets here .

As for this debate, the truth is dual GPU cards are some of the worst products people can buy, be it AMD or Nvidia, they charge a 40-50% premium over the price of going for two separate cards despite such solutions being slower and bulkier.

Yes, AMD engineered the better dual GPU card, and priced it better, but you would be better off getting two 290Xs with aftermarket coolers and even save some money in the process.

Only 0.001% of all costumers really "need" these cards, people with small ITX rigs, or with huge rendering or mining farms, other than that pretty much every enthusiast out there should just need to see these cards as the freak ultra expensive Rolls Royce or Bentley of the PC world that they really are and settle for a couple of nice GT-Rs or 911s 

In other words, this debate can go on forever, but is it really gonna benefit any of us real PC enthusiast in the end? I highly doubt it. Will one team finally see the light and realize the other team has the better product? Impossible, not when people defend a brand name with religious zeal.

Open your eyes, both companies have a board of directors and trade to the public, as such they care only about profit, and are out there to get you hard earned dollars, is one more greedy than the other? Absolutely, you don't need anyone to tell you that, the fact that the card has not been released shows they are in panic mode. It's called hubris, Google it.

Anyways, the obvious headline had the obvious results and add revenue is what drives this site, so I guess it's all good as long as TPU and other hardware news outlets benefits from it, so carry on my dear green and red teams fans


----------



## Casecutter (May 13, 2014)

Well I say Nvidia will to scrap the 3-Slot cooler and work the board with a nicer water cooling set-up, juice the clocks... while drop the price by $1,000.

I think we all recognize the cooler is what holds them back, abandoning the cooler is the only face saving move they have.  I wonder how far they had been on pulling the trigger  to commence that air cooler to a full scale production?  Probably have 25% of the anticipated volume finish in the pipe, and perhaps another 40% in parts and production, they almost certainly just pulled the plug on all that weeks ago.

Now they are doing a quick CNC of a traditional water block for everybody (GPU’s/VRM’s), while procuring some existing pump/radiator combo (although can’t think of someone that has that they could scavenge/partner it from) then push stratospheric clocks… and market as a win!

I would think Nvidia is to far on the boards, need the premium outlet for a bunch of good GK110… While eating a bunch in Engineering and tooling is a small price to pay to keep uphold their reputation and retain respect.  If they can't they are in a bad spot...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 13, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> Well that is just your opinion. That doesn't mean PC gaming is dead.


Who said anything about PC gaming? I said GAMING AS A WHOLE. Everyone is so defensive of the damn truth they don't even read and comprehend the facts when it clashes with their ideology.

How many games do you buy full price a year now Rhino? One? Maybe Two? Gaming is sickly right now. Its just a fact. Buying a shit ton of Steam Sale Winter games half of which you will never play means NOTHING. Its the Summer months of block busters. How many does ANYONE on here pay full price for on day one. Last massive debut was Titan Fall.........that game sucked yet it was revered as awesome by the rags and kiddies online. It was just a simple FPS with a low player count on a 10 year old engine......BIG F#$KING DEAL.


----------



## GhostRyder (May 13, 2014)

Well anyway either way the Titan-Z was a flop and Nvidia is still going to have to release something eventually.  It will come and then we can actually see what they are going to do.

In the end, both cards are pricey, however it still comes down to price to performance and the form factors that cards like these would work in.  Dual GPU cards are best when they fit into small machines, fit in a 2 slot width for easy quad access (Since more Motherboards have only 2 PCI-E 16 slots available), or can be used in a way to cram into a specific function machine (render house for instance).

We will get a revision probably by the end of the month, otherwise it will likely just be dropped and never spoken of again though that route would be filled with alot of questions so im more thinking that by June we will have something.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Who said anything about PC gaming? I said GAMING AS A WHOLE.



