# NVIDIA Announces the GeForce GTX TITAN X Pascal



## btarunr (Jul 22, 2016)

In a show of shock and awe, NVIDIA today announced its flagship graphics card based on the "Pascal" architecture, the GeForce GTX TITAN X Pascal. Market availability of the card is scheduled for August 2, 2016, priced at US $1,199. Based on the 16 nm "GP102" silicon, this graphics card is endowed with 3,584 CUDA cores spread across 56 streaming multiprocessors, 224 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and a 384-bit GDDR5X memory interface, holding 12 GB of memory. 

The core is clocked at 1417 MHz, with 1531 MHz GPU Boost, and 10 Gbps memory, churning out 480 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The card draws power from a combination of 6-pin and 8-pin PCIe power connectors, the GPU's TDP is rated at 250W. NVIDIA claims that the GTX TITAN X Pascal is up to 60 percent faster than the GTX TITAN X (Maxwell), and up to 3 times faster than the original GeForce GTX TITAN.



 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Fouquin (Jul 22, 2016)

Good naming scheme. nVidia is taking the Apple approach to nomenclatures. Let the confusion mount.

Also, was $1,000 for a single-GPU just not enough? $1,199 now?


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 22, 2016)

1200$ and stil no HBM2. Interesting way to milk money by nVidia.


----------



## Air (Jul 22, 2016)

Fouquin said:


> Good naming scheme. nVidia is taking the Apple approach to nomenclatures. Let the confusion mount.
> 
> Also, was $1,000 for a single-GPU just not enough? $1,199 now?



$200 Founders Edition premium.


----------



## Fouquin (Jul 22, 2016)

Air said:


> $200 Founders Edition premium.



nVidia is not known to allow anything but reference designs for the Titans. They've been more lenient recently but I would still be surprised if this were classified as a Founder's Edition card, that would suggest AIB Titans.


----------



## wolf (Jul 22, 2016)

1080Ti will almost certainly follow at a lower price after they sell as many of these as they can. Might even drop the 1080 and 1070 prices slightly for it to fit in around ~700-900 USD at a wild guess.

Maybe they fear AMD's newest/soon arriving offerings and are getting this out asap to make some sales in lieu of waiting for HMB2.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jul 22, 2016)

No 1080Ti ?


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 22, 2016)

Everyone stop! Don't but it. We all know what's next...


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 22, 2016)

So this will actually retail at $1,500 then...


----------



## btarunr (Jul 22, 2016)

Both GTX 780 Ti and GTX 980 Ti were launched as response to AMD products. GTX 780 Ti was launch as response to R9 290X, and GTX 980 Ti was launched to preempt R9 Fury X. So unless AMD has something that beats GTX 1080 and gets-close-to/outperforms GTX TITAN XPascal, NVIDIA won't launch GTX 1080 Ti. If AMD's response is slower than TITAN X Pascal, GTX 1080 Ti will have fewer CUDA cores. If it's faster then NVIDIA will max out 3,840 CUDA cores present on the GP102. If it's way faster, then NVIDIA will tap into GP100. So no, GTX 1080 Ti probably won't launch till Vega10 is close, and it's not.

At this rate GP100 won't make a market debut under GeForce brand this generation. It will be shelved for the GeForce 20 series.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 22, 2016)

Guessing the Ti will also be 12 GB.


----------



## rougal (Jul 22, 2016)

Whatever the price is, anyone who have the money and passion for fastest graphics should buy this... buy it fast and stay on the top... until the next 1080Ti comes and then buy that to stay on top.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 22, 2016)

TheLostSwede said:


> So this will actually retail at $1,500 then...



Or not, this is a rather surprising move.



> Meanwhile for distribution, making a departure from previous generations, the card is only being sold directly by NVIDIA through their website. The company’s board partners will not be distributing it, though system builders will still be able to include it.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/10510...-titan-x-video-card-1200-available-august-2nd


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 22, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> 1200$ and stil no HBM2. Interesting way to milk money by nVidia.



If this one doesn't have HBM2 no GeForce Pascal will this series.

1080 TI will likely stick to G5X


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 22, 2016)

"Meanwhile for distribution, making a departure from previous generations, the card is only being sold directly by NVIDIA through their website. The company’s board partners will not be distributing it, though system builders will still be able to include it."
Ngreedia is doing it again.
Maximize profits without consideration for the end user.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 22, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> "Meanwhile for distribution, making a departure from previous generations, the card is only being sold directly by NVIDIA through their website. The company’s board partners will not be distributing it, though system builders will still be able to include it."
> Ngreedia is doing it again.
> Maximize profits without consideration for the end user.



Nobody needs to buy it.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jul 22, 2016)

Haters gonna hate )


----------



## Suka (Jul 22, 2016)

GTX 1080 is already 24% faster than Titan X at 4K


----------



## lanlagger (Jul 22, 2016)

this is good news - not that nvidia can dare to ask 1200$ for a top end GPU (that is not something new) - but because nvidia could wait a few months before its owerpriced titan and before its reasonably priced 1080ti (reasonably - compared to titan)..... why nvidia would wait as long as it time would allow? because right now it can sell midrange cards like gtx1070 and gtx1080 for 500$ and 700$ and people buy empty stocks for those prices (???!!!) and amd has no answer.... this move (unexpected launch) migh indicate that nvida knows better what AMD has and it is last time for them to milk those who are ready to pay titan prices now, knowing that later a 1080TI will be launched at 700$ (for basically the same preformance of titan for 60% price - jsut like before) and if AMD has something it will very fast cost sub 600$ and 1080 will cost sub 500$.... it is just like with previous titan, 980ti, 980 where AMD could spoil the nvidias "700$ for midrange 980" party with rebranded, but cheap 390X (even thou this card was not a winner by any means - but its cheap prices pushed down the whole nvida linup - starting from 970 all the way till 980ti).


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 22, 2016)

I guess its better then Titan P....but come on Nvidia, you really cannot think of a better name?


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 22, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> I guess its better then Titan P....but come on Nvidia, you really cannot think of a better name?


They could call it XP, but then people would buy it and not upgrade for 10 years or more, unless forced to.


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 22, 2016)

Jaysus. 40% more CUDA cores, 40% more TMUs, 50% more ROPs, 50% more memory bandwidth, 50% more memory... this thing is gonna be a monster. And that means 1080 Ti will be even faster.

Seems NVIDIA is out to crush AMD absolutely this round. They could probably have got away with only releasing the GTX 1080 and 1070, but we also have the 1060 that rains on RX 480's parade, and now the TITAN X Pascal which is even faster than the 1080. If Vega is as much of a disappointment as Polaris was, AMD is in big trouble.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jul 22, 2016)

It is Titan XP


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 22, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> Jaysus. 40% more CUDA cores, 40% more TMUs, 50% more ROPs, 50% more memory bandwidth, 50% more memory... this thing is gonna be a monster. And that means 1080 Ti will be even faster.
> 
> Seems NVIDIA is out to crush AMD absolutely this round. They could probably have got away with only releasing the GTX 1080 and 1070, but we also have the 1060 that rains on RX 480's parade, and now the TITAN X Pascal which is even faster than the 1080. If Vega is as much of a disappointment as Polaris was, AMD is in big trouble.



More hardware, less clocks. 15% slower in frequency?


