# NVIDIA Presents the TITAN RTX 24GB Graphics Card at $2,499



## btarunr (Dec 3, 2018)

NVIDIA today introduced NVIDIA TITAN RTX , the world's most powerful desktop GPU, providing massive performance for AI research, data science and creative applications. Driven by the new NVIDIA Turing architecture, TITAN RTX - dubbed T-Rex - delivers 130 teraflops of deep learning performance and 11 GigaRays of ray-tracing performance.

"Turing is NVIDIA's biggest advance in a decade - fusing shaders, ray tracing, and deep learning to reinvent the GPU," said Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of NVIDIA. "The introduction of T-Rex puts Turing within reach of millions of the most demanding PC users - developers, scientists and content creators."



 

 



*Ultimate PC GPU*
NVIDIA's greatest leap since the invention of the CUDA GPU in 2006 and the result of more than 10,000 engineering-years of effort, Turing features new RT Cores to accelerate ray tracing, plus new multi-precision Tensor Cores for AI training and inferencing. These two engines - along with more powerful compute and enhanced rasterization - enable capabilities that will transform the work of millions of developers, designers and artists across multiple industries.



 

 

Designed for a variety of computationally demanding applications, TITAN RTX provides an unbeatable combination of AI, real-time ray-traced graphics, next-gen virtual reality and high performance computing. It delivers: 
576 multi-precision Turing Tensor Cores, providing up to 130 teraflops of deep learning performance.
72 Turing RT Cores, delivering up to 11 GigaRays per second of real-time ray-tracing performance.
24GB of high-speed GDDR6 memory with 672GB/s of bandwidth - 2x the memory of previous-generation TITAN GPUs - to fit larger models and datasets.
100GB/s NVIDIA NVLink can pair two TITAN RTX GPUs to scale memory and compute.
Incredible performance and memory bandwidth for real-time 8K video editing.
VirtualLink port provides the performance and connectivity required by next-gen VR headsets.
*Built for AI Researchers and Deep Learning Developers*
TITAN RTX transforms the PC into a supercomputer for AI researchers and developers. TITAN RTX provides multi-precision Turing Tensor Cores for breakthrough performance from FP32, FP16, INT8 and INT4, allowing faster training and inference of neural networks. It offers twice the memory capacity of previous generation TITAN GPUs, along with NVLink to allow researchers to experiment with larger neural networks and data sets.

*Perfect for Data Scientists*
A powerful tool for data scientists, TITAN RTX accelerates data analytics with RAPIDS. RAPIDS open-source libraries integrate seamlessly with the world's most popular data science workflows to speed up machine learning.



 

 

*Content Creators Create Their Best Work*
TITAN RTX brings the power of real-time ray tracing and AI to creative applications, so 5 million PC-based creators can iterate faster. It also delivers the computational horsepower and memory bandwidth needed for real-time 8K video editing.



 

 

 

*Available This Month*
TITAN RTX will be available later this month in the U.S. and Europe for $2,499.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## btarunr (Dec 3, 2018)

ROFL

+5% performance over 2080 Ti for +150% price.


----------



## Noztra (Dec 3, 2018)

"Driven by the new NVIDIA Turing™ architecture, TITAN RTX — dubbed T-Rex "

Hahahahahaha.


----------



## diatribe (Dec 3, 2018)

Well that's what happens when you have a monopoly.  I say the government needs to step in a chop nVidia into multiple companies like they have in the past with other monopolies.


----------



## Noztra (Dec 3, 2018)

btarunr - It's not a gaming card....


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 3, 2018)

ELEVEN GIGA RAYS boys. Get in line. +6 FPS in BFV @ 1080p!

This one literally goes up to eleven!


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 3, 2018)

Actually I am surprised they chose to put 24 GB in this. I guess you can only get so far in pushing that exponential price increase without any added value.



diatribe said:


> I say the government needs to step in a chop nVidia into multiple companies like they have in the past with other monopolies.



The government shouldn't do anything about it. I've always said it, the market is mostly self regulated.


----------



## legoliveira (Dec 3, 2018)

Less than 2500 USD? That's not cheap... but I'll give it a try!


----------



## Cheeseball (Dec 3, 2018)

It's not worth the price if you're just going to game with this thing.


----------



## Emanulele (Dec 3, 2018)

Is the shroud of the heatsink actual solid gold? (serious question)


----------



## windwhirl (Dec 3, 2018)

Well, if they are going to call it T-Rex, I hope someone will throw an asteroid at it.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Dec 3, 2018)

diatribe said:


> Well that's what happens when you have a monopoly.  I say the government needs to step in a chop nVidia into multiple companies like they have in the past with other monopolies.


Do you think government should be stepping in to regulate the prices of phones after all those iphones are over $1000 now, cant be allowing that right? The price of filet mignon? The price of diamonds? Oh, we should have the government break up mercedes, they have a monopoly on luxury RWD wagons. And dont forget coca-cola, they should be broken up too, they have a monopoly on coca cola after all!

We do not need governments regulating luxuries, we are not a communist society. The whole point of luxuries is that people with money can afford them. There is an argument to be had that the ever rising price of luxury GPUs is cranking the price on the rest, but there is an equally valid counterargument that this is only the result of a single GPU manufacturer being on top, if AMD were competitive prices would be no higher then the FERMI era. Nvidia GPUs are luxury items that currently have 0 competition, of course the prices are going to be ridiculous. That doesnt mean we need the government breaking the company up. Nvidia GPUs are luxuries, they are not necessary for life, your life is not negatively impacted by not having a titan GPU.


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 3, 2018)

Noztra said:


> btarunr - It's not a gaming card....



So right you are. It's a card that one can game, but so is Quadros. Well even new piece has no single world about gaming and still only thing people care about is gaming performance difference to very expensive Geforce card.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Dec 3, 2018)

btarunr said:


> ROFL
> 
> +5% performance over 2080 Ti for +150% price.



how much price of tesla v100? do they sacrifice tesla card?
576 multi-precision Turing Tensor Cores, providing up to 130 teraflops of deep learning performance.






I just feel pity to people/university/corporate who own tesla based HPC.


----------



## diatribe (Dec 3, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> The government shouldn't do anything about it. I've always said it, the market is mostly self regulated.



The market can't self-regulate Monopolies or Oligopolies than conspire to price fix.


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 3, 2018)

legoliveira said:


> Less than 2500 USD? That's not cheap... but I'll give it a try!



It can do nvlink, buy two and the link only for $5077.99


----------



## Robcostyle (Dec 3, 2018)

OH NO! Now 2080 Ti won't be the most powerfull GPU! What are we 2080 ti owners gonna do?! 

ROFL, nice job, fanboys. Retardish maserrace lead to titans being priced as the whole top-tier PC, from now, on. 
Keep buying this stuff at that prices - I beleive in you, make huang release Titan $$$ for 10000$!

P.S. However, I beleive, there's still decent amount of smart users - otherwise, it should have been released at 5000$ mark.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Dec 3, 2018)

diatribe said:


> The market can't self-regulate Monopolies or Oligopolies than conspire to price fix.


You do not need governments regulating luxuries. Once you start doing that, the luxury companies refuse to service said market, and the citizens get pissed.

Big government isnt going to fix all of your problems. Sometimes you just have to say "im not going to buy that" and move on. If you are referring to the RAM situation, guess what, regulation didnt fix that, fines did! The US didnt start regulating the price of RAM magically, the RAM manufacturers were investigated and fined for price fixing.

There is none of that here. Nvidia is charging what it is because there is 0 competition. AMD cant compete with the 2080, or 2080ti, or titan RX. Even saying vega 64 is competitive with RTX 2070 is stretching it. So prices go up. It's no different then mercedes and their G-wagon, they have no real competition and thus the price is very high. You want lower GPU prices? Tell AMD to get off of their butts and make a new architecture FFS.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 3, 2018)

SIGSEGV said:


> how much price of tesla v100? do they sacrifice tesla card?
> 576 multi-precision Turing Tensor Cores, providing up to 130 teraflops of deep learning performance.
> 
> View attachment 111756
> ...



How so? That segment is the only one getting a meaningful upgrade this generation. They should be happy, their TFLOPS actually got cheaper! On the gamer side, the opposite is true.


----------



## Kissamies (Dec 3, 2018)

I guess that those deep web marketplaces will be full of kidneys..


----------



## btarunr (Dec 3, 2018)

SIGSEGV said:


> how much price of tesla v100? do they sacrifice tesla card?
> 576 multi-precision Turing Tensor Cores, providing up to 130 teraflops of deep learning performance.
> 
> View attachment 111756
> ...



Those have FP64 cores which this card lacks.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 3, 2018)

diatribe said:


> The market can't self-regulate Monopolies or Oligopolies than conspire to price fix.



This has nothing to do with price fixing, the government should not intervene just because some company releases some absurdly high priced product, case closed. The consumers will decided if that's fine or not with their wallet. If you feel like that is the issue then take it to your friends and tell them to self-regulate their pockets.

And by the way Nvidia has done far, far worse things which were on the line of being outright illegal that genuinely hurt the industry. Those should be a concern to you not this.



btarunr said:


> Those have FP64 cores which this card lacks.



They all have FP64 cores, not all of them are enabled to the same ratio as the rest of the ALU within the SM though.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 3, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> They all have FP64 cores, not all of them are enabled to the same ratio as the rest of the ALU within the SM though.



TITAN RTX has a grand total of 144 FP64 cores (negligible if your application really needs it). Tesla V100 has 2,560 FP64 cores.


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 3, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> This has nothing to do with price fixing, the government should not intervene just because some company releases some absurdly high priced product, case closed. The consumers will decided if that's fine or not with their wallet. If you feel like that is the issue then take it to your friends and tell them to self-regulate their pockets.
> 
> And by the way Nvidia has done far, far worse things which were on the line of being outright illegal that genuinely hurt the industry. Those should be a concern to you not this.
> 
> They all have FP64 cores, not all of them are enabled though.



Titan RTX has all the fp64 cores enabled that tu102 chip has. You can't enable something that does not physically exists.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 3, 2018)

btarunr said:


> TITAN RTX has a grand total of 0 FP64 cores.



That is incorrect, TU102 has FP64 cores , which is the same chip the 2080ti is also based on. Unless of course Nvdia went of their way to disable all of them but leave them on the rest of the RTX line ? Even my 1060 has FP64 capability.



jabbadap said:


> Titan RTX has all the fp64 cores enabled that tu102 chip has.



That's what I am saying.

Edit:



btarunr said:


> TITAN RTX has a grand total of 144 FP64 cores



Well, so it's not 0 thanks. It's not negligible, a couple of hundred GFLOPs are still a lot compared to most CPUs out there when it comes to double precision floating point arithmetic.