That is still your opinion. I happen to agree with you though but that is because we are both of similiar age and similiar life situations (kids,married,jobs and have been gaming since the days before nintendo). I don't have to tell you this, but when you get older your tastes are more refined. Gaming is just one aspect where we need more out of a game than we did 10 years ago. Not just because of time constraints or even budget constraints but because we are older and wiser and are looking deeper into everything we do. It all comes back to wisdom through age. We want more out of life even if that means something as silly as a video gaming needing multiple layers to keep us interested.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 13, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> That is still your opinion. I happen to agree with you though but that is because we are both of similiar age and similiar life situations (kids,married,jobs and have been gaming since the days before nintendo). I don't have to tell you this, but when you get older your tastes are more refined. Gaming is just one aspect where we need more out of a game than we did 10 years ago. Not just because of time constraints or even budget constraints but because we are older and wiser and are looking deeper into everything we do. It all comes back to wisdom through age. We want more out of life even if that means something as silly as a video gaming needing multiple layers to keep us interested.


I can buy that.

My point is there used to be a lot more innovation in gaming across the board. The industry right now feels a lot like 1983 did before the crash in 84. I notice this because I am older. When the original Xbox dropped along with the PS2 games just had better craftsmanship. The problem is the craftsmanship is gone and its like they are cutting corners on old tech now. Developers have less power and publishers control everything. Carmack left id. "B" left Epic. There is a lot to be said in that.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> When the original Xbox dropped along with the PS2 games just had better craftsmanship.



I agree there is less craftsmanship in games today than say 10 years ago. It makes sense though because today everything (furniture,clothing,houses) all lack craftsmanship. That is what our mass market, gotta have it now society has been reduced to. Unless you pay a ton of money you are going to get run of the mill quality that breaks down quickly. It used to be that you did not have to pay an arm and a leg to afford something made by a craftsman.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 13, 2014)

I wonder if at release they will change the name to Quadro to save face>? 

It's DOA [at it's current price] and no amount of heatsink redesign and/or driver optimization will save it.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (May 13, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> Well anyway either way the Titan-Z was a flop and Nvidia is still going to have to release something eventually.  It will come and then we can actually see what they are going to do.
> 
> In the end, both cards are pricey, however it still comes down to price to performance and the form factors that cards like these would work in.  Dual GPU cards are best when they fit into small machines, fit in a 2 slot width for easy quad access (Since more Motherboards have only 2 PCI-E 16 slots available), or can be used in a way to cram into a specific function machine (render house for instance).
> 
> We will get a revision probably by the end of the month, otherwise it will likely just be dropped and never spoken of again though that route would be filled with alot of questions so im more thinking that by June we will have something.



No, in no way nvidia is under any type of obligation to release anything. 

After the dust settles down and people calm down, the same will quickly begin to forget and nvidia will release ... uh ... nothing.


----------



## GhostRyder (May 13, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> No, in no way nvidia is under any type of obligation to release anything.
> 
> After the dust settles down and people calm down, the same will quickly begin to forget and nvidia will release ... uh ... nothing.


Well when you show something at a conference then pretend it does not exist it tends to send a mixed message and can be considered an odd mystery.  I say they are obligated based on the fact that if they do choose to just forget it and move on it will look as though a sign of weakness (Or saying we could not compete).  Plus by the sound of things many were already made and ready for deployment which still points at a release sometime (If nothing else maybe an OEM exclusive?).

It will be interesting, but I have a feeling we will see a Titan-Z.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (May 13, 2014)

15th Warlock said:


> I bought Titan on day one (two them actually) and continue to thoroughly enjoy them to this day, in fact the drive my triple monitor setup flawlessly, absolutely no regrets here .
> 
> As for this debate, the truth is dual GPU cards are some of the worst products people can buy, be it AMD or Nvidia, they charge a 40-50% premium over the price of going for two separate cards despite such solutions being slower and bulkier.
> 
> ...


there is only one thing that I can possibly think of to disagree with. the geforce 690. it was the same price as two 680s on release and ANY 690 could be slightly oced to get to dual 680 theoretical levels. one heck of a great card, and now going on 2 years old already.

edit:680s not 580s


----------



## radrok (May 13, 2014)

You guys obviously forgot which were the really good dual GPU cards, those like the 4870x2, 5970 and 6990s which costed just a hundred or couple more than their single GPU counterparts, not double the amount.