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 22, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> "Meanwhile for distribution, making a departure from previous generations, the card is only being sold directly by NVIDIA through their website. The company’s board partners will not be distributing it, though system builders will still be able to include it."
> Ngreedia is doing it again.
> Maximize profits without consideration for the end user.



Anyone remembers what happened to 3dfx when they wanted to do everything by themselves? They seem to be heading in that direction...


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 22, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> Jaysus. 40% more CUDA cores, 40% more TMUs, 50% more ROPs, 50% more memory bandwidth, 50% more memory... this thing is gonna be a monster. And that means 1080 Ti will be even faster.
> 
> Seems NVIDIA is out to crush AMD absolutely this round. They could probably have got away with only releasing the GTX 1080 and 1070, but we also have the 1060 that rains on RX 480's parade, and now the TITAN X Pascal which is even faster than the 1080. If Vega is as much of a disappointment as Polaris was, AMD is in big trouble.



AMD just needs to release something. Its been an Nvidia show for the last 2 generation. Everything is so quiet when it comes to AMD.


----------



## PerfectWave (Jul 22, 2016)

how ppl can spend all those money in a GPU that does not dupport full async?


----------



## geon2k2 (Jul 22, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> Jaysus. 40% more CUDA cores, 40% more TMUs, 50% more ROPs, 50% more memory bandwidth, 50% more memory... this thing is gonna be a monster. And that means 1080 Ti will be even faster.
> 
> Seems NVIDIA is out to crush AMD absolutely this round. They could probably have got away with only releasing the GTX 1080 and 1070, but we also have the 1060 that rains on RX 480's parade, and now the TITAN X Pascal which is even faster than the 1080. If Vega is as much of a disappointment as Polaris was, AMD is in big trouble.




I'm not sure, I think they are going in a ridiculous direction. I don't understand why would someone pay >1000$ for a component only, which to be put into valor, needs at least 1000-2000 $ more. (nice cpu, storage, monitor). And all this for gaming alone ... you must have some real issues or to be really rich to buy something like this. I think the market should stay @ 2-300 $ for high end/performance segment, 300-500 for enthusiast. Even if you have good money, I'm sure you can find something better to do with 1000$, than to get few more frames in a game, or I don't know what extra anti aliasing setting for which you need a magnifying glass to see the difference. 

Anyhow, I might be wrong, in the end the same happen with phones as well, and i see nobody complaining about it, and most of the people investing 6-800$ in a phone ... each 1-2 years.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jul 22, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Anyone remembers what happened to 3dfx when they wanted to do everything by themselves? They seem to be heading in that direction...


Yeah, but 3dFX was EXACTLY in the same position AMD is now. Their new GPU release was slower and more power hungry than nVidia's, for 2 consecutive generations, just like AMD now... On 3rd strike they got bankrupted. Personally, I see AMD going into an a similar way if they don't release something good this year...


----------



## xenocide (Jul 22, 2016)

geon2k2 said:


> Anyhow, I might be wrong, in the end the same happen with phones as well, and i see nobody complaining about it, and most of the people investing 6-800$ in a phone ... each 1-2 years.



As a nit-pick, most carriers are moving away from that model.  When I upgraded to my iPhone 6S earlier this year I only had to pay tax on it (like $100) and the rest of the cost is rolled into my plan.  I actually only upgraded because it would knock $20 off my bill each month.  They changed the cost of plans to accommodate a change in payment--$24 of my phone bill goes towards the cost of the phone, $~60 is the actual plan, compared to in the past where it was basically $100 for the plan and I paid the cost of the phone up front.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 22, 2016)

PerfectWave said:


> how ppl can spend all those money in a GPU that does not dupport full async?



If I knew this back when I was buying GTX 980, I'd most probably pick a R9 Fury card even if it was slightly inferior at the time. Which is why I'll be paying special attention for async support with GTX 2000 series. If there won't be any (lets be honest, GTX 1080's async support is really weird to say the least), AMD will remain the only option.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 22, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Yeah, but 3dFX was EXACTLY in the same position AMD is now. Their new GPU release was slower and more power hungry than nVidia's, for 2 consecutive generations, just like AMD now... On 3rd strike they got bankrupted. Personally, I see AMD going into an a similar way if they don't release something good this year...



With all 3 consoles secured, excelling at DX12 and Vulkan, their CPU's are still selling well and RX 480, despite shortages, are doing just fine. They've made drastic changes in financials as well. Things look far from grim even if they aren't crowned as king of the hill with the top end GPU.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 22, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> If I knew this back when I was buying GTX 980, I'd most probably pick a R9 Fury card even if it was slightly inferior at the time. Which is why I'll be paying special attention for async support with GTX 2000 series. If there won't be any (lets be honest, GTX 1080's async support is really weird to say the least), AMD will remain the only option.



Id wait for async compute to actually be relevant first.


----------



## Ubersonic (Jul 22, 2016)

The GTX780 arrived 3 months after the Titan.

The GTX980ti arrived 3 months after the Titan-X

Roll on October!


----------



## Ubersonic (Jul 22, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Yeah, but 3dFX was EXACTLY in the same position AMD is now. Their new GPU release was slower and more power hungry than nVidia's, for 2 consecutive generations, just like AMD now... On 3rd strike they got bankrupted. Personally, I see AMD going into an a similar way if they don't release something good this year...



3DFX didn't have to bankroll a CPU division that has been woefully trailing Intel for half a decade though!

Wait, that's not a positive is it lol.


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 22, 2016)

Ubersonic said:


> 3DFX didn't have to bankroll a CPU division that has been woefully trailing Intel for *more than *half a decade though!



FTFY


----------



## Nokiron (Jul 22, 2016)

The title is wrong though, its just called the Titan X. They skipped the GTX and Geforce-moniker on this.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2016)

Keep in mind that for Pascal Nvidia actually uses different hardware for consumer and HPC cards (different FP unit count, SM grouping). So if GP102 is geared towards HPC, it will probably not be the base for 1080Ti.


----------



## TheDeeGee (Jul 22, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> 1200$ and stil no HBM2. Interesting way to milk money by nVidia.



You don't have to buy it...


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jul 22, 2016)

Wander if its a full blown chip and not a harvested "crippeld" one , I would expect it to be for its announced price yet I'm not in the market for such graphics card.


----------



## Ubersonic (Jul 22, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> FTFY



It's actually only 4 years and 9 months since the FX series hit the scene and AMD descended into their own Netburst fiasco, previous CPU generations had been matching/beating Intel.


----------



## buggalugs (Jul 22, 2016)

Titans have never been worth it,  Nvidia always release a Ti version that is faster within a few months, then your resale values drop like a stone. If you want the fastest nvidia card, just wait for the Ti.


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 22, 2016)

Ubersonic said:


> It's actually only 4 years and 9 months since the FX series hit the scene and AMD descended into their own Netburst fiasco, previous CPU generations had been matching/beating Intel.



Yes, I was wrong - AMD's fall started way back in 2006 when Intel introduced the Core µarch. Coincidentally they bought ATI that same year, so it's more accurate to say that AMD's graphics division has been carrying the CPU division for *nearly a decade*.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2016)

Ubersonic said:


> It's actually only 4 years and 9 months since the FX series hit the scene and AMD descended into their own Netburst fiasco, previous CPU generations had been matching/beating Intel.