----------



## XXL_AI (Dec 3, 2018)

btarunr said:


> ROFL
> 
> +5% performance over 2080 Ti for +150% price.



try to use GTX/RTX level normal GPU for extensive workload such as deep learning training or machine learning analysis for a long, LONG time. then you'll see the difference.

I have 2 Titan X Pascals and they've been running for 1 year non-stop at fullpower for training and other simulations. no issues whatsoever but normal GTX 1080 failed within 4 months.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Dec 3, 2018)

btarunr said:


> TITAN RTX has a grand total of 144 FP64 cores (negligible if your application really needs it). Tesla V100 has 2,560 FP64 cores.



holy moly, that's really negligible. This post really makes me ROFL. seriously


----------



## Wavetrex (Dec 3, 2018)

Welcome to the birth of the ultimate monopoly.







2025 - nVidia buys Intel and TSMC
2030-2034 - nVintel buys what's left of Apple, IBM and other silicon companies
2035 - the megacorporation renames into NV-OCP
2042 - the NV-OCP builds and deploys an army of robotic police to keep protesting citizens in check
2048 - All world governments are being paid off by the hypercorporation.
2050 - ... and disbanded, leaving NV-OCP as the sole owner of the entire planet, using their AI machines to enslave everybody.

Please, keep buying video cards from nVidia in 2019 !


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2018)

It was over what I thought ($2K) but that was also based on the thread that a user put out a few days ago with 12GB vRAM, etc.

Interesting that its priced LOWER than the Titan V. According to AT TU102 is cheaper to make than that due to not using HBM (among other things). 

Anandtech has a lot more details and is an informative, not biased read (not that this read is bias, just canned PR) - https://www.anandtech.com/show/13668/nvidia-unveils-rtx-titan-2500-top-turing


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 3, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> It was over what I thought ($2K) but that was also based on the thread that a user put out a few days ago with 12GB vRAM, etc.
> 
> Interesting that its priced LOWER than the Titan V. According to AT TU102 is cheaper to make than that due to not using HBM (among other things).
> 
> Anandtech has a lot more details and is an informative, not biased read (not that this read is bias, just canned PR) - https://www.anandtech.com/show/13668/nvidia-unveils-rtx-titan-2500-top-turing



Given the die sizes that seems logical, too. 754 vs 815 mm2. Handicapped DP performance. Only a slight bump in Tensor perf. 2.5B less transistors.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2018)

It sure beats the sky high pricing other people guessed in that thread!


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 3, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> It sure beats the sky high pricing other people guessed in that thread!



I think thats a case of 'its over 1K so all bets are off anyway'. But there is actually a method to the madness...


----------



## TheOne (Dec 3, 2018)

At least it's $500 cheaper than the last Titan.


----------



## B-Real (Dec 3, 2018)

2500$, HAHAHAHA.



XXL_AI said:


> try to use GTX/RTX level normal GPU for extensive workload such as deep learning training or machine learning analysis for a long, LONG time. then you'll see the difference.
> 
> I have 2 Titan X Pascals and they've been running for 1 year non-stop at fullpower for training and other simulations. no issues whatsoever but normal GTX 1080 failed within 4 months.



Knowing how faster RTX cards are than Pascals, maybe a 30% increase in workloads for 2500$ is ....


----------



## ShockG (Dec 3, 2018)

btarunr said:


> ROFL
> 
> +5% performance over 2080 Ti for +150% price.


2017 Nissan GTR Pure is ~ $101K
2017 Nisasan GTR Nismo ~ $177K
2017 Nissan GTR GT3 ~ $550K

You see this exact thing in the performance/super car market. From the pure model to the GT3, the difference in performance is literally 5% or there about and what's the price hike?
Car enthusiasts are almost never occupied with this argument, yet there are fewer people who can afford a $101K car vs. a $2500 USD GPU.  

Now consider as well, that the GTR, in any shape is not the fastest Hyper/Super car there is. Compare that with the TITAN RTX which is literally the fastest GPU money can buy or has ever existed. 

That's the nice thing about life in general, if you want something and have the money, you buy it. If you think the price is too much, you simply do not buy it. Nobody is forcing anyone to have an RTX GPU at any price. Even better, the introduction of a TITAN RTX doesn't make anybody else's TITAN GPU magically slower, you have the same performance you had yesterday at the price you thought was fair. 

Not sure if it's a sense of entitlement on PC DIY 'enthusiasts' side, or just something beyond my ken,  either way, it is curious for sure.


----------



## Daven (Dec 3, 2018)

On a slightly different note, all of these high end 2000 series releases in such a short time makes me think that Nvidia is going to support the non-RTX mainstream and budget markets with the 1000 series. It was rumored that 2000 series below the RTX 2070 would not support ray-tracing so it would stand to reason that Nvidia will try to clear inventory and support the 1050/1060/1070/1080 as their low end simultaneously with the 2070/2080/2080 Ti/Titan RTX. Hopefully that might come with price cuts on the 1000 series cards.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2018)

I recall reading somewhere they stopped producing the 1080Ti already........but nothing was confirmed. It was speculation.

If you look around, you'd notice that the whole lot of 1000 series cards prices are up, particularly the 1080Ti which is now no cheaper than $1100 on newegg... where it was like ~$800 give or take a bit pre RTX release.


----------



## TheOne (Dec 3, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> It sure beats the sky high pricing other people guessed in that thread!



I guessed between $2000 - $4000, what do I win, also most seemed to guess $3000, which seems reasonable given Titan V, much more realistic than below $2000.


----------



## phill (Dec 3, 2018)

Damn, I was $1 out.....


----------



## bogami (Dec 3, 2018)

I was expecting a $ 1,500 price, come 2550$ (in europa will be 3000€) conjunction with a very well-known overkill evaluation based on the 2080ti . ill said !"overestimated"! And they are  wealthy people who do not know how hard it is to earn thet much and there are some buzzing about the real price here. Most people who make reviews just mention too high a price, but the rest of the bad product is muted, I would say they are doing more advertising then reviews !  The reality is completely lost ! Many do not see the purpose of this processor's  constructions  ! Where the GPU is in the last place !
Cards are bad full of bugs!! Trash is sold to us! The processor is not completely cut out properly in moust cards. So those who do not know how nVidia robs ppl with price for useless products and it's called: hay end! They have not worked in life yet. nGridia would be fighting name  for nVidia !


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 3, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> I recall reading somewhere they stopped producing the 1080Ti already........but nothing was confirmed. It was speculation.
> 
> If you look around, you'd notice that the whole lot of 1000 series cards prices are up, particularly the 1080Ti which is now no cheaper than $1100 on newegg... where it was like ~$800 give or take a bit pre RTX release.



Pascals are on hold because of over stock from Crypto-hangover. Not necessary gtx1080ti though, but I don't think Nvidia is very keen to make those anymore. Granted making gp102s does not take valuable resources from RTX line manufacturing(16nm, gddr5x etc.). But is it really wise to compete with itself, when they really need growing market share for RT cards to make it take off.


----------



## xorbe (Dec 3, 2018)

All the pent up deep pocket demand already bought 2080 Ti cards.  Even if it had been $1500 it's too late for any to be interested, imho.  At $2500 only those with a true need for 24GB will buy.


----------



## a.Cyg (Dec 3, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Actually I am surprised they chose to put 24 GB in this. I guess you can only get so far in pushing that exponential price increase without any added value.
> 
> 
> 
> The government shouldn't do anything about it. I've always said it, the market is mostly self regulated.



Competition only works when you have a buying force with common sense. Companies have mostly overcame that nowadays. People are more mindless with their money, worship brands and would pay whatever amount they ask for. Look at Nike, Apple, Nvidia, Intel, etc.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Dec 3, 2018)

I am not even stressing about this anymore, it is what it is...AMD nowhere near the performance so no competition so these numbers are not that shocking anymore. Maybe when Intel steps in we will see a change or who knows maybe 2019 will be AMD's year )


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> Pascals are on hold because of over stock from Crypto-hangover. Not necessary gtx1080ti though, but I don't think Nvidia is very keen to make those anymore. Granted making gp102s does not take valuable resources from RTX line manufacturing(16nm, gddr5x etc.). But is it really wise to compete with itself, when they really need growing market share for RT cards to make it take off.


That may be part of it... but these weren't exactly good for mining in the first place... so how much does that really matter?

If there was a lot of supply as you seem to be alluding to, then the price should be lower... it isn't though. Demand is high...but so are the prices now. 



a.Cyg said:


> Competition only works when you have a buying force with common sense. Companies have mostly overcame that nowadays. People are more mindless with their money, worship brands and would pay whatever amount they ask for. Look at Nike, Apple, Nvidia, Intel, etc.


If only there was actually competition though... There isn't in that space. I also disagree that a lot of it is about brand 'worship'. Judging from the incessant complaining about pricing from the forums, one would think the majority of users would go AMD due to its price to performance ratio that some loooooooooooove to follow. But anything faster than a 1080, there isn't anything in that space. That doesn't say much for the price of the lower end 1000 series compared to V56/65 or the rehash of a rehash 590...though I am sure my point is clear. 


Liviu Cojocaru said:


> I am not even stressing about this anymore, it is what it is...AMD nowhere near the performance so no competition so these numbers are not that shocking anymore. Maybe when Intel steps in we will see a change or who knows maybe 2019 will be AMD's year )


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Dec 3, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> If only there was actually competition though... There isn't in that space.


Yep...


----------



## btarunr (Dec 3, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Well, so it's not 0 thanks. It's not negligible, a couple of hundred GFLOPs are still a lot compared to most CPUs out there when it comes to double precision floating point arithmetic.



Who said anything about CPU? Would you buy four TITAN RTX cards for $10,000 (4x 144 = 576 FP64 cores), or one Tesla V100 for the same price (2560 FP64 cores)?


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Dec 3, 2018)

why bother complaining to the govt when they do not put regulations on tech? You want it to grow? then don't consider or impose federal regulations! This is the "beauty" of the free market. Also, lack of heated competition = free kickbacks to those who claimed their products are deemed "very good" over their competitors who sells similar products. FYI, This full-fat TU102 core based GPU having a $2500 price tag is nowhere as expensive as the GTX Titan Volta... and that $3k card isn't fast enough against Turing in real-time ray tracing. Also, no one is telling you to go out & buy one now just because your still working Pascal or Maxwell cards are "slower"... Everything in this world has a price. Either we suck it up or go complain at your friends/S.O for the little things just because we were too stupid burning our pockets at overpriced phones, cars we can't pay on time etc.


----------



## willace (Dec 3, 2018)

Robcostyle said:


> OH NO! Now 2080 Ti won't be the most powerfull GPU! What are we 2080 ti owners gonna do?!
> 
> ROFL, nice job, fanboys. Retardish maserrace lead to titans being priced as the whole top-tier PC, from now, on.
> Keep buying this stuff at that prices - I beleive in you, make huang release Titan $$$ for 10000$!
> ...