----------



## HammerON (May 13, 2014)

The only dual GPU card I owened was the GTX 295. Absolutley loved that card. Although it was based on the GTX 275 and not the top-end GTX 280, was still a great card IMO


----------



## Casecutter (May 13, 2014)

If we realize Nvidia was on a original release date of May 8th, and OEM have had their aftermarket box's readied how many of these Titian Z are sitting around in what is a "finish state"? Perhaps 1,000-2,000 units, or think of it this way possibly some 4,000 "full-fledged" perfectly good GK110! Already surface mounted in expensive PCB’s do you think Nvidia could just dump them in a land-fill… sure it's a pittance amount of money. However, that's truly self-inflicted "egg on the face", to just walk away with a full-on miss-fire, they have lemons they absolutely need find a way to make lemonade.


----------



## matar (May 13, 2014)

nVidia $1999 is a perfect price with a little higher clocks.
I still wouldn't buy it to me the most I pay for a single GPU card the max is $499 and it has to be the best in its class and for a dual GPU is $999


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 13, 2014)

matar said:


> nVidia $1999 is a perfect price with a little higher clocks.
> I still wouldn't buy it to me the most I pay for a single GPU card the max is $499 and it has to be the best in its class and for a dual GPU is $999


Perfect Price? I don't think so. The only reason GPU makers are selling GPUs for 2000 bucks is because they can. I remember with 999 seemed extreme and that's when the economy was good! Now its a deal. The R&D and MFG. has in NO WAY been increased 100% in less that 5 years. What you are seeing here is market prices from demand. I wouldn't be surprised if NVIDIA and AMD were not price fixing again. If you pay 2 grand for a GPU then you have more money than brains.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (May 13, 2014)

The perfect price for Titan Z is and will always be $ 799.

Everything else from Jhh and his teams would be silly shenanigans.

Guys, everything depends on you! If you pay, they will do whatever they "can". If you say 'No', that will stop them and at least would force them to think twice.

Of course, it's your decision which team to join. The good or evil!


----------



## the54thvoid (May 13, 2014)

Just to remind folks that the pricing thing goes way back to the GeForce 8800 GTX Ultra.  And then after some 'normal' years, AMD released the new generation 7970 cards at a price of £450-550 (http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/33453-amd-radeon-hd-7970-launch-day-pricing-availability/).  Then the 680 came out at the same give or take.  Release prices have been inflated since then.  And you have to remember, unless you're a budget operator, and neither AMD or Nvidia are, it can be seen as a bad business move to price your product too low.  Many consumers question the worth of a product that seems too cheap.

There are no good guys here.  Just companies that want your money.  It's more than a little naive to suggest that one company is evil.  One company simply charges more, it's that simple, except this time that policy went bananas.

The mentality of some people is rather nonsensical here.  Go and argue about the pricing of motor cars or fridges.  It's all the same.


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 13, 2014)

It is all a fuss about nothing, no one is being forced to buy anything, is the price of the Titan Z stupid? Yes.

Based on this review a couple of nice custom 780 Ti's for $1400 look like the obvious choice to me, 100 bucks saved still compared to the competition and no doubt great performance and features across all games. Nv aren't so bad after all.


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 14, 2014)

All in all the titian line is an elite line thats not suppose to add up or be rational..... Just a status symbol, a phallus nothing more. Solely for exclusivity of it..... here and here alone does titian Z make sense


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> Just to remind folks that the pricing thing goes way back to the GeForce 8800 GTX Ultra.  And then after some 'normal' years, AMD released the new generation 7970 cards at a price of £450-550 (http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/33453-amd-radeon-hd-7970-launch-day-pricing-availability/).  Then the 680 came out at the same give or take.  Release prices have been inflated since then.  And you have to remember, unless you're a budget operator, and neither AMD or Nvidia are, it can be seen as a bad business move to price your product too low.  Many consumers question the worth of a product that seems too cheap.
> 
> There are no good guys here.  Just companies that want your money.  It's more than a little naive to suggest that one company is evil.  One company simply charges more, it's that simple, except this time that policy went bananas.
> 
> The mentality of some people is rather nonsensical here.  Go and argue about the pricing of motor cars or fridges.  It's all the same.