Actually AMD CPUs have trailed intel since forever. They had their moment with Athlon/AthlonXP/Athlon64 (when I thought I'd never buy intel), but before Athlon, AMD still couldn't match intel's FP performance. Int performance was fine and that was important for games, but for many other applications, intel was still the way to go.
Then intel pulled that "rebate" thing on AMD, preventing them from cashing in on their success while simultaneously resurrecting PIII in the form of Core. AMD has been searching for an answer ever since.
AMD also never held the crown in the mobile space. This wasn't a big deal back in Athlon days, but it is today.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 22, 2016)

it will be the "first" real 4K gaming card.. the 4K push is strong.. 

they make these things (over priced flagship products) just because they can.. a few people buy them for the same reasons.. just because they can.. 

peoples desire for 4K gaming does kind of provide a reason for such silly things though.. 

trog


----------



## bogami (Jul 22, 2016)

Only 60% compared to the previous generation it sucks. As we can see are more and more greedy. Announced least 100% is therefore yet another lie. In order to praising not to mention 300% compared to the previous .And then we get a price of about € 1,500 in euros not dollars and even then it will not be enough since the introduction of tax importers outside the EU in us so that the price will be around € 1,700 in Slovenia suppose. For GTX1080 price moves with us from € 925 to 1485€ +.  AMD It will certainly be more reasonable with price.


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 22, 2016)

trog100 said:


> it will be the "first" real 4K gaming card.. the 4K push is strong..
> 
> they make these things (over priced flagship products) just because they can.. a few people buy them for the same reasons.. just because they can..
> 
> ...


All those people that bought GTX 1080 in SLI must be kicking themselves, spending all that money when one card will do the job now.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> Yes, I was wrong - AMD's fall started way back in 2006 when Intel introduced the Core µarch. Coincidentally they bought ATI that same year, so it's more accurate to say that AMD's graphics division has been carrying the CPU division for *nearly a decade*.


It would seem that way, but AMD(+ATI) today ($4.14B) is worth less than what AMD paid for ATI ($5.4B). They both sunk together.
Perhaps ironically, the only successful part is ATI's Imageon, which AMD sold to Qualcomm and which we know today as Adreno. They sold it because it was underperforming.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> If I knew this back when I was buying GTX 980, I'd most probably pick a R9 Fury card even if it was slightly inferior at the time. Which is why I'll be paying special attention for async support with GTX 2000 series. If there won't be any (lets be honest, GTX 1080's async support is really weird to say the least), AMD will remain the only option.


You might wanna read Anandtech's take on 1080 and 1070. They explain pretty clearly that Nvidia's async support is perfectly fine and why it doesn't work as well as it does for AMD (in a nutshell, when you have less shaders, you also have less idle shaders that async can put to use). It's quite possible Nvidia will go for more shaders for their 2000 series and then async would have its hands full.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 22, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> All those people that bought GTX 1080 in SLI must be kicking themselves, spending all that money when one card will do the job now.



i doubt that many have done.. but when SLI is working (the new time spy for example) a pair of much cheaper 1070 cards will still keep up with the new flagship card.. that would be my choice for anything less than silly money.. 

trog


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 22, 2016)

Titan X was announced at Stanford Uni at an AI meeting, deep learning stuff. It's the same approach as with the other Titans, offering a more affordable tool for productivity, research, scientific use while enticing the tech enthusiasts, gamers who can afford ultra high end products. Nothing wrong with the price, it's tried and tested. You don't buy a Lamborghini if you need a car to get you to your average income job place.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 22, 2016)

Uhm, only 12GB of memory? So no clam shell mode like titan has always be? I'm a bit afraid if vega is not powerful enough next high end nvidia card will be more castrated gp102 with ~3000 cuda cores and 320bit 10GB memory called gtx 2080...

EDIT: Oh and titan X will only be available direct from nvidia like gtx 1060 FE. No AIB versions.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 22, 2016)

$300 less than the Radeon Pro Duo, nice!


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 22, 2016)

btarunr said:


> Both GTX 780 Ti and GTX 980 Ti were launched as response to AMD products. GTX 780 Ti was launch as response to R9 290X, and GTX 980 Ti was launched to preempt R9 Fury X. So unless AMD has something that beats GTX 1080 and gets-close-to/outperforms GTX TITAN XPascal, NVIDIA won't launch GTX 1080 Ti. If AMD's response is slower than TITAN X Pascal, GTX 1080 Ti will have fewer CUDA cores. If it's faster then NVIDIA will max out 3,840 CUDA cores present on the GP102. If it's way faster, then NVIDIA will tap into GP100. So no, GTX 1080 Ti probably won't launch till Vega10 is close, and it's not.
> 
> At this rate GP100 won't make a market debut under GeForce brand this generation. It will be shelved for the GeForce 20 series.



I doubt GP100 will ever make debut to consumer market, prosumer maybe dubbed as quadro P6000. Why do you even think it would, geforce does not need fp64 compute and gp102 and gp100 has same amount of fp32 cuda cores(thus I would suspect gp102 die size is smaller than gp100). I doubt that memory bandwidth alone will make it that faster, and in the future there will be faster gddr5x memories too.

Oh and it's Nvidia Titan X. Nvidia don't market it as Geforce gtx anymore. Not that it mean much, but maybe they try to differentiate it from consumer products to more prosumer/consumer product. Well niche it's anyway and most probably very limited unit count overall.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 22, 2016)

*Twiddles thumbs* Nope.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 22, 2016)

Oh my, lack of competition is very disturbing.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2016)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> Oh my, lack of competition is very disturbing.


True, but who's AMD going to compete with first?
Because this is where AMD stands right now: 



And if you think about the mobile market, Qualcomm is worth almost $100Bn... I don't know who would want to be in AMD's place right now.


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 22, 2016)

Does it play Crysis at 1080p FHD?


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Jul 22, 2016)

So if this is GP102, then there is still another monster waiting in the background with full fledged GP100? Something higher than Titan X with HBM2?


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2016)

Cybrnook2002 said:


> So if this is GP102, then there is still another monster waiting in the background with full fledged GP100? Something higher than Titan X with HBM2?


Most likely not. The GP100 seems to be reserved to Tesla line, because its design is inherently geared towards compute. With Pascal, Nvidia finally made different designs for Tesla, rather then simply enabling/disabling various blocks. Plus, the 1070 and 1080 will have the market to themselves for about 9 months, there's no need for anything faster.


----------



## Nobody99 (Jul 22, 2016)

NVIDIA must think people forget easily, the audacity they had when they released the first Titan for 1000$ and it wasn't even fully unlocked and the audacity now thinking people would consider buying such a card after such a legacy that befalls the Titan name.

I might remotely considering buying it if they wouldn't have used the noun Titan in vain.


----------



## iO (Jul 22, 2016)

So, not a full 3840 shader part because of yield issues or an upcoming Black Edition milking part?


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 22, 2016)

iO said:


> So, not a full 3840 shader part because of yield issues or an upcoming Black Edition milking part?


Yield and power/thermals are driving factor always. I don't think NVIDIA reference cooler can handle full GP102 at reasonable clocks, and if the part clocks higher with less cores compensating the difference while improving yield considerably, then why not do it.


----------



## mcraygsx (Jul 22, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Yeah, but 3dFX was EXACTLY in the same position AMD is now. Their new GPU release was slower and more power hungry than nVidia's, for 2 consecutive generations, just like AMD now... On 3rd strike they got bankrupted. Personally, I see AMD going into an a similar way if they don't release something good this year...