Well, I was expecting it to be $5000 and up, so pretty sure  a year later, we will get a "Titan T" that is $5000.


----------



## Mistral (Dec 3, 2018)

Is it as reliable as the other cards in the RTX series?


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 3, 2018)

Liviu Cojocaru said:


> I am not even stressing about this anymore, it is what it is...AMD nowhere near the performance so no competition so these numbers are not that shocking anymore.



May I point out how the 1000$ Titan brand was introduced 5 years ago ? And how the 8800 Ultra who was also nearly 1000$ ,5 years prior ? Surely within that time span AMD was at least a couple of times competitive, so what gives ? Competition *does not drive prices down by it self*, this has been proven time and time again, just look at the history of every industry out there. Take smartphones, the competition there is insane yet what do you know, we also got 1000$ phones.

This 1k$ figure shows up a lot it seems, why do you think that is ? It's because of the competition ? Nah, it's because of your wallet. Matter of the fact is AMD could come out with a card 10x faster , if they price it the same as Nvdia,* it will sell. *Because currently, that's the buying power of those types of customers.

Companies do not compete for who has the best product or who sells most products or who can sell them for cheapest, they ultimately compete *for who can have the biggest profits. *



btarunr said:


> Who said anything about CPU? Would you buy four TITAN RTX cards for $10,000 (4x 144 = 576 FP64 cores), or one Tesla V100 for the same price (2560 FP64 cores)?



That's not the point of what I said. ~500 GFLOPS of DP is still a lot extra compute performance should you need it, it's not as useless as you may think it is. Of course there are cards out here with more DP performance.


----------



## unikin (Dec 3, 2018)

I was looking forward to release of Titan RTX hoping to get some cheaper 64-bit double precision math performance out of it and now this: *Titan RTX = 0.51 TFLOPS Double Precision FP64*, my old Titan V is giving me *6.9 TFLOPS* FP64! This is a huge downgrade for anyone doing math modeling. Yet another NVidias' product segmentation. They deliberately crippled double precision performance on Titan RTX. The only current choice remaining for us pro users is Tesla V100 with $10K price tag. I paid $8.5K for triple Titan V GPUs giving me nearly 21 TFLOPS of FP64 and I'd have to pay $30K for 21 FP64 performance now. Where is the logic in that? NVidia has gone completely loco with pricing. When my Titans V die on me I'll go for AMD VEGA Instinct MI60 if price is more normal. If not, I'm f...ed.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> snip


AMD has always been competitive in the price to performance market, but not so much in that high-end space. I think their $1500 flagship (r9 295x2) was the last thing they had in the high end space... and that was a dual GPU solution using 500W of power. The 8800 Ultra debuted with an MSRP of $829. I suppose 18% off of $1000 is 'nearly' (as in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear war... close enough). The 290x out of the box was 13% slower than a 780 Ti without using its 'uber' mode and 8% with it (according to TPU review of 780Ti). That, IIRC, was about the closest they came in those 10 years.

Competition is in fact one variable which can (but not always) drives prices down (the absolute nature of you words make that passage incorrect). Another variable about pricing is what the market supports (as you said). If there is zero competition at that performance segment and the market supports it.. guess what.... we have pricey cards. But it isn't a case of the chicken or the egg.



unikin said:


> I was looking forward to release of Titan RTX hoping to get some cheaper 64-bit double precision math performance out of it and now this: *Titan RTX = 0.51 TFLOPS Double Precision FP64*, my old Titan V is giving me *6.9 TFLOPS* FP64! This is a huge downgrade for anyone doing math modeling. Yet another NVidias' product segmentation. They deliberately crippled double precision performance on Titan RTX. The only current choice remaining for us pro users is Tesla V100 with $10K price tag. I paid $8.5K for triple Titan V GPUs giving me nearly 21 TFLOPS of FP64 and I'd have to pay $30K for 21 FP64 performance now. Where is the logic in that? NVidia has gone completely loco with pricing. When my Titans V die on me I'll go for AMD VEGA Instinct MI60 if price is more normal. If not, I'm f...ed.


What about the DP performance on the RTX Quadros? Are those any different?


----------



## Konceptz (Dec 3, 2018)

btarunr said:


> NVIDIA's greatest leap since the invention of the CUDA GPU in 2006 and the result of more than 10,000 engineering-years of effort,




Wait, what? 10,000 years!?!?!


----------



## unikin (Dec 3, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> What about the DP performance on the RTX Quadros? Are those any different?



I don't know because they are not out yet. RTX 8000 will have 8 TFLOPs with $10K price tag, maybe RTX 6000 will be an option with the same TFLOPs perf selling for $6.3K on preorders. But we're still talking about 107 % price increase for 12 % more performance. Titan V has been poor mans' Quadro and Nvidia probably doesn't like it, that's why they decided to cripple Titan line.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2018)

Konceptz said:


> Wait, what? 10,000 years!?!?!


If there were 10 engineers who put in 1000 hours on the card. Yes. That passage is written properly.



unikin said:


> I don't know because they are not out yet. RTX 8000 will have 8 TFLOPs with $10K price tag, maybe RTX 6000 will be an option with the same TFLOPs perf selling for $6.3K on preorders. But we're still talking about 107 % price increase for 12 % more performance. Titan V has been poor mans' Quadro and Nvidia probably doesn't like it, that's why they decided to cripple Titan line.


I'm just wondering about the RTX 5000 for $2300. If that is, say 2 TFLOPS, perhaps it can be a viable option? I don't know.


----------



## Konceptz (Dec 3, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> If there were 10 engineers who put in 1000 hours on the card. Yes. That passage is written properly.



LOL I was like huh? I know i'm sleep deprived but....


----------



## unikin (Dec 3, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> I'm just wondering about the RTX 2000 or w/e for $2300. If that is, say 2 TFLOPS, perhaps it can be a viable option? I don't know.



I need at least 20 TFLOPS per comp for modeling unfortunately and even this is on the slow side when you have client's deadlines to catch. 3 Titans V per computer are OK. We have 17 such PCs in our offices, so I'm looking at $320K instead of $150K investment when Titans start dying.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 3, 2018)

Konceptz said:


> Wait, what? 10,000 years!?!?!



Yeah that reads like engineering years are dog's years or something


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2018)

unikin said:


> I need at least 20 TFLOPS per comp for modeling unfortunately and even this is on the slow side when you have client's deadlines to catch. 3 Titans V per computer are OK. We have 17 such PCs in our offices, so I'm looking at $320K instead of $150K investment when Titans start dying.


Further market segmentation FTL. 

EDIT: That FP64 though... literally is the only place where its slower than the Titan V (right?)...


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 3, 2018)

Konceptz said:


> Wait, what? 10,000 years!?!?!



Well i.e. thousand engineers tackling with the task for ten years makes it 10 000 engineering-years.


----------



## diatribe (Dec 3, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Yeah that reads like engineering years are dog's years or something



Work Year = ~ 2,080 work hours

10,000 * 2,080 
= 10,000 work years 
OR 
20,800,000 hours.


----------



## unikin (Dec 3, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Further market segmentation FTL.
> 
> EDIT: That FP64 though... literally is the only place where its slower than the Titan V (right?)...



Yet very important one. Unfortunately the accuracy of double precision compute is a must in precise physics modelling. If you can get away  with FP16, FP32 compute precision Titan RTX will be slightly better than Titan V, but as I said most physics simulation&modelling or high accuracy financial computation require capable FP64 GPUs nowdays.

Btw: FP64 : FP32 ratio is very, very low on Titan RTX. Usual ratio lies between 1:2 and 1:3, Titan RTX has abysmal 1:32 ratio almost exactly as 3yo Quadro M6000. One more proof of deliberate market segmentation.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 3, 2018)

unikin said:


> high accuracy financial computation require capable FP64 GPUs nowdays.



You'd never ever want to use floating point be it even of double precision for financial applications. Even if you would, CPUs would better serve these types of applications anyway due to the sequential nature of operations that need to be performed.



unikin said:


> Unfortunately the accuracy of double precision compute is a must in precise physics modelling.



For some, sure, but most of the time you can get away with FP32 if you are careful enough to craft numerically stable algorithms. DP simply hasn't been of great focus, after all it was only with the development of Kepler and GCN that this features was even added.


----------



## unikin (Dec 3, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> You'd never ever want to use floating point be it even of double precision for financial applications. Even if you would, CPUs would better serve these types of applications anyway due to the sequential nature of operations that need to be performed.
> 
> For some, sure, but most of the time you can get away with FP32 if you are careful enough to craft numerically stable algorithms. DP simply hasn't been of great focus, after all it was only with the development of Kepler and GCN that this features was even added.



We mostly work on turbulent flow models (fluid dynamics) and we always use double precision when modeling except when data sets won’t fit in memory with double precision, algorithm does so little arithmetic that it is bandwidth limited or where we are able to use the vector hardware and single precision (16 singles in parallel instead of 8 doubles). I never worked as financial modeler, but I do read double precision is used there too.


----------



## TheOne (Dec 3, 2018)

With the announcement and release of the Titan RTX before the 2060, and with the 2060 most likely using the price point of the xx70's $350-450, this series is meant for the high end market and not the majority of gamers, which will make RT adoption slow, but at least now PhysX is open source.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 3, 2018)

unikin said:


> but I do read double precision is used there too.



Sparingly, at best. Too many issues with rounding, questionable arbitrary conditioning and loss of money after certain repeated calculations. Fixed point (64 bit integer) reigns king.


----------



## efikkan (Dec 3, 2018)

People need to stop complaining about the price of Titan cards, and if you don't get the point of the card, it's not meant for you!

This is not a sign of lacking competition; even AMD have their counterpart "Vega Frontier Edition", priced at double the price of Vega 64. These are cards meant for developers and researchers, not for gamers. Also remember, these cards have limited availability in the market. Partners don't necessarily pay this price when getting these cards.


----------



## Gasaraki (Dec 3, 2018)

diatribe said:


> Well that's what happens when you have a monopoly.  I say the government needs to step in a chop nVidia into multiple companies like they have in the past with other monopolies.



WTF are you on about? What is nVidia a monopoly of? The gpu market? Cause they are not the market leader. Just because they release something you can't afford, doesn't make them a monopoly. OMG I can't afford that new 8K 70" TV. What a monopoly, break them up.    /s


----------



## Sandbo (Dec 3, 2018)

SIGSEGV said:


> how much price of tesla v100? do they sacrifice tesla card?
> 576 multi-precision Turing Tensor Cores, providing up to 130 teraflops of deep learning performance.
> 
> View attachment 111756
> ...