Cars and fridges haven't gone up 100% in less than a 10 year span. I don't care if people pay for such a card but there is zero justification for it.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 14, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> Just to remind folks that the pricing thing goes way back to the GeForce 8800 GTX Ultra.  And then after some 'normal' years, AMD released the new generation 7970 cards at a price of £450-550 (http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/33453-amd-radeon-hd-7970-launch-day-pricing-availability/).


That seems more an internet version of an urban legend. The previous series of cards from both Nvidia and ATI were edging towards $600 or more ever since discrete graphics became a two horse race. The X1800 Crossfire Edition ($600) and 7800GTX 512M ($650) spring to mind, but I think you'll find a fair number of SKUs at the $549 price point. The only real difference between the earlier cards and the 8800GTX/U was the fact that prices tumbled as new halo products emerged from both camps ( X850XT PE > X1800 XT and X1800 CFX Ed. / X1900 XTX / X1900 CFX Ed.....7800GTX > 7800GTX 512) so no one vendors card go too comfortable. The 8800GTX/U remained undisputed as the single GPU king for 20 months, and 15 months outright (until the HD 3870 X2 showed up). I think the reason that prices re-stabilized (with the exception of the initial $650 price tag on the GTX 280 for a whole week) was because the change of ownership at ATI necessitated an increased revenue stream- both from the initial outlay, huge write-downs, and haemorrhaging market share. Both companies were then hit with a price fixing judgement in September 2008. Both companies seem to have been playing a wait and see attitude for the most part when it comes to pricing.


the54thvoid said:


> Then the 680 came out at the same give or take.  Release prices have been inflated since then.  And you have to remember, unless you're a budget operator, and neither AMD or Nvidia are, it can be seen as a bad business move to price your product too low.  Many consumers question the worth of a product that seems too cheap.
> There are no good guys here.  Just companies that want your money.  It's more than a little naive to suggest that one company is evil.  One company simply charges more, it's that simple, except this time that policy went bananas.


Pretty much. One company steps over the line, and the other follows. I'd note that the competition between Nvidia and AMD is for the most part fairly cordial (much more so than the myriad of baying forum posters) - both companies dovetail performance to maintain a pricing structure that benefits both. When was the last price war ? (that didn't involve short-life salvage parts). The closest you get is a small pricing realignment when a vendors card exceed expectation, or cuts when inventory needs clearing.


the54thvoid said:


> The mentality of some people is rather nonsensical here.  Go and argue about the pricing of motor cars or fridges.  It's all the same.


There's only so many outlets for ten-minutes-at-a-time crusades.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 14, 2014)

Let's see.  

4960x processor - $1000
Asus Deluxe Mobo - $400
64 GB RAM - $500

Total - $1900

If you could get lucky, a couple of 780tis would set you back another grand.

Does that mean that I could either basically buy a high end system and a pair of 780ti cards, or get a single Titan Z?


I know Nvidea has a reputation for slightly better performance at a huge premium, but seriously?  I thought a $1000 CPU was going to make people rage hard.  This thread has been 1000% more rage than that, all built upon rumors.  Consider me subscribing just to watch the fanboy rage fires burn.


----------



## sweet (May 14, 2014)

From Tomb Raider number in 295x2 reviews, this Chinese test probably was taken at 1080p resolution, which favors nVidia cards. However, TitanZ already made no sense here.

At higher res, where those cards are bought for, 295x2 will certainly outperform TitanZ in every test.


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 14, 2014)

If people are now happy spending 1.5K on graphics cards, I think nVidia have achieved their evil goal.


----------



## The Von Matrices (May 14, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Perfect Price? I don't think so. The only reason GPU makers are selling GPUs for 2000 bucks is because they can. I remember with 999 seemed extreme and that's when the economy was good! Now its a deal. The R&D and MFG. has in NO WAY been increased 100% in less that 5 years. What you are seeing here is market prices from demand. I wouldn't be surprised if NVIDIA and AMD were not price fixing again. If you pay 2 grand for a GPU then you have more money than brains.