Time is catching up with AMD or vice versa. They have been playing catch up game since last two gens and finally released a new architecture that competes with 980's.

NVidia could have utilized HBM2 on TITAN Pascal.


----------



## Ubersonic (Jul 22, 2016)

bug said:


> I don't know who would want to be in AMD's place right now.



Cyrix


----------



## ViperXTR (Jul 22, 2016)

Nokiron said:


> The title is wrong though, its just called the Titan X. They skipped the GTX and Geforce-moniker on this.


I just realized it lel, so Old GeForce GTX Titan X and new nVidia Titan X  it is then, still valid i guess?


----------



## alucasa (Jul 22, 2016)

1199? I blame Brexit for that.


----------



## matar (Jul 22, 2016)

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


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jul 22, 2016)

Crap Daddy said:


> Titan X was announced at Stanford Uni at an AI meeting, deep learning stuff. It's the same approach as with the other Titans, offering a more affordable tool for productivity, research, scientific use while enticing the tech enthusiasts, gamers who can afford ultra high end products. Nothing wrong with the price, it's tried and tested. You don't buy a Lamborghini if you need a car to get you to your average income job place.



Car comparison again... You cannot do that man! Your Lamborghini is not becoming obsolete after 1 year, common!


----------



## alucasa (Jul 22, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Car comparison again... You cannot do that man! Your Lamborghini is not becoming obsolete after 1 year, common!



Yeah, it's always cars. They can't get over it. You'd think the Internet people would have more creativity.


----------



## dozenfury (Jul 22, 2016)

Seems pretty underwhelming on those specs, especially at $1200.  But I'll be curious to see benchmarks.  SLI'ing 2 1080s for basically the same cost and maybe 50w more power usage would seem far faster and more appealing, even with the headaches of SLI.  Or better yet just wait for 1080ti. 

But I'm sure there are plenty of people that will jump on this for the bragging rights, or high-profile Twitch streamers where it's just kind of a business cost.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 22, 2016)

Ugh, that price is OP...  Supposedly there is going to be a 12gb and an 16gb edition but that was just rumored though it would be interesting to know if they do that where both will be priced.  Well seems a bit quick for this release, wonder how soon GTX 1080ti will follow.  

Only selling these from Nvidia's website from now on...Guess they don't want to let OEM's release hybrids or waterblock editions of the card anymore...

Hmm, question now for me is how close will the 1080ti be to BF1 or if this will be the only one of the top chips available...


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jul 22, 2016)

Wait.... 60% faster than 1070? Isn't the 1080 already 20-30% faster than that?

That makes this card only 30% stronger than the 1080! Good lord these Titan cards keep getting more and more pathetic.

No worries that Vega will crush this anymore...


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2016)

matar said:


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





Captain_Tom said:


> Wait.... 60% faster than 1070? Isn't the 1080 already 20-30% faster than that?
> 
> That makes this card only 30% stronger than the 1080! Good lord these Titan cards keep getting more and more pathetic.
> 
> No worries that Vega will crush this anymore...



This is not a gaming card, it's pointless to compare it the GTX 1080.
Fwiw, even Nvidia isn't sure what this is, because now it's officially not part of the GeForce line and it was never part of Quadro or Tesla lines either. I've always viewed Titan cards as a "look what we can do" card that I didn't care much about.


----------



## Slizzo (Jul 22, 2016)

bug said:


> Most likely not. The GP100 seems to be reserved to Tesla line, because its design is inherently geared towards compute. With Pascal, Nvidia finally made different designs for Tesla, rather then simply enabling/disabling various blocks. Plus, the 1070 and 1080 will have the market to themselves for about 9 months, there's no need for anything faster.



Ehhh... one point of contention, P100 is reserved to Tesla line, nothing has been shown about a GP100.

But yeah, consumers will probably only ever see the GP102.


----------



## beck24 (Jul 22, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> Jaysus. 40% more CUDA cores, 40% more TMUs, 50% more ROPs, 50% more memory bandwidth, 50% more memory... this thing is gonna be a monster. And that means 1080 Ti will be even faster.
> 
> Seems NVIDIA is out to crush AMD absolutely this round. They could probably have got away with only releasing the GTX 1080 and 1070, but we also have the 1060 that rains on RX 480's parade, and now the TITAN X Pascal which is even faster than the 1080. If Vega is as much of a disappointment as Polaris was, AMD is in big trouble.


Excited to see reviews, oc, etc.


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Jul 22, 2016)

Cant wait for the RX 490 with 16 gb of HBM2. BAMM!


----------



## Parn (Jul 22, 2016)

$1200 but no HBM2? I thought at least the Titan would get that luxury treatment, but I guess I was wrong. With this thing priced so high, don't think we will see any price reduction on the 1080 and 1070 anytime soon. 

Let's just hope market adoption for DX12/Vulkan is going to speed up so that the value of AMD cards will increase dramatically forcing nvidia to stop this insane pricing (milking).


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2016)

Slizzo said:


> Ehhh... one point of contention, P100 is reserved to Tesla line, nothing has been shown about a GP100.
> 
> But yeah, consumers will probably only ever see the GP102.


Actually Tesla P100 is based on GP100: https://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/inside-pascal/
But yes, Nvidia aren't going out of their way to make things easy to follow


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2016)

Parn said:


> $1200 but no HBM2? I thought at least the Titan would get that luxury treatment, but I guess I was wrong. With this thing priced so high, don't think we will see any price reduction on the 1080 and 1070 anytime soon.


And you know for a fact HBM2 is needed here? Or do you just like shiny new things?


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jul 22, 2016)

bug said:


> This is not a gaming card, it's pointless to compare it the GTX 1080.
> Fwiw, even Nvidia isn't sure what this is, because now it's officially not part of the GeForce line and it was never part of Quadro or Tesla lines either. I've always viewed Titan cards as a "look what we can do" card that I didn't care much about.



LMAO when will the dipshits drop this strawman's argument?!


Is it called Tesla?  Can it use professional drivers?   F*CK NO!   It says "GTX" because it is a gaming card.  Period.


----------



## beck24 (Jul 22, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> LMAO when will the dipshits drop this strawman's argument?!
> 
> 
> Is it called Tesla?  Can it use professional drivers?   F*CK NO!   It says "GTX" because it is a gaming card.  Period.


They're upset because the company they like has nothing to compete.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 22, 2016)

Nobody99 said:


> NVIDIA must think people forget easily, the audacity they had when they released the first Titan for 1000$ and it wasn't even fully unlocked and the audacity now thinking people would consider buying such a card after such a legacy that befalls the Titan name.
> 
> I might remotely considering buying it if they wouldn't have used the noun Titan in vain.


Nvdia responds:





HBM2 would've made it ridiculously more expensive without any added benefits over its current configuration.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 22, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> More hardware, less clocks. 15% slower in frequency?



= more OC headroom. If it can clock any where near to gp104/gp106 freqs, OC performance gains will be great. No doubt bios power limitter will be pushing clocks down, but once you can get it round it will fly(hard mod or custom bios if pascal bios tweaker ever materialize ).


----------



## beck24 (Jul 22, 2016)

jabbadap said:


> = more OC headroom. If it can clock any where near to gp104/gp106 freqs, OC performance gains will be great. No doubt bios power limitter will be pushing clocks down, but once you can get it round it will fly(hard mod or custom bios if pascal bios tweaker ever materialize ).