Tesla is still worth it for DP, just not HP anymore.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 3, 2018)

So, Quadro price for GeForce performance.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 3, 2018)

diatribe said:


> Well that's what happens when you have a monopoly.  I say the government needs to step in a chop nVidia into multiple companies like they have in the past with other monopolies.



I would not say we're there yet.  We're certainly treading dangerous turf though.


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 3, 2018)

Would be nice for our collaboration lab to have one of these in addition to the (now dated) 1950X


----------



## XXL_AI (Dec 3, 2018)

B-Real said:


> 2500$, HAHAHAHA.
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing how faster RTX cards are than Pascals, maybe a 30% increase in workloads for 2500$ is ....



its not about %30 increase on general computing performance, it's about what we can do with other cores while training the dataset.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 3, 2018)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> You do not need governments regulating luxuries.



You do if they truly are a monopoly.  Even luxuries can suffer from predatory pricing and computers aren't really a "luxery" anymore (though a Titan certainly is).

AMD still makes mainstreamish grade GPUs though.  Saying this is like the AT&T monopoly is to massively overstate the situation.



Tsukiyomi91 said:


> why bother complaining to the govt when they do not put regulations on tech?



Because they do?  Case in point, Microsoft has been bitch slapped by the USA several times in the past.  Even moreso in the EU...


----------



## enya64 (Dec 3, 2018)

So surely for $2500 this card can use ray tracing at 4K (now that 4K is mainstream with 65 inch HDR TVs under $900) with at least 30 fps, right? Hurry up with an answer. My banker is on the other line asking if I am serious about opening this Home Equity Line of Credit.

Wait what do you mean "no but 1440p at almost 22fps may now be possible"? Will they be defective like the number of 2080ti, 2080, and 2070 cards that blue screened or artifacted in the first 2 months?

Wait, did you just suggest buying 2 of these for $5000 to see how high I can get with 1440p? Sure...


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2018)

enya64 said:


> So surely for $2500 this card can use ray tracing at 4K (now that 4K is mainstream with 65 inch HDR TVs under $900) with at least 30 fps, right? Hurry up with an answer. My banker is on the other line asking if I am serious about opening this Home Equity Line of Credit.
> 
> Wait what do you mean "no but 1440p at almost 22fps may now be possible"? Will they be defective like the number of 2080ti, 2080, and 2070 cards that blue screened or artifacted in the first 2 months?
> 
> Wait, did you just suggest buying 2 of these for $5000 to see how high I can get with 1440p? Sure...




4K isn't mainstream for PC monitors in appropriate sizes...less than 2% of users have one (says steam stats).

Perhaps you can go take a look at this thread for some up to date news on its RT performance: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-performance-patch-up-to-50-fps-gains.250201/

You also have no idea how many cards have had issues. But you also must have missed the part about GN saying AIBs % were extremely low at that time (when people posted of issues) and NVIDIA said it wasn't higher than normal. Some of the issues were also situation specific and resolved with driver updates. The reality is, we have no idea. But I can tell you if it was a rampant issue, we would have seen A LOT more unhappy people than we did. Also, if you believe in the theory that the memory IC was the problem (I don't, few in the know seem to think so) they have also started using samsung along with the micron chips.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 3, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> So, Quadro price for GeForce performance.



Not really, but it certainly puts all "future proof" AMD hardware to bed.


----------



## OneCool (Dec 3, 2018)

Finally!!! I need too sli 2 of these so I can play Q-Bert @ 480i!!!


----------



## gmn 17 (Dec 4, 2018)

500 cheaper than titan v nice
Any fp64 performance numbers?


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 4, 2018)

gmn 17 said:


> 500 cheaper than titan v nice
> Any fp64 performance numbers?



White paper on Turing is



			
				Nvidia said:
			
		

> The FP64 TFLOP rate is *1/32nd* the TFLOP rate of FP32 operations. The small number of FP64 hardware units are included to ensure any programs with FP64 code operates correctly.


----------



## enya64 (Dec 4, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> 4K isn't mainstream for PC monitors in appropriate sizes...less than 2% of users have one (says steam stats).
> 
> Perhaps you can go take a look at this thread for some up to date news on its RT performance: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-performance-patch-up-to-50-fps-gains.250201/
> 
> You also have no idea how many cards have had issues. But you also must have missed the part about GN saying AIBs % were extremely low at that time (when people posted of issues) and NVIDIA said it wasn't higher than normal. Some of the issues were also situation specific and resolved with driver updates. The reality is, we have no idea. But I can tell you if it was a rampant issue, we would have seen A LOT more unhappy people than we did. Also, if you believe in the theory that the memory IC was the problem (I don't, few in the know seem to think so) they have also started using samsung along with the micron chips.



So your response is A) most pc gamers are using less than 4k displays, B) the RTX defective rate isn't wide spread or in the margin of error, and C) an untested RT press release about today's driver update/patch negates the still lack of performance using RT features.

A) Maybe I'm in the small percentage of pc gamers, but since HDMI became the standard for displays nearly a decade ago I've been using HDTVs instead of computer monitors because of the larger screen size. Nearly all the PC gamers I know use high refresh rate 4k HDR  HDTVs and and have dropped the standard pc monitor ages ago. Out of a few hundred pc gamers I personally know only 2 use 3 computer monitors for the novelty of multi monitor gaming.  Most of us have traded in our computer desk for a couch, wireless keyboard and mouse, and a Xbox One controller. But steam stats may be a reason to think otherwise I guess. 

B) If you think the faulty rate of RTX cards is in the manufacturing margin of error, there's a few tech sources to get you up to speed. On youtube: Gamer's Nexus (who received tons of faulty RTX cards to diagnose within two weeks during the first month of launch), Joker Productions (whose  2070 just died this week), Jayz2Cents, UFD Tech, Hardware Unboxed, etc. It was so bad that Nvidia themselves had to finally acknowledge it publicly and offer replacements after weeks of reported failures. You do realize we are still in the first 2 months since launch, right? There are nearly as many faulty/defective RTX videos on Youtube as there are RTX benchmarking videos.

C) The new of the performance gain via driver that came not even a few hours ago is an Nvidia press release. You seem savvy enough to realize that until you see actual benchmarks not to hang your hat on info in a press release.  If we could believe everything a company says about its own product RTX would "just work" Jensen 2018.

Hope that helps.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

enya64 said:


> snip


A. Yes, most PC gamers are.
1. I don't know a soul who does that... larger than 32" on a desk is obnoxious!
2. And I would bet GOOD money says most PC gamers are at a desk and not on a couch 12' away from their 65" 4K UHD TV.  Only 2 or 3  people (you know) use PC monitors of HUNDREDS? I doubt that.
3. Steam Stats



B. Yep. Its close enough that this isn't some epidemic like many, including yourself have made it out to be.,
1. GN received like 5-7 cards when they did their testing (they said that in their video)... was it more, later? You do realize I said Gamers Nexus (the GN in my previous post) said those failure numbers, right? If you trust them enough to use them yourself as a supporting argument, you should trust them the same when I cite them as well.
2. NVIDIA replaces all failed cards anyway (without physical damage)... that isn't anything new.
3. Everyone complains more than they praise. 10s of thousands of these were sold. I bet a couple/few percent were bad (hundreds!)... but, a couple/few percent is around the average.

C. Of course I wouldn't hang my hat on it, but they listed the settings and had short movie clips showing these improvements. Surely they could have cherry picked it, but from what we saw in the videos (live shots with FPS counters) so far, they are pretty accurate in those. Here is to hoping its close, but, yeah, I believe it will be close enough to what they said and for these to now be playable as they say.


----------



## enya64 (Dec 4, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> snip



So what you are saying is...you disagree. Cool.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

Yes, but with a bit more updated information left on the table for those to make an educated opinion with.


----------



## enya64 (Dec 4, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> snip




But looking at your screenshot the gpu is the GTX1060. Of course the resolution used would be lower that 4k on most instances. Just as the resolution would be mostly 1440p with a 1080 and 4k with a 1080ti. Those hundreds of pc gamers that have migrated from the computer desk to the couch have 4k capable gpus that can use the 4k HDR TVs.

As far as Gamers Nexus is concerned, in the 1st video regarding the faulty cards he had about 5 RTX cards. In that same video he gave an invite to send more cards to narrow down the problem. In the followup video he had a LOT more because so many cards were going bad. Nearly every major tech Youtube channel had a faulty card on hand. That is not normal, and I've been buying gpus since 2002.

Lastly we can all hope that these drivers can improve the unrealized value we were sold with the RTX series. Patience goes a long way, but if we wait too long and keep trying to justify the unwarranted and absorbent cost of the RTX series, the next generation of cards will be here to fulfill those promises properly. Let's wait for some independent benching to see how much ground Nvidia has made up with this driver.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

enya64 said:


> But looking at your screenshot the gpu is the GTX1060. Of course the resolution used would be lower that 4k on most instances. Just as the resolution would be mostly 1440p with a 1080 and 4k with a 1080ti. Those hundreds of pc gamers that have migrated from the computer desk to the couch have 4k capable gpus that can use the 4k HDR TVs.


Makes sense... its the most popular selling card for NVIDIA... its a sweetspot of cost and performance on that side of the fence. And of course it doesn't do 4K... neither does a 1070, nor does any AMD GPU outside of the V64 (60 fps ultra/high settings). Point here is, which you just solidified my point actually, is that not many can afford the performance of a 1080Ti or V64 with 4K UHD any size monitor. Hence part of the reason why adoption rates are so low. But steam stats are a decent cross section of millions... even couch gamers... that 1.45%. Which is the complete opposite of your 2/3 in the couple hundred you personally know.



enya64 said:


> As far as Gamers Nexus is concerned, in the 1st video regarding the faulty cards he had about 5 RTX cards. In that same video he gave an invite to send more cards to narrow down the problem. In the followup video he had a LOT more because so many cards were going bad. Nearly every major tech Youtube channel had a faulty card on hand. That is not normal, and I've been buying gpus since 2002.


He may have doubled that amount. But still, if there were hundreds that went bad... why can't he get a dozen from his half million subscribers or forum members or etc and so on. Listen, we both can't prove a thing... but I know what GN said in their vid about the return rates reportedly being around average. Perhaps look through the vids again? Maybe I should do the same... but I was floored when he said it.



enya64 said:


> Lastly we can all hope that these drivers can improve the unrealized value we were sold with the RTX series. Patience goes a long way, but if we wait too long and keep trying to justify the unwarranted and absorbent cost of the RTX series, the next generation of cards will be here to fulfill those promises properly. Let's wait for some independent benching to see how much ground Nvidia has made up with this driver.


As far as I understood from that video, it was both in the driver as well as game optimizations. Drivers will help a couple % for the architecture as they mature (if we are lucky). Some games more, some none at all.