I have no disagreement that the Titan-Z (and the Titan less so) are overpriced, but you're short-sighted if you think that manufacturing costs are not increasing.  If all the reports are to be believed, for the first time in history, advanced processes (20nm and lower) are projected to have comparable or even higher costs per-transistor than the previous generation (28nm) throughout their entire life cycles.  That means if you double the number of transistors on your 20nm GPU compared to the 28nm GPU, you actually have a GPU that costs nearly twice as much to manufacture.  NVidia is ahead of the trend with it's $1000 GPUs, but the increased pricing is not completely attributable to corporate greed.  I would be very surprised if AMD's next generation, high end, 20nm GPU was priced at less than $799 due to the increased manufacturing costs.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 14, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Who said anything about PC gaming? I said GAMING AS A WHOLE. Everyone is so defensive of the damn truth they don't even read and comprehend the facts when it clashes with their ideology.
> 
> How many games do you buy full price a year now Rhino? One? Maybe Two? Gaming is sickly right now. Its just a fact. Buying a shit ton of Steam Sale Winter games half of which you will never play means NOTHING. Its the Summer months of block busters. How many does ANYONE on here pay full price for on day one. Last massive debut was Titan Fall.........that game sucked yet it was revered as awesome by the rags and kiddies online. It was just a simple FPS with a low player count on a 10 year old engine......BIG F#$KING DEAL.


Well, the thing is, to be honest, there are not so many games out there worth the price they are asking. I mean, common, I payed 15$ for Counter Strike, and is still one of the most played online games out there. Also there are the MMOs, like WOW or SWTOR, which are great and people still dump on them billions/year.
Point is, there are hundreds of games released now each month, but most of them are CRAP, pure garbage, so no wonder people are not buying games anymore.


----------



## Xzibit (May 14, 2014)

Casecutter said:


> If we realize Nvidia was on a original release date of May 8th, and OEM have had their aftermarket box's readied how many of these Titian Z are sitting around in what is a "finish state"? Perhaps 1,000-2,000 units, or think of it this way possibly some 4,000 "full-fledged" perfectly good GK110! Already surface mounted in expensive PCB’s do you think Nvidia could just dump them in a land-fill… sure it's a pittance amount of money. However, that's truly self-inflicted "egg on the face", to just walk away with a full-on miss-fire, they have lemons they absolutely need find a way to make lemonade.



Release date was planned much earlier but continues to be pushed back.

Nvidia Announcing GeForce GTX TITAN Z


> If you're looking for the ultimate in gaming power, GeForce GTX TITAN Z is your card. * It arrives early April*.



ASUS Announces GTX Titan Z Dual GK110 GPU Graphics Card


> Taipei, Taiwan (*29th April, 2014*) — ASUS today announced the GTX Titan Z, a brand new high performance graphics card with dual NVIDIA® GeForce® graphics processing units (GPUs) and GPU Tweak for real-time graphics tuning. Additional features like 12GB GDDR5 memory and NVIDIA GPU Boost™ 2.0 provides users with the visual performance required for today’s cutting-edge games.



May 8th - E-Zone publishes article in e-magazine and e-tailers start listing.

KitGuru Nvidia vows to make GeForce GTX Titan Z available in coming months


> “At the very high end, we announced our newest flagship GPU, the GeForce GTX Titan Z,” said Chris Evenden, the director of investor relations at Nvidia, during a conference call with financial analysts and investors. “This is the highest performance graphics card we have ever designed. The Titan Z will please both PC enthusiasts and CUDA developers and will be available in *Q2*.”



Cards had to be shipped to AIB for their packaging well before these dates.


----------



## matar (May 14, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Perfect Price? I don't think so. The only reason GPU makers are selling GPUs for 2000 bucks is because they can. I remember with 999 seemed extreme and that's when the economy was good! Now its a deal. The R&D and MFG. has in NO WAY been increased 100% in less that 5 years. What you are seeing here is market prices from demand. I wouldn't be surprised if NVIDIA and AMD were not price fixing again. If you pay 2 grand for a GPU then you have more money than brains.


$1999 Perfect Price considering that is a dual GTX Titan black GPUs.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 14, 2014)

matar said:


> $1999 Perfect Price considering that is a dual GTX Titan black GPUs.


That's bullshit and you know it.