Its going to produce ridiculous numbers.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 22, 2016)

beck24 said:


> Its going to produce ridiculous numbers.



No, not really, those numbers will only be fun for about 4-5 months or so. Then everyone is bored and buying the 1080ti at 2/3 the price. And at the end of the road, Titan was once again a massive cash grab.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 22, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> 1200$ and stil no HBM2. Interesting way to milk money by nVidia.


Why does it matter? No graphics workload currently needs HBM.
You should care about performance, not fancy words.



btarunr said:


> Both GTX 780 Ti and GTX 980 Ti were launched as response to AMD products. GTX 780 Ti was launch as response to R9 290X, and GTX 980 Ti was launched to preempt R9 Fury X. So unless AMD has something that beats GTX 1080 and gets-close-to/outperforms GTX TITAN XPascal, NVIDIA won't launch GTX 1080 Ti. If AMD's response is slower than TITAN X Pascal, GTX 1080 Ti will have fewer CUDA cores. If it's faster then NVIDIA will max out 3,840 CUDA cores present on the GP102. If it's way faster, then NVIDIA will tap into GP100. So no, GTX 1080 Ti probably won't launch till Vega10 is close, and it's not.
> 
> At this rate GP100 won't make a market debut under GeForce brand this generation. It will be shelved for the GeForce 20 series.


With what did AMD push Nvidia to release GTX 780 Ti? No, not R9 290X.
GTX 980 Ti was scheduled before R9 Fury X was known to the public.
If your logic made sense Nvidia would currently release no card more powerful than GTX 1060, since none of the new cards from AMD can beat it.

There will be no GeForce/Titan card with GP100 this year, as mentioned before, GP102 will be the fastest this year.

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



Assimilator said:


> Jaysus. 40% more CUDA cores, 40% more TMUs, 50% more ROPs, 50% more memory bandwidth, 50% more memory... this thing is gonna be a monster. And that means 1080 Ti will be even faster.


When have the "Ti" version been faster than Titan?



PerfectWave said:


> how ppl can spend all those money in a GPU that does not dupport full async?


Stop spreading this lie!
Every technically competent person knows it's fully supported.



Cybrnook2002 said:


> So if this is GP102, then there is still another monster waiting in the background with full fledged GP100? Something higher than Titan X with HBM2?


No.
To what purpose? How will HBM help your gaming?


----------



## LightningJR (Jul 22, 2016)

Get your ass in gear AMD, please, not even the most rabid Nvidia fanboy likes to see a $1200 flagship card.

Even if I lived in the US making USD I wouldn't buy this card, $1200 is just too much, plain and simple.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 22, 2016)

Stop whining, this product is clearly not for you.
Titan is for (semi-)professional graphics.


----------



## ppn (Jul 22, 2016)

Titan is what 1080 should have been. Hopefully 1180 will fix that.


----------



## Parn (Jul 22, 2016)

bug said:


> And you know for a fact HBM2 is needed here? Or do you just like shiny new things?



I didn't say it's needed. It's just for such a high price top-end card I would expect to see HBM2 (Pascal was supposed to receive HBM2 according to some earlier announcements last year). 

This further proves there is a lack of competition in the market. If nvidia was feeling threatened by any AMD cards, I'm pretty sure they would have put HBM2 on this one even if it isn't needed to reach its max performance. Unfortunately apart from games heavily utilising async compute from Vulkan/DX12, I don't see how AMD could close the gap.


----------



## Parn (Jul 22, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Why does it matter? No graphics workload currently needs HBM.
> You should care about performance, not fancy words.



HBM is there not just for performance (you're right that it doesn't need it to reach max performance), but also for more compact design. I'd love to see a TITAN X Pascal or 1080Ti in the same size as Fury X while retaining optimal performance.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Jul 22, 2016)

With what did AMD push Nvidia to release GTX 780 Ti? No, not R9 290X.
GTX 980 Ti was scheduled before R9 Fury X was known to the public.
If your logic made sense Nvidia would currently release no card more powerful than GTX 1060, since none of the new cards from AMD can beat it.

*This makes perfect sense I'd say.  Surely AMD hasn't released anything whatsoever before Nvidia and even now nothing that competes with several tiers of their lineup. *

There will be no GeForce/Titan card with GP100 this year, as mentioned before, GP102 will be the fastest this year.

*Ok, maybe no idea on this.*

GP100 isn't faster than GP102 for rendering, since GP102 is essentially GP100 with FP64, NVLink and HBM removed. A graphics card with GP100 will just use ~300W instead of 250W with no benefit for rendering. I'm very happy Nvidia made non-compute version of GP100, this way we can get graphics cards with better efficiency and availability.
*
Huh?  So you are saying the "ti" will use 50 more watts but no additional rendering "benefit"?  That statement on its' face makes zero sense unless I'm missing something.  Rendering is a pretty generic word so I assume that covers compute and non-compute so why would they make a card that uses more juice that isn't any "faster" and "no benefit for rendering"? *


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 22, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> Jaysus. 40% more CUDA cores, 40% more TMUs, 50% more ROPs, 50% more memory bandwidth, 50% more memory... this thing is gonna be a monster. And that means 1080 Ti will be even faster.
> 
> Seems NVIDIA is out to crush AMD absolutely this round. They could probably have got away with only releasing the GTX 1080 and 1070, but we also have the 1060 that rains on RX 480's parade, and now the TITAN X Pascal which is even faster than the 1080. If Vega is as much of a disappointment as Polaris was, AMD is in big trouble.



You're forgetting that almost no one will buy it, though. I have a 980ti and it's represented at .99% on steam's statistics. That's a high margin for a high end card. It's still only 1.34% for DX12 GPU. Do not expect that for a 1080 or the new Titan.
I couldn't find any Titan on the list. The five people using one for gaming didn't run the stats tool, I guess lol (if it even shows up, idk, same goes for Fury).

The 970 far and away leads the pack followed by even lower end cards. It's excellent for market perception, but it's not gonna fill the piggy bank like mid-range cards will.


----------



## xorbe (Jul 22, 2016)

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


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 22, 2016)

xorbe said:


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



This will probably hold until Vega but given how far ahead GTX1080 is above Fury X, if the Titan X is 30% faster than a GTX1080, Vega will have to be about 50-75% faster than Fury X. 

Even despite it's cost, more people would be 'willing' to buy it if they knew there was not a better card coming.

EDITED for contentious %'s.....


----------



## HammerON (Jul 22, 2016)

Please be respectful and civil in your posts. Name calling and/or cursing is not respectful nor civil.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jul 22, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> All those people that bought GTX 1080 in SLI must be kicking themselves, spending all that money when one card will do the job now.



Dude this won't come close to 1080 SLI.  This is gonna be like 20-30% stronger than the 1080 for double the price.


----------



## peche (Jul 22, 2016)

next thing on nvidia ... titan S like apple nomenclature!
coming soon ...


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jul 22, 2016)

xorbe said:


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



How was it a good deal at all?