I do agree with you regarding the abhorrent (I'm sure you meant that instead of absorbent, ) cost of the RTX series. For the first two months, it was pretty bad. Due to market adjustments of many kinds, 1080Ti's are now within $100-$200 as 2080 Ti's. 1080's are $580+ now and a 25% faster card in a 2080 is $750 (all newegg numbers, new, not refurb). A 2070 is $500+ and trades beats (by 10%+ at 1080p) the more expensive 1080. There is always the AMD side, the pricing is MUCH lower, but, its flagship can't 4K well and is barely a 2560x1440 High Hz card (will pound through 60 hz) and is WELL behind the 2080Ti (37%). The 2070 also beats V64 while using 1/2 the power (its also $100 cheaper). The GPU market is a messy place my friend.


----------



## renz496 (Dec 4, 2018)

unikin said:


> I was looking forward to release of Titan RTX hoping to get some cheaper 64-bit double precision math performance out of it and now this: *Titan RTX = 0.51 TFLOPS Double Precision FP64*, my old Titan V is giving me *6.9 TFLOPS* FP64! This is a huge downgrade for anyone doing math modeling. Yet another NVidias' product segmentation. They deliberately crippled double precision performance on Titan RTX. The only current choice remaining for us pro users is Tesla V100 with $10K price tag. I paid $8.5K for triple Titan V GPUs giving me nearly 21 TFLOPS of FP64 and I'd have to pay $30K for 21 FP64 performance now. Where is the logic in that? NVidia has gone completely loco with pricing. When my Titans V die on me I'll go for AMD VEGA Instinct MI60 if price is more normal. If not, I'm f...ed.




If you want massive FP64 performance your only choice will be volta. AFAIK turing while using same SM configuration as volta the primary focus is rendering and ray tracing performance. Volta is still the way to go if you want proper FP64.


----------



## Patriot (Dec 4, 2018)

renz496 said:


> If you want massive FP64 performance your only choice will be volta. AFAIK turing while using same SM configuration as volta the primary focus is rendering and ray tracing performance. Volta is still the way to go if you want proper FP64.



Yes, unfortunately, Titan V, and RTX 2070-2080ti only allow nvlink for non-compute activities... this seems to suggest that this nvlink is unlocked for compute mode... which makes it a half priced Quadro 6000.


----------



## Kissamies (Dec 4, 2018)

2749 euros here in Finland

Few more shaders than 2080 Ti, full memory bus, double memory size... and double the price. Nvidia, are you serious, not even the "high-end chip", just the same chip what the GeForce model has...

edit: Or correct me, do they use HBM with the best Turing GPU?


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 4, 2018)

Chloe Price said:


> 2749 euros here in Finland
> 
> Few more shaders than 2080 Ti, full memory bus, double memory size... and double the price. Nvidia, are you serious, not even the "high-end chip", just the same chip what the GeForce model has...
> 
> *edit: Or correct me, do they use HBM with the best Turing GPU?*



Nope, GDDR6


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

HBM wouldn't even be putting lipstick on a pig, but making that pig fatter as it costs more to implement in the first place. What did Titan V cost in Finland on release? Here is the states it was $500 more and by all accounts not named DP, is faster with over 2x the memory for those prosumers, data scientists, and compute who its marketed towards.

I can see why gamers would be upset, and those who require DP in their work. But outside of that, for the market it wants, its cheaper and faster in most cases.


----------



## Absolution (Dec 4, 2018)

The only reason I would want this is by winning it in some competition lol


----------



## Razrback16 (Dec 4, 2018)

lol...still not interested in selling many Turing GPUs it seems. Awful price / performance ratio as expected.


----------



## enya64 (Dec 4, 2018)

I remember the Nvidia RTX conference being open in one tab, and the RTX 2080ti in my product cart in the other tab. I was so close to impulse buying the thing as it was being announced. Bad habit of buying a new high end gpu or cpu each year.  RTX made me break the cycle.
Since nearly all games these days are developed for consoles and pc, a new gpu won't be on my to-do list until the new consoles arrive in 2020. At that point the RTX 4000 series should be out along with AMD's Navi, latest Ryzen, or Intel I9 to power the pc versions of games like Cyberpunk and Elder Scrolls 6.


----------



## GhostRyder (Dec 4, 2018)

I have bought multiple cars for less money than this card LOL.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 4, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> I don't know a soul who does that



40 inch 4K TV here used as a desktop. You know one now.


----------



## Diogo (Dec 4, 2018)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> Do you think government should be stepping in to regulate the prices of phones after all those iphones are over $1000 now, cant be allowing that right? The price of filet mignon? The price of diamonds? Oh, we should have the government break up mercedes, they have a monopoly on luxury RWD wagons. And dont forget coca-cola, they should be broken up too, they have a monopoly on coca cola after all!
> 
> We do not need governments regulating luxuries, we are not a communist society. The whole point of luxuries is that people with money can afford them. There is an argument to be had that the ever rising price of luxury GPUs is cranking the price on the rest, but there is an equally valid counterargument that this is only the result of a single GPU manufacturer being on top, if AMD were competitive prices would be no higher then the FERMI era. Nvidia GPUs are luxury items that currently have 0 competition, of course the prices are going to be ridiculous. That doesnt mean we need the government breaking the company up. Nvidia GPUs are luxuries, they are not necessary for life, your life is not negatively impacted by not having a titan GPU.



I cannot agree with you.... Mercedes does not have the monopoly on the RWD wagons market. 

However, on everything else I Completely agree with you, your comment was spot on.


----------



## bajs11 (Dec 4, 2018)

Noztra said:


> btarunr - It's not a gaming card....


but that didnt stop those review sites and youtubers to publish gaming benchmark with it just like what they did with Titan V
"famous" youtubers like Linus and several others have already received review samples from Nvidia
also if its not a gaming card shouldn't it be called Tesla or Quadro
I bet they also want gamers with rich parents buy this card as well


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 4, 2018)

Chloe Price said:


> 2749 euros here in Finland
> 
> Few more shaders than 2080 Ti, full memory bus, double memory size... and double the price. Nvidia, are you serious, not even the "high-end chip", just the same chip what the GeForce model has...
> 
> edit: Or correct me, do they use HBM with the best Turing GPU?



They aren't stupid enough try and bring HBM to a consumer part yet.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 4, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> They aren't stupid enough try and bring HBM to a consumer part yet.



https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/titan-v.c3051

You did a opsie. But keep trying buddy, keep trying.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 4, 2018)

A three grand consumer part, sure that can count as an opsie if it floats your boat.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 4, 2018)

It's just that I imagine one must have pretty conflicting feelings to call their favorite company stupid.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 4, 2018)

Three grand is sensible, and not even a fake launch price at that.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 4, 2018)

enya64 said:


> So what you are saying is...you disagree. Cool.


Definitely disagree with A). Despite your local experience, Steam stats and even our enthusiast community here bear out that people using big HDTV’s to play their PC games is still a very small minority.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 4, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> Three grand is sensible, and not even a fake launch price at that.


There is absolutely no way I could justify that though and I don't think it's wise to support nVidia for doing this kind of crap. So long as people buy it, they'll continue to get away with these kinds of shenanigans. Mind you, a big reason I got a Vega 64 was not because I wanted an AMD card, but because I didn't want to support nVidia. This is just another reason why I think my choice was justified. A sale lost is more useful than complaining about prices, even more so if you buy it anyways.

Another way to look at it is this, if this card is twice as fast as my Vega 64, it's >6x the cost for 2x the performance (and 2x performance might be pushing it.)


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 4, 2018)

Aquinus said:


> Another way to look at it is this, if this card is twice as fast as my Vega 64, it's >6x the cost for 2x the performance (and 2x performance might be pushing it.)



But for some unexplained reason people think you shouldn't apply the performance/price metric to these products because they are somehow special. Of course that's baloney, there is absolutely no rational reason for that differentiation to be made, both are products that can be bought by anyone. If the performance/dollar is dogshit , it can be dogshit whether it's an RTX Titan or a GT 1030. That can't be denied nor ignored.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> 40 inch 4K TV here used as a desktop. You know one now.


Yippee!


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 4, 2018)

Curious about the reviews and comparison results with the Titan V.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Dec 4, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> But for some unexplained reason people think you shouldn't apply the performance/price metric to these products because they are somehow special. Of course that's baloney, there is absolutely no rational reason for that differentiation to be made, both are products that can be bought by anyone. If the performance/dollar is dogshit , it can be dogshit whether it's an RTX Titan or a GT 1030. That can't be denied nor ignored.



No better example of the power of Branding.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 4, 2018)

By the way, the comment section on every post Nvidia makes related to this is pretty hilarious.


----------



## TheOne (Dec 4, 2018)

RTX would have been better received if the card was an upgrade in performance from the previous generation, but because of its pricing it is a side step just touting new features.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> But for some unexplained reason people think you shouldn't apply the performance/price metric to these products because they are somehow special. Of course that's baloney, there is absolutely no rational reason for that differentiation to be made, both are products that can be bought by anyone. If the performance/dollar is dogshit , it can be dogshit whether it's an RTX Titan or a GT 1030. That can't be denied nor ignored.


People think that though (maybe Fluff - but he's a fringe case, LOL)? I just think they don't care. Its a metric for those looking to spend the least amount for the best performance...and clearly that isn't everyone. Some just want the faster [insert product here] regardless if it costs more. I think we all get this card doesn't cut it on that front (how could we not, LOL). Not even close. That said, clearly, it never intended to be a champion of $/perf... which is OK as well. 

Honestly, if anyone is buying the Titan RTX for gaming only, well, good on them for having that ability in the first place. But the reality is gaming is second fiddle to its data science and compute capabilities (sans DP). So to insist this is a gamer card first and foremost, isn't an accurate depiction. It CAN game, and is the FASTEST gaming card out there (likely), but it does the other stuff better than Titan V and NVIDIA markets the card towards that community first. Gaming is really a secondary mention in their PR. But b/c it doesn't say Quadro specifically (which is another can of worms) some default to it primarily being a gaming card (and forgets those who can use the rest of the GPU). It's a crossover card. Buy it just for gaming and yeah that $/perf gets worse! But if you use its data science and compute capabilities (were time is money) and game with it... seems like it can pay for itself a lot quicker than the MORE expensive Titan V, and isn't quite a quadro. Sure, it isn't $2, which I think would be a good pricepiont, but it is cheaper than last generation for higher performance (again outside of DP). If they gave it full DP capabilities, then it would vulture sales from the Quadro line. Worth it is in the eye of the beholder.... though everyone wants lower pricing.