No video card should be sold with more than a 500$ imo. Dual GPU or otherwise. And I am talking about consumer cards not professional ones.

Remember the 4870 and 4870X2 era? Those prices were right back then. Then nVidia started to get greedy after the acquisition of Ageia and everything changed.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 14, 2014)

The Von Matrices said:


> I have no disagreement that the Titan-Z (and the Titan less so) are overpriced, but you're short-sighted if you think that manufacturing costs are not increasing.  If all the reports are to be believed, for the first time in history, advanced processes (20nm and lower) are projected to have comparable or even higher costs per-transistor than the previous generation (28nm) throughout their entire life cycles.  That means if you double the number of transistors on your 20nm GPU compared to the 28nm GPU, you actually have a GPU that costs nearly twice as much to manufacture.  NVidia is ahead of the trend with it's $1000 GPUs, but the increased pricing is not completely attributable to corporate greed.  I would be very surprised if AMD's next generation, high end, 20nm GPU was priced at less than $799 due to the increased manufacturing costs.


This.
Amazing how some people seem to think that process tech is somehow a fixed cost. 28nm wafers really only dropped in price in the latter part of last year if TSMC's financials are anything to go by. $6K per wafer (now ~ $3.5K) , with the prospect of $10K per 16nmFF/14nm is going to add somewhat to the bottom line.




[Source]


Prima.Vera said:


> That's bullshit and you know it.
> No video card should be sold with more than a 500$ imo....Remember the 4870 and 4870X2 era? Those prices were right back then.


Actual HD 4870 X2 cost : $549
So no video card should be sold for more than $500, yet the $549 price on the 4870 X2 was right??


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2014)

HumanSmoke said:


> This.
> Amazing how some people seem to think that process tech is somehow a fixed cost. 28nm wafers really only dropped in price in the latter part of last year if TSMC's financials are anything to go by. $6K per wafer (now ~ $3.5K) , with the prospect of $10K per 16nmFF/14nm is going to add somewhat to the bottom line.
> 
> 
> ...


Those increases still do not justify a 100% increase. I would guess 40% at best. Which would be in line with most market costs over the last decade of consumer goods.

This is only arguing the price perspective. Not the validity of the product. If you want to pay that cash for something fine but, its not going to make your gaming experience any better than cheaper routes. I'm not trashing on NVIDIA or AMD. I'm stating they are the only horses in the race and know it. They are pricing themselves together and its obvious.

Oh and I know all to well MFG. costs are never a fixed rate. I've been in manufacturing for over 15 years. I fully agree with you there. Costs ALWAYS increase in the long run. I question AMD and NVIDIAs inflation of them.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 14, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Those increases still do not justify a 100% increase. I would guess 40% at best.


Silicon prices certainly don't account for the escalation of the top end of the model range, but those aren't the volume markets. 'The large die GPUs will be subsidised under the encompassing fabrication contracts that produce the vast bulk of the model lines - the sub $100 OEM orientated mobile/desktop entry level graphics, and the sub-$150 discrete OEM/consumer add in board markets. These markets obviously don't see price escalation, while the overall bill of materials doesn't decrease (overwrought coolers and packaging, widespread GDDR5 usage over DDR2/3, die size not decreasing appreciably). I'd hold off on percentages until it's known how the vendors' contracts are structured with the semicon foundry. If the vendors are paying for "good die" only then per-wafer cost goes up accordingly to guarantee they meet the contract minimums- which all hinges on yields, which as far as I'm aware aren't a known quantity yet.


TheMailMan78 said:


> I question AMD and NVIDIAs inflation of them.


Undoubtedly, Nvidia and AMD have some kind of _arrangement_, no matter how informal.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 15, 2014)

HumanSmoke said:


> So no video card should be sold for more than $500, yet the $549 price on the 4870 X2 was right??



I payed 499$ straight, back in the day for it.  Then change it with a 350$ ATI HD 5870.


----------



## eroldru (May 15, 2014)

SKL_H said:


> The price tag is to much they reconsider their price it they want it to sell, but maybe nvidia will fine tune the deivers and increase its performance...



by 200%? Yeah that would make it a good buying option. But why pay twice for a lot less performance?


----------