It was 40% stronger than the 7970 for 3x the money.   In fact the SAPPHIRE 7970 TOXIC 6GB was only like 10% behind the Titan for almost half the price.  Furthermore, if you look at the latest benchmarks the 7970 is essentially the same strength as the Titan in today's games.  No matter how you dice it, the OG Titan was a massive joke.  The Titan X was even less impressive for its time, and this new one is only like 25% stronger than the 1080.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next Titan was 15% stronger than the 1180 for $1500!


----------



## xorbe (Jul 22, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> How was it a good deal at all?



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


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 22, 2016)

xorbe said:


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


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

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


----------



## xorbe (Jul 22, 2016)

GhostRyder said:


> may end up being a Hypocrite and buying one



+5 for honesty, hahaha


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jul 22, 2016)

xorbe said:


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



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


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


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jul 22, 2016)

GhostRyder said:


> Well, OG Titan had more of a point than all the recent Titans.  The original two were excellent as long as you were a professional rendering projects and such.  Though they were still in my book overpriced, they had a purpose more than just a gamer card.  The Maxwell one to me was the first one that felt completely necessary because it leaned much more heavily to the gaming aspect that round instead of the professional (Unless you needed high levels of VRAM).  This one is probably going to be the same which is unfortunate but it has nothing to compare to so it will sit there happily.
> 
> Fact is we don't know what Nvidia will do this round since they have kinda changed from their norm in terms of releases.  Not sure when they will release GTX 1080ti, but it maybe not until closer to Christmas this year.  I may end up being a Hypocrite and buying one (One now, a second later) of these just because of the way things are going even though I am normally pretty against these cards and their prices....




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


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 22, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> So it seems we both agree that every successor Titan has been less and less impressive compared to the previous one.
> 
> 
> But I still stand by the fact that even the original Titan in no way deserved the name "Titan".  It should have just been called the 780, and the 780 should have been the 770.   The strongest card at the time was the 7970, and the Titan was only 35-40% stronger than it.  That is just a standard flagship card.  Nothing special about it besides the name.


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



Captain_Tom said:


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


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



xorbe said:


> +5 for honesty, hahaha


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


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 22, 2016)

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


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jul 22, 2016)

GhostRyder said:


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



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

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


----------



## ironwolf (Jul 22, 2016)

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


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 22, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Ughhhhhhh I miss the old days...



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

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

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


----------



## xkm1948 (Jul 22, 2016)

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


----------



## alucasa (Jul 22, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


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



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


----------



## TissueBox (Jul 23, 2016)

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

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


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 23, 2016)

ironwolf said:


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



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



GhostRyder said:


> Well, OG Titan had more of a point than all the recent Titans.  The original two were excellent as long as you were a professional rendering projects and such.  Though they were still in my book overpriced, they had a purpose more than just a gamer card.  The Maxwell one to me was the first one that felt completely necessary because it leaned much more heavily to the gaming aspect that round instead of the professional (Unless you needed high levels of VRAM).  This one is probably going to be the same which is unfortunate but it has nothing to compare to so it will sit there happily.
> 
> Fact is we don't know what Nvidia will do this round since they have kinda changed from their norm in terms of releases.  Not sure when they will release GTX 1080ti, but it maybe not until closer to Christmas this year.  I may end up being a Hypocrite and buying one (One now, a second later) of these just because of the way things are going even though I am normally pretty against these cards and their prices....



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


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 23, 2016)

matar said:


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




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


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 23, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


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




This. Now can we be done????


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 23, 2016)

MxPhenom 216 said:


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



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

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


----------



## msamelis (Jul 23, 2016)

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


----------



## JJJJJamesSZH (Jul 23, 2016)

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


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jul 23, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> I don't. The things we see now running AAA games with modern cards.
> 
> As much as I disagree with much of what you say (against Nvidia) I agree the Titan range is a bit of a dick.
> 
> But like @GhostRyder ..... maybe....maybe.



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



MxPhenom 216 said:


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



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



msamelis said:


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



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


----------



## btarunr (Jul 23, 2016)

efikkan said:


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



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



efikkan said:


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



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



efikkan said:


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



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

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


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 23, 2016)

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


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 23, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


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



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


ensabrenoir said:


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


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


----------



## ppn (Jul 23, 2016)

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


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jul 23, 2016)

btarunr said:


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



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


----------



## efikkan (Jul 23, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


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


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



btarunr said:


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


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



btarunr said:


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


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



btarunr said:


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


That have no relation to anything I said.



btarunr said:


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


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

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


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jul 23, 2016)

efikkan said:


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



Ok I need to call you on your BS.  The 290X soundly defeated the Titan by 10% so just stop right there.   Then the 780 Ti launched in response with only 7% more performance on average.  Within a few months the 780 Ti had already begun performing worse in most of the latest games (A 7970 comes close these days more often then you probably realize).

Sure the 980 Ti came out before the Fury X, but stop playing dumb - it isn't crazy to believe that they saw the Fury X coming just like the 290X and decided to pre-empt it with the 980 Ti once they realized it would roughly match the Titan X (Also note that in DX12 games the Fury X destroys the TItan X).  


Now let's move on to Nvidia's latest prank - the (new?!) Titan X.  This thing (Based on their own numbers) will be a laughably small 25% stronger than the 1080 for double the price and only 50% more VRAM instead of the usual 300% increase in VRAM.   It is very clear imo that Nvidia knows next spring will be VERY rough for them.  All of the latest games will support DX12 and AMD will have a 4600 - 6000 SP Vega card out with HBM2.  It will be a bloodbath.   

So what would you do if you were Nvidia?  Launch the ultra high-end ASAP no matter what so you can grab people's money in the short 6-month time span they will give it to you.  Even with their early yields they can't sell them soon enough.  Paper launches of paper launches is something I have never seen before lol.  And then they even went as far as to nix the HBM2 on the Titan so they could launch it 4 months sooner (Even if it cost them 4GB and 20% performance).

Lastly, what will they call the GP100 gaming card?  Easy, the 1180!   Let AMD have some sales in January - March and then launch the HBM2/3840/1800 MHz 1180!   Who cares if it screws over Titan buyers?  That's what always happens to them anyways....


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 23, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Ok I need to call you on your BS. * The 290X soundly defeated the Titan by 10% so just stop right there.*   Then the 780 Ti launched in response with only 7% more performance on average.  Within a few months the 780 Ti had already begun performing worse in most of the latest games (A 7970 comes close these days more often then you probably realize).
> 
> Sure the 980 Ti came out before the Fury X, but stop playing dumb - it isn't crazy to believe that they saw the Fury X coming just like the 290X and decided to pre-empt it with the 980 Ti once they realized it would roughly match the Titan X (Also note that in DX12 games the Fury X destroys the TItan X).
> 
> ...



Not really.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 23, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Ok I need to call you on your BS.  The 290X soundly defeated the Titan by 10% so just stop right there.  Then the 780 Ti launched in response with only 7% more performance on average.  Within a few months the 780 Ti had already begun performing worse in most of the latest games (A 7970 comes close these days more often then you probably realize).


You obviously have a hard time reading numbers, R9 290X didn't defeat the Titan(the first one), they performed the same. GTX 780 Ti and Titan Black performed significantly better than those, without *any* competition from AMD at all!



Captain_Tom said:


> Sure the 980 Ti came out before the Fury X, but stop playing dumb - it isn't crazy to believe that they saw the Fury X coming just like the 290X and decided to pre-empt it with the 980 Ti once they realized it would roughly match the Titan X


Graphics cards' details are finalized months in advance, and the release window is decided almost one year in advance. There is only room for minor adjustments near the release (like tweaking it a few MHz). Anyone who know anything about GPU development knows this, and it defeats your whole argument.