Zooming in a bit, we have already concluded that, while it still remotely a great perf/$ card, it will be, according to ATech, potentially 15% faster (in anything not DP which Vya, you minimized that impact in another thread yesterday) than the Titan V while costing almost 17% less than its previous generation. This is EXACTLY what some of the people are complaining about is the YOY (or Gen over Gen) price increase. Now that it is actually better, that same contingent (conveniently?)  forgets about that and falls back to barking (speaking of dog shit - and there are those dramatic, polarizing, toxic words again... ) about  the overall cost (which again, they are right). Now RT performance is actually going to playable as well... it seems like the arguments that were there are becoming less and less as time goes on. Which is a good thing for all consumers, right?

One also has to see the prices of the true gaming focused GPUs in the market now...the price to performance ratio isn't a static value.

2080Ti = $1300
1080Ti = $1100
V64 = $440

***2080Ti = 35% faster at 1440, 44% faster at 4K UHD and costs 18% more.
Against the V64 it is 65% faster at 1440, and 72% faster at 4K UHD while costing almost double. The problem is the V64 isn't anywhere close when comparing these cards (I did this for consumer flagship to consumer flagship. V64 will need to turn down eye candy to play 4K UHD and hit 60 FPS in most titles.

2080 = $720
1080 = $580
V64 = $440

***2080 = 33% faster at 1440, 38% faster at 4K UHD and costs 24% more.
Against the V64, the 2080 is 36% faster at 1440, and 38% faster in 4K UHD while costing ~64% more.

2070 = $499
1070 = $335
V64 = $440
V56 = $417

2070 is 25% faster than 1070 at 1080p, 28% faster at 1440 and costs 48% more.
2070 is 6% faster than V64 at both 1080p and 1440 over V64 and costs 13% more
***2070 is 22% and 23% faster than V56 at 1080p and 1440 and costs 19% more.

What I take away from this is in the current state of the market there are a couple of SKUs where the RTX cards are the better buy over the 1 series just looking at performance. But, performance isn't everything. Those who can afford these cards and need the performance, don't give as much of a hoot about pricing. Lower is always better, I do get that . These metrics do not include considerations RE: power/perf. ratio, nor the RTX capabilities which are now playable thanks to some quick updates. Throw AMD in there and clearly its no contest. The Vega cards rule the price to performance, but, they aren't a capable 4K UHD card, nor High Hz 1440 card... and their pricing reflects that kind of performance. When one considers power/perf ratios there it gets ugly. But look at the 2070 and V64. 13% more $ for half the power use and 6% performance increases plus RT capabilities. Or the 2070 V V56... 22/23% faster for 19% cost... you get RT and a card that uses a lot less power and it wins the coverted $/perf. ratio.

Anyway, just throwing that out there. Apologies if I borked any numbers. These values were taken from here for reference: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2070_Founders_Edition/33.html

EDIT: WTH is with that GIANT arse pic from a phone. Resize that shiz... sheesh! LOL



TheOne said:


> RTX would have been better received if the card was an upgrade in performance from the previous generation, but because of its pricing it is a side step just touting new features.


It is an upgrade in performance though. Its just that price/perf. ratio that people get hung up on. Clearly they are better performing cards.


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 4, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Handicapped DP performance



Display Port? I don’t understand this. Does it have some kind of handicap with outputs?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

Double Precision. 

A point which was played down (by Vya), but still a real gimping, in a different thread.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 4, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Now that it is actually better



Better ? Yes. Still horrendously bad ? Yep. You can't change that no mater how nuanced you get.



EarthDog said:


> If they gave it full DP capabilities, then it would vulture sales from the Quadro line.



Again, this is wrong the Quadro *has* the same amount of DP cores. It's basically identical.



EarthDog said:


> real gimping, in a different thread.



It's not gimped, that's the chip. Why are you using inflammatory words such as "gimped" ?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Better ? Yes. Still horrendously bad ? Yep. You can't change that no mater how nuanced you get.


Yeah... I think I covered that...





EarthDog said:


> *that same contingent (conveniently?) forgets about that and falls back to barking* (speaking of dog shit - and there are those dramatic, polarizing, toxic words again... ) *about the overall cost (which again, they are right).*


....and accurately called the response too!

So the Titan V is a special snowflake and allows for the full DP capabilities while Quadro does not? What am I missing on that front? Note I wasn't talking about count, but performance in general. I don't have much knowledge in that area, admittedly. 



Vya Domus said:


> It's not gimped, that's the chip. Why are you using inflammatory words such as "gimped" ?


@Vya Domus  - I just saw this edit...

Gimped is an inflammatory word? Are you serious or just trying to bait me into an argument with that? You used the word handicapped (Solaris quoted), I used gimped. I was just playing off your words with the intent to show that is not as fast... apologies if that managed to get your hackles up. 

Again, I am asking for help to learn so I can understand better. Im really not looking for vague and, what I feel are, dismissive replies, but genuine help to understand.  The RTX Quadros have what performance for DP? Titan V has what for DP performance? Titan RTX has what for DP performance? Sorry if what you are saying it isn't sinking in fast enough on my end... a more detailed explanation or link would be great.


----------



## TheOne (Dec 4, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> It is an upgrade in performance though. Its just that price/perf. ratio that people get hung up on. Clearly they are better performing cards.



The problem is that the 2080Ti/2080/2070 are in different price brackets from the previous generation, a 2080 will net you roughly the same performance as a 1080Ti at the same MSRP, but with Tensor/RT/DXR, and if the card had been priced between $500-$700 then it would have been a successor to the 1080, but it is targeting people who pay/buy $800+/80Ti, NVIDIA may be trying to move each product line to a higher tier.  NVIDIA was able to overcharge with Pascal because of the performance boost each card had with a 1070 taking on the 980Ti, but at a lower price, Turing doesn't have that advantage.

Spending the same amount of money to get the same performance as last generation is why this is a side step instead of an upgrade.

Now personally I've been waiting for RT since I saw my reflection in Duke Nukem 3D 20 years ago, so I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

Thank you for clarifying your words. It is a side-grade in performance/$ but not in raw performance. I'm not terribly concerned about price brackets and where products land in the stack. We can go in circles saying the 2080 isn't a succesor to the 1080 and so on, but we'll agree to disagree on that point as in my mind, a successor to a product doesn't have anything to do with cost. With your thinking, the new Honda Accord isn't a succesor to last gen Accord because it costs more (as much as a TLX). Or the new Civic isn't a succesor to the old one but the Accord because its costs as much (loaded, bear with me, LOL).  I don't follow that logic. Titan is to Titan as 1080Ti is to 2080Ti to me.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 4, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> What am I missing on that front?



This, the core ratio on the Quadro :




Same as on the Titan and 2080ti. It's not gimped in any way, the only differences stem from clockspeed.



EarthDog said:


> You used the word handicapped



No, I didn't.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

Oops. Wrong person! My point still remains though about gimped..

*throws hook back. Not. Gonna. Dait'.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 4, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> lMy point still remains though about gimped..



How can something be gimped if that didn't exist from the beginning. TU102 doesn't have the same DP core ratio because those RT cores don't come for free, they use die space and eat away from the TDP budget. The memory bandwidth would also likely be insufficient to feed that many different ALUs/FPUs.

Unlike what some of you think Nvidia can't pull miracles and fit everything in this world on a single chip. Some things need to go.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

Performance of DP overall is 'handicapped' from the previous gen which ran it faster. They gimped it for Turing is more accurate, yes?


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 4, 2018)

If the chip would have been identical except it had less DP cores then yes, I would have considered that to be gimped.

But it's not. You can choose between DP or RT performance but you can't have both. They likely couldn't have done it even if they wanted.


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 4, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> How can something be gimped if that didn't exist from the beginning. TU102 doesn't have the same DP core ratio because those RT cores don't come for free, they use die space and eat away from the TDP budget. The memory bandwidth would also likely be insufficient to feed that many different ALUs/FPUs.
> 
> Unlike what some of you think Nvidia can't pull miracles and fit everything in this world on a single chip. Some things need to go.



And the thing is gv100 has more shaders on it. There's no point of doing same size lesser shader version chip on in the same manufacturing process. Maybe we see die shrinked Turing with more shaders in future, but right now it's not really needed. Volta is monster on fp64 computing.



EarthDog said:


> Performance of DP overall is 'handicapped' from the previous gen which ran it faster. They gimped it for Turing is more accurate, yes?



No, gp102/gp104/gp106/gp107/gp108/gm200/gm204/gm206/gm107/gm108 has the same fp32/fp64 ratio. Its have been 1:32 since first maxwell. "Non fp64 heavy" keplers were 1:24, while fp64 kepler was 1:3, not full do mind.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

So Titan V is a snowflake since it doesn't have the 1:32 ratio, yes?



Vya Domus said:


> If the chip would have been identical except it had less DP cores then yes, it would have considered that to be gimped.


I wish my knife was a sharp as yours. I can't split hairs like that my man!


----------



## Ubersonic (Dec 4, 2018)

Solaris17 said:


> Display Port? I don’t understand this. Does it have some kind of handicap with outputs?


Double Precision.

Refers to the FP64 mathematical performance, it's _historically_ what separates Nvidia's consumer cards (GTX/RTX/Titan) from the industrial ones (Quadro/Tesla/etc).  Though they did improve performance on the Titan XP via a driver update in response to Vega 64 teabagging it for half the price due to their standard gimping of DP performance.


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 4, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> So Titan V is a snowflake since it doesn't have the 1:32 ratio, yes?
> 
> I wish my knife was a sharp as yours. I can't split hairs like that my man!



GV100 is HPC chip as is GP100, a full fp64 compute capability chip. Nvidia does not make Geforces from hpc chips anymore, so there's no software fp64 crippled cards anymore(like gtx780/780ti were). So yes Titan V has all fp64 compute capabilities intact(Titan is not geforce anymore). Only thing what is crippled in geforce Turings is to half rate fp16w/fp32 tensor accumulate.


Spoiler: List of Turing tensors operations by anandtech


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

> industrial ones (Quadro/Tesla/etc).


except these rtx quadros it seems according to vya (not that I dont believe him...just saying)?


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 4, 2018)

Well about how Nvidia are targeting their cards, Anandtech's Ryan Smith said it well on Beyond3d forums:


> You get full FP32 accumulate on the tensor cores for a fraction of the price of a Quadro RTX 6000. That alone will sell it to droves of data scientists.
> 
> Tesla: Servers
> Quadro: Content creation & CAD
> ...


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

I think you said it best. It isnt a GeForce card... yet most people are up in arms over its $/perf for gaming (as that is all they do and know). Others have a right to be disappointed due to lack of fp64/dp performance for their work,which was tempered earlier in this thread, though still significant in their specific use case.

In the end, to me, the only worthwhile gripe is that. Otherwise, it's cheaper and expected to perform 15% better tha. Titan V. If your focus on this being a gaming card, I think it is off the mark. Nowhere in the PR does this say gaming..it is not a part of the GF line... it just happens to not follow the Quadro driver stack and can game (very well is the thought).