Captain_Tom said:


> Also note that in DX12 games the Fury X destroys the TItan X


Only in your fantasy land. AMD doesn't crush Nvidia in *unbiased* benchmarks, they scale pretty much the same, exactly as any competent person expected.



Captain_Tom said:


> Lastly, what will they call the GP100 gaming card?  Easy, the 1180!  Let AMD have some sales in January - March and then launch the HBM2/3840/1800 MHz 1180!  Who cares if it screws over Titan buyers?  That's what always happens to them anyways....


Once again, what would be the purpose of releasing GP100 as a consumer card? It would be a waste of a compute/datacenter GPU with no real benefit for end users. We would be better off if Pascal-refresh will offer a full GP102 instead.


----------



## Primalz (Jul 23, 2016)

This new titan X will cost $2400 - $2500 here in Australia if it's twice the price of the gtx 1080. The US price for 1080's is what about $600US. Nvidia says this new card is $1,199US. I could build a kick ass gaming pc for $2400, that could have sli'd 1070's & i5 6600K for about that price. I don't think people here in Australia would fork out $2.5K on a gpu.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 23, 2016)

The price is silly, no doubts but people will but it. There are plenty of folk with comfortable incomes that don't have a problem spending that sort of cash.
Others choose not to or cannot afford to. But business is business and Nvidia wouldn't release it if it wouldn't sell.
Many people want the fastest, many will buy it. In a fantasy land, if this was sold at cost, it would probably take AMD out in one generation.
Who doesn't want the fastest? GTX1080 already beats AMD in all titles, even DX12 AMD sponsored.  This will be more so.
Vega can't come soon enough but even then, Pascal has proven worthy.


----------



## newconroer (Jul 23, 2016)

Confused why they would even go with a Titan that isn't utilizing Pascal's full capabilities - especially since the TI (or so we think) will launch with HBM2.

So we are paying a few hundred more for a larger bus with this?


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 23, 2016)

newconroer said:


> ... especially since the TI (or so we think) will launch with HBM2.


Wishful thinking ... .... ... unless ... unless there will be also full enabled chip Titan H version with HBM2 skewing all prices back after this initial cashgrab


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 23, 2016)

newconroer said:


> Confused why they would even go with a Titan that isn't utilizing Pascal's full capabilities - especially since the TI (or so we think) will launch with HBM2.
> 
> So we are paying a few hundred more for a larger bus with this?


No it does not have HBM2 unless Ti is released more than a year from now. All the very limited HBM2 stock goes to GP100 and GP102 has G5X memory controllers...


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jul 23, 2016)

So it boils down to a crippled chip, way overpriced? allmoast applelike. It kinda looks like the green camp is doing another "reach-around".


----------



## TheHunter (Jul 23, 2016)

I already have one. Bitch please 











Jk.


----------



## Slizzo (Jul 24, 2016)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> No it does not have HBM2 unless Ti is released more than a year from now. All the very limited HBM2 stock goes to GP100 and GP102 has G5X memory controllers...



Sigh...

Only the very limited stock from HYNIX goes to AMD. nVidia has been sourcing their HBM2 from Samsung.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jul 24, 2016)

Titan X Pascal is touted as the most powerful single GPU? I will wait for the upcoming wallet-friendly GTX1080Ti & see whether the refreshed Titan X can hold on to it's crown or not. Titan X Pascal is not to be confused with the current Titan X (GM200) FYI folks. For HBM v2, it's most likely that 2nd Gen Pascal will be utilizing it, which won't be unveiled until mid-Spring 2017 or Summer 2017, which ever comes first. BTW, the differences between Hynix & Samsung is very small since both companies are living under one roof IMO.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jul 24, 2016)

Anyways, I don't think nVidia is going to release the 1080Ti this year, or that it would ever do that. Not unless AMD will bring something to challenge the 1080...


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 24, 2016)

efikkan said:


> You obviously have a hard time reading numbers, R9 290X didn't defeat the Titan(the first one), they performed the same. GTX 780 Ti and Titan Black performed significantly better than those, without *any* competition from AMD at all!
> 
> 
> Graphics cards' details are finalized months in advance, and the release window is decided almost one year in advance. There is only room for minor adjustments near the release (like tweaking it a few MHz). Anyone who know anything about GPU development knows this, and it defeats your whole argument.
> ...



Love it how everything is "unbiased" when NVIDIA is winning, but when AMD humiliates NVIDIA in equally unbiased DX12 and Vulkan titles with 1 generation old flagship, it's somehow "biased". Hilarious. Nothing is biased, AMD is just better in DX12 and Vulkan and that is a fact as solid and real as gravity itself. And it has been known for as long as Mantle existed and for as long as AMD was pushing for this closer to the metal API system. And it's GeForce owner telling you all this. So, do your math.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 24, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> AMD is just better in DX12 and Vulkan and that is a fact as solid and real as gravity itself



That's not strictly true. AMD is generally better in DX12 than it is in DX11.  If you compare the core and transistor counts of GP104 and the full Fiji chip (node size made irrelevant due to comparison of hardware components) the GTX1080 is faster in DX12 and even Doom Vulcan.
The 'AMD is better at DX12' chant is only as solid as gravity when comparing it to itself in DX11.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 24, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> That's not strictly true. AMD is generally better in DX12 than it is in DX11.  If you compare the core and transistor counts of GP104 and the full Fiji chip (node size made irrelevant due to comparison of hardware components) the GTX1080 is faster in DX12 and even Doom Vulcan.
> The 'AMD is better at DX12' chant is only as solid as gravity when comparing it to itself in DX11.



You can't compare NVIDIA's very latest generation with AMD's last generation (because they haven't actually released the new one yet). But if you compare R9 Fury X with GTX 980 or even GTX 980Ti, the story is different.


----------



## Ascalaphus (Jul 24, 2016)

I might get 2 of them.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 24, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> You can't compare NVIDIA's very latest generation with AMD's last generation (because they haven't actually released the new one yet). But if you compare R9 Fury X with GTX 980 or even GTX 980Ti, the story is different.



To refute your point I can.  DX12 has simply given AMD the performance it should provide for the hardware on the chip.  AMD should provide performance very close to Nvidia when it has more transistor counts with higher shader counts.  It's just that in DX11, that hardware isn't all being used very effectively but in DX12 it is.  Nvidia's hardware is used optimally in DX11 and DX12 - it wont produce a much higher performance.  

As for generational stuff, okay - the RX480 has 29.5% more transistors and 80% more shaders.  The GTX1060 has 50% more ROPS.  In Doom Vulkan we know the RX480 is far better but in Ashes they are very equal.  So hardware versus hardware, RX480 should be all over the 1060 - but it's not.  So no, DX12 doesn't make AMD better, necessarily, than Nvidia.  And again, it very much depends on who is developing the game.


----------



## jihadjoe (Jul 24, 2016)

bug said:


> True, but who's AMD going to compete with first?
> Because this is where AMD stands right now: View attachment 77172
> And if you think about the mobile market, Qualcomm is worth almost $100Bn... I don't know who would want to be in AMD's place right now.