----------



## Razrback16 (Dec 4, 2018)

enya64 said:


> I remember the Nvidia RTX conference being open in one tab, and the RTX 2080ti in my product cart in the other tab. I was so close to impulse buying the thing as it was being announced. Bad habit of buying a new high end gpu or cpu each year.  RTX made me break the cycle.



Yep I'm with ya - I had been planning to upgrade my 1080 Ti cards to 2080 Tis but as soon as I saw the price when considering the pathetic performance improvement versus the cards being ~$450 overpriced per unit, I said nope - you can keep 'em NVidia. I'll wait and buy 'em used or even for the next cycle or two...NVidia's stock is still in the toilet too. Hope it stays there as long as they're trying to price gouge customers.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 4, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> Nvidia does not make Geforces from hpc chips anymore



Too soon to say that, it's just one generation. And it was also too soon to replace those giant V100s anyway.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 4, 2018)

People defending a Titan at $2500. Will they do the same when an x060 costs $800? Even Apple had to roll back prices, the only one enduring is Intel, maybe holding up/waiting for Zen 2.


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 4, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Too soon to say that, it's just one generation. And it was also too soon to replace those giant V100s anyway.



While you are right: it's too soon to say that, I just don't see the point of fp64 on gaming gpu. Not to mention now when they are pushing not just RT cores but Tensor cores too to take precious die area on gaming gpus. BTW. first HPC only chip from nvidia was old kepler gk210, while it has same amount of shaders as gk110 it has some differencies too and never used on consumer products(not even titans, which were geforces then).


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> People defending a Titan at $2500.


Why wouldn't you outside of the FP64 performance? Again, its a cheaper card and faster than last generation with one (notable for some) caveat. Arent they going in the right direction? Cheaper and Faster than the last Titan?


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 4, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> I just don't see the point of fp64 on gaming gpu.



That was never the case anyway, the important bit is that it was the same chip used, with the same limitations in terms of number of shaders, clocks, etc.


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 4, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Why wouldn't you outside of the FP64 performance? Again, its a cheaper card and faster than last generation with one (notable for some) caveat. Arent they going in the right direction? Cheaper and Faster than the last Titan?



Heh well yeah it's better cooled OCed Quadro RTX 6000 for less. Of course it lacks ECC memory and quadro 24/7 driver support. But hey if you don't need either, now you don't have to pay for them.


----------



## efikkan (Dec 4, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> People defending a Titan at $2500. Will they do the same when an x060 costs $800? Even Apple had to roll back prices, the only one enduring is Intel, maybe holding up/waiting for Zen 2.


AMD also have their Vega Frontier Edition at double price.

And I'll say it again; *It's not for you!*
These cards are very useful for developers and researchers.
Thankfully, this time Nvidia have doubled the memory again like the first Titan, making it a very good offering.


----------



## skates (Dec 4, 2018)

windwhirl said:


> Well, if they are going to call it T-Rex, I hope someone will throw an asteroid at it.


You sir, get a gold star.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> Heh well yeah it's better cooled OCed Quadro RTX 6000 for less. Of course it lacks ECC memory and quadro 24/7 driver support. But hey if you don't need either, now you don't have to pay for them.


I recall another forum member here, Mr. Genius perhaps, that mentioned something about GDDR5/5X/GDDR6 have ECC? Is it a different implementation or enabled there versus not here or on the GeForce cards?


----------



## bibob94 (Dec 4, 2018)

well at least its not priced around 3 grand, in the US right? right?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 4, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> People defending a Titan at $2500. Will they do the same when an x060 costs $800? Even Apple had to roll back prices, the only one enduring is Intel, maybe holding up/waiting for Zen 2.



It's a valid question, but I'm sure Navi won't be that awful.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 5, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> It's a valid question, but I'm sure Navi won't be that awful.


It can be.


----------



## xorbe (Dec 5, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> Only thing what is crippled in geforce Turings is to half rate fp16w/fp32 tensor accumulate.



Oh that's probably partly why nVidia has to do the DLSS thing in-house per game.


----------



## Power Slave (Dec 5, 2018)

RIP OFF! 

/thread


----------



## Ubersonic (Dec 5, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> GoldenX said:
> 
> 
> > People defending a Titan at $2500.
> ...


Because you're sane? lol.


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 5, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> I recall another forum member here, Mr. Genius perhaps, that mentioned something about GDDR5/5X/GDDR6 have ECC? Is it a different implementation or enabled there versus not here or on the GeForce cards?



Sure, all those memory types have ECC readiness by their Jedec specifications. Though nvidia's software implementation does not necessary take full advantage of it. Not sure why but I remember ECC being enabled only when graphics card is turned on compute mode, so it's mainly feature for servers.



xorbe said:


> Oh that's probably partly why nVidia has to do the DLSS thing in-house per game.



Nvidia is making those DLSS ML profiles by running games on their Saturn V supercomputer, I don't think game developers have those kind of machines on their own.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 5, 2018)

Ubersonic said:


> Because you're sane? lol.


Maybe.... 

I'd call it proper perspective on the product.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 5, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Maybe....
> 
> I'd call it proper perspective on the product.


I'm not convinced that such a thing exists on a product costing $2,500 for the consumer where you're literally paying twice as much for probably 10% bump in performance over what I already consider an egregiously priced product (the 2080 Ti.) How sad is it that you probably could get two 2080 Tis with it's crippled SLI performance which will probably still be better than getting this new GPU.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 5, 2018)

Aquinus said:


> I'm not convinced that such a thing exists on a product costing $2,500 for the consumer where you're literally paying twice as much for probably 10% bump in performance over what I already consider an egregiously priced product (the 2080 Ti.) How sad is it that you probably could get two 2080 Tis with it's crippled SLI performance which will probably still be better than getting this new GPU.


If you dont need the extra vram for the datasets intended to be crunched, I agree with that sentiment. 

That said, can you 'sli' these for compute in the first place? If this is coming from a gaming perspective I also understand the sentiment but believe it to be misplaced considering it isnt intended to be a gaming card first. Nowhere in their PR does it mention gaming. It isnt Geforce.

I cant help the fact that some people look at minivan and want to take it to a track and race. 

(Ick, that analogy)


----------



## trog100 (Dec 5, 2018)

anyone that buys one of these just for gaming will have lost the plot... its not their intended purpose.. 

trog


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 5, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> If you dont need the extra vram for the datasets intended to be crunched, I agree with that sentiment.
> 
> That said, can you 'sli' these for compute in the first place? If this is coming from a gaming perspective I also understand the sentiment but believe it to be misplaced considering it isnt intended to be a gaming card first. Nowhere in their PR does it mention gaming. It isnt Geforce.
> 
> ...




Uhm nvlink maybe for unified memory. SLI is for the tasks needing graphics output(AFR,SFR,AA). I.e. you can't even enable SLI on gpus that are in compute mode and have ECC enabled.


----------



## Eric3988 (Dec 6, 2018)

You'd have to have more money than brains to buy this hardware in most if not all cases. $2,500 can buy you a very nice complete system from scratch along with a sizable collection of games when purchased on sale. AMD, the ball is in your court, give the world something that can compete with the 2080TI in non RTX applications. The world of GPU sales needn't be in this state forever.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 6, 2018)

Fact is the card is cheap in prosumer land, and is already infinitely better than any ancient FirePro that is currently on the market.

I'm pretty sure it has this Hawaii card beat: 

https://www.scan.co.uk/products/16g...hz-gpu-6x-minidp-stereo-graphics-4096x2160-re


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 6, 2018)

As a Quadro replacement it's fine (no Quadro drivers?). As a gaming card, it's a joke, worse than previous Titan jokes.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 6, 2018)

trog100 said:


> anyone that buys one of these just for gaming will have lost the plot... its not their intended purpose..
> 
> trog



It's not compute or pro-graphics either:

It only has 144 FP64 cores vs. 2560 of its own predecessor, the TITAN V, which is based on the V100 MCM
It lacks Quadro-like certifications for many Adobe and Autodesk applications (no serious studio would buy this over Quadro RTX 6000 even if the latter costs 2.5x more)
The only area where it works normally is AI and DLNN networks, but then it has no unique features vs. 2080 Ti, only a slightly higher tensor core count (576 vs. 544). Any AI researcher with natural intelligence would buy two 2080 Ti cards for $2.5k (1088 tensor cores)
This is just an e-penis gaming card so enthusiasts can get that single-digit percentage gain in OC leaderboards over those using 2080 Ti.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 6, 2018)

Yeah I guess at best it's a Radeon Pro Duo, it exist becuase it can. Although this will sell and that turd didn't.


----------



## gamerman (Dec 6, 2018)

ROFL

+20% performance over 2080 Ti for +150% price.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 6, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> That said, can you 'sli' these for compute in the first place? If this is coming from a gaming perspective I also understand the sentiment but believe it to be misplaced considering it isnt intended to be a gaming card first. Nowhere in their PR does it mention gaming. It isnt Geforce.


That must be why the Vega 64 will probably still have more double-precision compute power? 
96 ROPs and 288 TMUs doesn't scream "compute" to me either.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 6, 2018)

Aquinus said:


> That must be why the Vega 64 will probably still have more double-precision compute power?
> 96 ROPs and 288 TMUs doesn't scream "compute" to me either.


What do you want me to say? Nowhere does nvidia say gaming here. It isnt geforce. It's a crossover card that outside of dp performs faster than the last titan for less. There isn't any getting around this I formation.

How people want to twist it is on them.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 6, 2018)

Ask yourself this. If this wasn't a gaming card, why does it feature the dual-fan cooler from the 2080 Ti and not the leaf-blower cooler from the Quadro RTX 6000? Why does NVIDIA call this the ultimate "PC" card and not the ultimate "Workstation" card? Why does this card disqualify as a compute accelerator for lacking DPFP performance (negligible FP64 cores just so apps don't crash don't count)? Where are the Adobe/Autodesk certifications Quadros have?

NVIDIA deliberately omitted "gaming" from its marketing, and tasked its "pro graphics" division to handle this card's sales, as an elaborate strategy to target just one group of consumers: e-penis seekers or leaderboard toppers, who wouldn't mind spending 2x the price of a 2080 Ti to stay on top of leaderboards. If it called this a "gaming" card, the PC DIY media would have heaped bad press for its atrocious pricing. This is also why after Maxwell, NVIDIA dropped "GeForce" from the TITAN branding. AI researchers would be suckers to buy this card instead of two 2080 Ti.


----------



## bajs11 (Dec 6, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> It is an upgrade in performance though. Its just that price/perf. ratio that people get hung up on. Clearly they are better performing cards.



imo its only natural to compare the upgrade to the RTX cards to the upgrades made in the last two or three generations.
I don't think anyone is complaining about the performance of the cards but the performance gains of the RTX cards are just not big enough compared to the price increase.