The old handset division they sold to Qualcomm a couple of years ago could probably buy them out now.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 24, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Lastly, what will they call the GP100 gaming card?  Easy, the 1180!   Let AMD have some sales in January - March and then launch the HBM2/3840/1800 MHz 1180!   Who cares if it screws over Titan buyers?  That's what always happens to them anyways....



If you really even think that the '1180' will be out with HBM2 on it, you've lost one customer here. Not gonna happen. Nvidia's surely not saying 'HBM2 is expensive, so let's drop it in the card for the larger market at lower price/margins where it doesn't even have any point - go quickly bois!' Besides, it is more than clear that GDDR5X is here to stay for a while and has plenty of headroom to eat into. I think we can even question the existence of a non-top-end HBM2 card in 2017. Maybe AMD will do a Fury V2 but I strongly doubt it, and Nvidia wants to sell the GP100 with HBM2, not the measly 102.

All Nvidia did with Pascal was a huge clock bump and Pascal is worse for it clock-for-clock compared to Maxwell of Kepler. All AMD did with GCN was optimize and update a little, while taking full advantage of the smaller node. GCN essentially hasn't changed much, it was already optimised for the API the way it always was, it's just the API that is now changing towards that architecture. None of this makes either camp have a bad GPU at the moment or a bad architecture. In fact I would argue they both have the architecture that fits the business strategy and it differs in the same way too. Evidenced by Nvidia's 'async workarounds' that perform just as well as AMDs native and compliant Async. Even the perf/watt of Polaris is on par or better than Pascal's in some API's.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 24, 2016)

I'll probably buy one...  albeit second hand, and when it falls below $400.00, just like my present Titan X.

That's a upgrade scheme I can get behind.  I like big chips.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jul 24, 2016)

rougal said:


> Whatever the price is, anyone who have the money and passion for fastest graphics should buy this... buy it fast and stay on the top... until the next 1080Ti comes and then buy that to stay on top.



It's rough being at the top.


----------



## jigar2speed (Jul 25, 2016)

bug said:


> And you know for a fact HBM2 is needed here? Or do you just like shiny new things?


$1200 and no shiny ?? WTF is going on here.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jul 25, 2016)

For this price, the card should come with 1 year free pass to the local whore house or something....


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jul 25, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Love it how everything is "unbiased" when NVIDIA is winning, but when AMD humiliates NVIDIA in equally unbiased DX12 and Vulkan titles with 1 generation old flagship, it's somehow "biased". Hilarious. Nothing is biased, AMD is just better in DX12 and Vulkan and that is a fact as solid and real as gravity itself. And it has been known for as long as Mantle existed and for as long as AMD was pushing for this closer to the metal API system. And it's GeForce owner telling you all this. So, do your math.


When nvidia wins in benchmarks, accusations of "nvidia biased" fly out of the woodwork like fireworks on the 4th of july.

in games that are not *sponsored by nvidia or AMD, *AMD does not have much of a lead from DX12. It benefits more, but that doesnt fix a slow card, and nvidiai still ends up on top of the graph.

Doom with vulkan is the exception to this rule, but that just exposes the other ugly truth. With DX12/vulkan, games will favor either nvidia or AMD based on which developer is making said game, just like with DX11. DX12 as a blanket statement is not going to be a home run consistently for AMD, especially if nvidia continues to dominate the PC space.

And at this point, there are simply no full DX12 games out, just a bunch of dx11 games with a dx12 wrapper on them. It will take some time until true DX12 games are out, and by then both the 400 series and the 1000 series will be irrelevant.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 25, 2016)

ppn said:


> Titan is what 1080 should have been. Hopefully 1180 will fix that.



This makes no sense.  1080 is not built on a flagship level chip. No x80 is.  The 1080 is exactly what it "should have been" based on using a GP104 chip.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 25, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> The 1080 is exactly what it "should have been" based on using a GP104 chip.


Right, because it is a fully enabled GP104 it could only be "more than it is" if it clocked higher and the max clocks are already over 2 GHz on most samples ... seems to me it's actually more than it should have been based on architecture and expected clocks.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 25, 2016)

Uhh Titan X scratch that. Quadro p6000 will use full gp102:


> *NVIDIA Quadro P6000*
> Meanwhile P6000 features Pascal GP102 with 3840 CUDA cores (yikes, that’s more than TITAN XP!). The P6000 also features 24 GB GDDR5X memory (that’s why I think it’s GP102 not GP100).


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 25, 2016)

jabbadap said:


> Uhh Titan X scratch that. Quadro p6000 will use full gp102:


Pic names say P5000 and P6000 but cooler screams M5000 and M6000 lol.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 25, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> Pic names say P5000 and P6000 but cooler screams M5000 and M6000 lol.



Well yeah they look the same on nvidia's own page too. Reuse of that cooler is easy for nvidia, when there's just Quadro.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 25, 2016)

jabbadap said:


> Well yeah they look the same on nvidia's own page too. Reuse of that cooler is easy for nvidia, when there's just Quadro.


The sides say what card they are and are miraculously left out


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 25, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> The sides say what card they are and are miraculously left out



True true, could be just illustration picture of quadro, not the final product.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 26, 2016)

jabbadap said:


> True true, could be just illustration picture of quadro, not the final product.


As a person who uses these cards, they're just pictures of the previous gen. Always take info from pages like videocardz and WCCF with a grain of salt. The specs could be true, but it's speculation. All the top Quadro cards have basically been "professional" versions of the top card for the consumers so it's unlikely it'll have more cores than the new TItan. If it is true, then they are holding out a bigger chip for later sadly. They also have cooler variances each gen.


----------



## Darller (Jul 28, 2016)

Let's make something completely clear.  Those of us who can afford the halo cards like GTX TITAN X, TITAN X, etc. are not and will not be crying over the release of these new cards.  We'll be placing our orders. 

You know the performance levels everyone is drooling over with the 1080?  I've been enjoying that (and more since I always use SLI) for over a year.

Pathetic, jealous little internet denizens hope that we feel badly about our purchases, but the reality is we don't.  We can afford it, and that pisses you off.  Work harder, get a better job or education... do something about your situation, because mine is fine.


----------



## bug (Jul 28, 2016)

Darller said:


> Pathetic, jealous little internet denizens hope that we feel badly about our purchases, but the reality is we don't.



I don't think they "hope" anyone will feel bad, they just don't understand that there can be other buying criteria than "bang for buck". Bang for buck makes a lot of sense for many, but not all.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 28, 2016)

Darller said:


> Let's make something completely clear.  Those of us who can afford the halo cards like GTX TITAN X, TITAN X, etc. are not and will not be crying over the release of these new cards.  We'll be placing our orders.
> 
> You know the performance levels everyone is drooling over with the 1080?  I've been enjoying that (and more since I always use SLI) for over a year.
> 
> Pathetic, jealous little internet denizens hope that we feel badly about our purchases, but the reality is we don't.  We can afford it, and that pisses you off.  Work harder, get a better job or education... do something about your situation, because mine is fine.


Let me see if you made your thing completely clear ... 

How can people cry over graphics card they can't afford when 
a) you are the living proof there exists a person who can afford it and willing to pay for it
b) it makes you mad
c) the method "breathe Darller ... just breathe" doesn't work


----------



## ViperXTR (Aug 2, 2016)

First 3Dmark test for Titan XP?
http://videocardz.com/62738/nvidia-titan-x-pascal-3dmark-performance


----------