In the previous generations you see a cheaper gpu outperforming a higher priced and higher tier GPU of the previous gen:
GTX 970 faster than GTX 780
GTX 1070 in many cases faster than gtx 980Ti and clearly faster than gtx 980
both of the xx70 cards cost much less than the X80/X80ti cards of the previous gen

with Turing you are paying the same or close to the msrps of the previous higher tier cards
with the 2080ti essentially becoming a GTX Titan class card while creating a whole new class of super expensive Titan cards


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 6, 2018)

bajs11 said:


> I don't think anyone is complaining about the performance of the cards but the performance gains of the RTX cards are just not big enough compared to the price increase.


Agreed.

Price to performance isn't good. At all. We get that (over and over and over). But again, Its a Titan. Nobody expects it to have that. The rest of the line, a different story. A dissapointment on that front for sure. I don't think anyone disagrees with that sentiment...

...preaching to the choir... etc.



btarunr said:


> Ask yourself this. If this wasn't a gaming card, why does it feature the dual-fan cooler from the 2080 Ti and not the leaf-blower cooler from the Quadro RTX 6000? Why does NVIDIA call this the ultimate "PC" card and not the ultimate "Workstation" card? Why does this card disqualify as a compute accelerator for lacking DPFP performance (negligible FP64 cores just so apps don't crash don't count)? Where are the Adobe/Autodesk certifications Quadros have?
> 
> NVIDIA deliberately omitted "gaming" from its marketing, and tasked its "pro graphics" division to handle this card's sales, as an elaborate strategy to target just one group of consumers: e-penis seekers or leaderboard toppers, who wouldn't mind spending 2x the price of a 2080 Ti to stay on top of leaderboards. If it called this a "gaming" card, the PC DIY media would have heaped bad press for its atrocious pricing. This is also why after Maxwell, NVIDIA dropped "GeForce" from the TITAN branding. AI researchers would be suckers to buy this card instead of two 2080 Ti.


What? Workstation level cards don't need cooled too? That is a peculiar talking point...Are there any NVIDIA branded blower RTX cards or all AICs?

RE: The second paragraph, that is your opinion on it and I respect that. We disagree (except your last sentence that is the better 'deal' but only for DP uses). It is just that simple.


----------



## bajs11 (Dec 6, 2018)

or i can see this kind of debates a bit similar to political and religious debates
nobody is absolutely right everyone has their own opinions and interpretations 
I am sure there are those who are absolutely stoked on the rtx cards, remember that "just buy it" article?


----------



## Ubersonic (Dec 6, 2018)

So basically what we have established over the course of this thread is that, it costs ~2.5 the price of the 2080ti which will perform no different (to human perception) in games, and it is ~£400 cheaper than the Titan-V albiet with only 10% of the compute performance.

So in essence it isn't aimed at gamers like the Titan/Titan Black/Titan X cards were or at professionals like the Titan V is.  It's aimed at people with lots of money who want something that exists purely to show off how much money they have.  Meh, could get a 2080ti gold plated for less xD


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 6, 2018)

1. It costs 2x, not 2.5x (that would $3K)
2. It is rumored to have 15% gains just by hardware according to Anandtech. Assuming that is true, 15% is pretty noticeable... in fact that difference is close to an entire tier of card. But gaming isn't its primary function anyway. 
3. Its a crossover card and helps (heh) with market segmentation.


----------



## medi01 (Dec 6, 2018)

Oh boy I enjoy this trend so much.
And with AMD not even trying to go beyond 2070, it will only get better.
/grins


----------



## trog100 (Dec 6, 2018)

we will see when someone gets their hand on one.. but gaming wise i cant see 15 %.. 

trog


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 6, 2018)

Me either... even if its 10% that is still a difference in a tier of cards. 5%... that will be disappointing for those who choose to game on these as a primary use.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 6, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> What? Workstation level cards don't need cooled too? That is a peculiar talking point...Are there any NVIDIA branded blower RTX cards or all AICs?


True workstation card don't try to be "gamer silent".


----------



## Dr_b_ (Dec 8, 2018)

diatribe said:


> The market can't self-regulate Monopolies or Oligopolies than conspire to price fix.




While true that self regulating doesn't prevent that, price fixing doesn't apply to nVidia, they are not colluding with a competitor, they are price setting because there is no competition at that level for that unique product.   nVidia also sells 1060's and even lower models that cost a fraction of T-ReX.  

They also aren't a monopoly, AMD does indeed sell GPU's, albeit of lesser performance at least at this time to nVidias top offering, and so does intel (iGPU).   Because you can't afford the nicer product, that does not mean a company should be forced to sell it a lower cost, or as some have suggested "broken up".

We need regulation, but you really don't want to live in a country where the government forces price structure on companies


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 8, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> What do you want me to say? Nowhere does nvidia say gaming here. It isnt geforce. It's a crossover card that outside of dp performs faster than the last titan for less. There isn't any getting around this I formation.
> 
> How people want to twist it is on them.


That's more of a technicality than anything else. It looks, feels, and tastes like all of the other RTX chips. The only difference is that you're paying a "professional" price. You don't need to say it's for gaming or not. There is such thing as reading between the lines (the ROP and TMU counts plus crap DP performance should be a dead giveaway.) @btarunr is right, any person doing AI or processing large amounts of data with HPC hardware would be a fool to not spend the same money on two 2080 Tis instead if you _need_ nVidia for CUDA or something. What nVidia has done is nothing more than wordplay, because you know, actions speak louder than words.


----------



## efikkan (Dec 8, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> True workstation card don't try to be "gamer silent".


Well, gaming PCs are usually the ones not being silent.
Workstations are for the most part relatively silent, at least for an office environment.


----------



## trog100 (Dec 8, 2018)

Aquinus said:


> That's more of a technicality than anything else. It looks, feels, and tastes like all of the other RTX chips. The only difference is that you're paying a "professional" price. You don't need to say it's for gaming or not. There is such thing as reading between the lines (the ROP and TMU counts plus crap DP performance should be a dead giveaway.) @btarunr is right, any person doing AI or processing large amounts of data with HPC hardware would be a fool to not spend the same money on two 2080 Tis instead if you _need_ nVidia for CUDA or something. What nVidia has done is nothing more than wordplay, because you know, actions speak louder than words.



that must make a pair of 2080 ti cards good value then.. he he

trog


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 8, 2018)

trog100 said:


> that must make a pair of 2080 ti cards good value then.. he he


A better deal than a dinosaur anyways.


----------



## Patriot (Dec 9, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> They aren't stupid enough try and bring HBM to a consumer part yet.



AMD was first to go HBM and when everyone followed suit with 6k fpga's and 10k gpus... the memory suppliers cranked the price 4x making AMD unable to launch it at $300 as planned.


----------



## HTC (Dec 9, 2018)

Aquinus said:


> That's more of a technicality than anything else. It looks, feels, and tastes like all of the other RTX chips. The only difference is that you're paying a "professional" price. You don't need to say it's for gaming or not. There is such thing as reading between the lines (the ROP and TMU counts plus crap DP performance should be a dead giveaway.) @btarunr *is right, any person doing AI or processing large amounts of data with HPC hardware would be a fool to not spend the same money on two 2080 Tis instead if you need nVidia for CUDA or something.* What nVidia has done is nothing more than wordplay, because you know, actions speak louder than words.



So Jensen Huang was right after all: the more you buy, the more you save ...


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 9, 2018)

HTC said:


> So Jensen Huang was right after all: the more you buy, the more you save ...


In comparison to the dinosaur, sure. That isn't to say that the 2080 Ti is priced competitively though.


----------



## trog100 (Dec 9, 2018)

competitively to what.. it has nothing to compete with except the double priced titan version.. 

trog


----------



## HTC (Dec 9, 2018)

Aquinus said:


> In comparison to the dinosaur, sure. That isn't to say that the 2080 Ti is priced competitively though.





trog100 said:


> competitively to what.. it has nothing to compete with except the double priced titan version..
> 
> trog



In comparison to the specific case @btarunr mentioned: compared to it's own previous product (V100).


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 10, 2018)

trog100 said:


> competitively to what.. it has nothing to compete with except the double priced titan version..
> 
> trog


If it's not a gaming chip, you should take a look at AMD on those terms. Unless you need CUDA or you're using TensorFlow the red camp actually has good options for the price. Two Vega 64s would cost a fraction of what one of the dinosaurs would cost and you'd have more compute power for a whole lot less than even the cost of a 2080 Ti.

Edit: Tell me, when crypto was hot, why did people want AMD cards?


Spoiler: The Reason


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 10, 2018)

They were a lot cheaper and had a much faster ROI due to its compute and notably lower price. 

I think everyone understands there are better deals out there (we couldn't forget!). But within the context of last gen vs this gen, unless you need that DP performance, it's $500 cheaper and a faster card than the V it replaces. I think most everyone knows this is lipstick on a pig. But at least it put the lipstick on. Haha


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 10, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> I think most everyone knows this is lipstick on a pig. But at least it put the lipstick on. Haha


That just made my day. Thank you.


----------



## gamerman (Dec 11, 2018)

ROFL

+10% performance over 2080 Ti for +150% price.

 if you are poor its not nvidia fold. world and universum fastest gpu its not cheap and nvidia are nor charity comapany.


----------



## mlauzon (Dec 21, 2018)

But can it play "Crysis"..?!


----------



## overvolted (Mar 10, 2019)

2500 dollars? I'd rather play atari 2600 with a tight plastic bag on my head.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 10, 2019)

looking at things the other way it makes the gaming version of a 2500 dollar professional card exceptional value for money.. he he

trog


----------



## Kissamies (Mar 10, 2019)

overvolted said:


> 2500 dollars? I'd rather play atari 2600 with a tight plastic bag on my head.


You can always sell a kidney.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Mar 10, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> You can always sell a kidney.


Is actually a potentially viable way of getting a chunk of money. 

Not that I recommend doing that, btw. As organ trade is illegal in pretty much every country.


----------



## hat (Mar 10, 2019)

No thanks, I'd like to keep both of my kidneys right where they are...


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Mar 11, 2019)

hat said:


> No thanks, I'd like to keep both of my kidneys right where they are...


I should sell all my organs honestly. Then I could buy a dozen more crunching rigs with 3700X's in them. Would be super cool.

Wait a sec...


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 11, 2019)

overvolted said:


> 2500 dollars? I'd rather play atari 2600 with a tight plastic bag on my head.



I'd like to see you do that, post pictures!


----------



## Kissamies (Mar 11, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> Is actually a potentially viable way of getting a chunk of money.
> 
> Not that I recommend doing that, btw. As organ trade is illegal in pretty much every country.


WTF, 160k USD? Damn!

This got me thinking.


----------

