# First NVIDIA GeForce Titan 780 Performance Numbers Revealed



## btarunr (Jan 31, 2013)

The rumor mill is spinning to galeforce (or should we say GeForce) winds. Its newest sack of flour points at what could be the first performance figure of NVIDIA's upcoming GeForce Titan 780 flagship single-GPU graphics card. Circulating among various Chinese tech publications is this 3DMark 11 Xtreme Preset screenshot from the PCinLife community, in which a lucky bloke claimed access to a GeForce Titan 780 engineering sample, and a driver to get it to work. In the scribbled out 3DMark 11 Xtreme Preset score screenshot (below), the source claims the fabled graphics card can singlehandedly score X7107 points. For reference, a GeForce GTX 690 usually scores in the region of X6000 points, and a GTX 680 around X3300. If true, NVIDIA has something truly remarkable up its sleeves, maybe the second coming of 8800 GTX. From older reports, we know that the GeForce Titan is expected to ship sooner than most people think, some time in February.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## btarunr (Jan 31, 2013)

Many Thanks to NHKS for the tip.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 31, 2013)




----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jan 31, 2013)

That's pretty impressive if it all pans out to be true. Can't wait for gaming benchmarks from the Titan.


----------



## Protagonist (Jan 31, 2013)

I should say I'll believe it when i see it, oh well better than no news and impressive if true.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jan 31, 2013)

This score says to me Titan might be a dual GK110 or a 15 SMX part running at around 1GHz though I can't imagine it being almost 100% faster than GK104. 
Don't think it'll get the GTX780 moniker. 
Other rumors say the 700 series will be out after AMD 8000 series, around June.


----------



## _JP_ (Jan 31, 2013)

Here's the catch, it won't be the next 8800GTX if it is priced above $700, even though it CUDA-whips the GTX690.


----------



## dj-electric (Jan 31, 2013)

This is the most unreliable picture, it tells pretty much nothing about the hardwere itself.
For all i care it could be  GTX680 in SLI. If GTX780 will score 6800 graphics at 3dm11 extreme preset im tatooing their logo on my bare ass.


----------



## jihadjoe (Jan 31, 2013)

_JP_ said:


> Here's the catch, it won't be the next 8800GTX if it is priced above $700, even though it CUDA-whips the GTX690.



The next 8800 Ultra!


----------



## Protagonist (Jan 31, 2013)

Crap Daddy said:


> This score says to me Titan might be a dual GK110 or a 15 SMX part running at around 1GHz though I can't imagine it being almost 100% faster than GK104.
> Don't think it'll get the GTX780 moniker.
> *Other rumors say the 700 series will be out after AMD 8000 series, around June*.



True, true..... Rumor Has It, Rumor Has It, Rumor Has It... x8 by Adele, now this song can't get out of my head "Rumor Has It"


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 31, 2013)

I can see my wallet scream in agony again in the near future. While i really like Radeon cards i kinda miss the GeForce days. Donno why exactly, i just do.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 31, 2013)

Crap Daddy said:


> Other rumors say the 700 series will be out after AMD 8000 series, around June.



Yet another theory is NVIDIA could soft launch the card in Feb., with just enough inventory for launch reviews, and a few token sales here and there; with reasonable-availability towards June.


----------



## syeef (Jan 31, 2013)

Sad I just got my GTX 680


----------



## SnapS5 (Jan 31, 2013)

Maybe this mark is made by gtx680 sli or gtx690 oc


----------



## _JP_ (Jan 31, 2013)

jihadjoe said:


> The next 8800 Ultra!


Likely, yeah.


syeef said:


> Sad I just got my GTX 680


And be glad about it.


----------



## RCoon (Jan 31, 2013)

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-titan-gtx-780-performance-surpasses-gtx-690/

This is false news. It is not a 780.


----------



## shamus087 (Jan 31, 2013)

*Paper.*

Hehe Nvidia making good on those documents sold by the AMD employee's? 

I kid.

With the headroom the last gen had and refinements/improvements of the next, it doesn't really surprise me. 

I hope AMD has something up it's sleeve none the less.


----------



## dj-electric (Jan 31, 2013)

RCoon said:


> http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-titan-gtx-780-performance-surpasses-gtx-690/
> 
> This is false news. It is not a 780.



It's funny becuase it's the same site and same person who had so many wrong speculations in the past.


----------



## Fairlady-z (Jan 31, 2013)

Well I have a GTX660 Ti 2bg now, and it does the job just fine. However, there is some slow down here and there when I play BF3. Sadly, thats it only game I play on PC is BF3. I need some new games more than one to dump that kind of cash again. I ve been playing Halo 4 as of later a lot and not touched my PC for gaming. As excited as I am for a new shiny GPU I need some games before I spend money again. I know and understand a lot of people are not in the same boat as I am. 

I had a pair of 7970's and 680's, but ended up selling the systems as I never really gamed that much got my money out of them. I dunno maybe I am just being a big baby, but I really wish we start seeing some KILLER PC games to use that hardware. I highly doubt BF4 will render my current GPU useless.


----------



## RCoon (Jan 31, 2013)

Fairlady-z said:


> Well I have a GTX660 Ti 2bg now, and it does the job just fine. However, there is some slow down here and there when I play BF3. Sadly, thats it only game I play on PC is BF3. I need some new games more than one to dump that kind of cash again. I ve been playing Halo 4 as of later a lot and not touched my PC for gaming. As excited as I am for a new shiny GPU I need some games before I spend money again. I know and understand a lot of people are not in the same boat as I am.
> 
> I had a pair of 7970's and 680's, but ended up selling the systems as I never really gamed that much got my money out of them. I dunno maybe I am just being a big baby, but I really wish we start seeing some KILLER PC games to use that hardware. I highly doubt BF4 will render my current GPU useless.



Sadly games arent evolving as fast as hardware is. Look at what happened when Vista came out. The hardware wasnt ready, this time, the game developers arent ready/cant be bothered to evolve to better engines. Some could blame consoles, but at the end of the day, developers are making more than enough money without improving. Why should they make an intensive game, few people will get the most out of. Not everyone can afford a $300 card, let alone this.
I know plenty of people still stuck on C2D and 5xxx series ATi cards, as they see no reason to upgrade.


----------



## Casecutter (Jan 31, 2013)

btarunr said:


> Yet another theory is NVIDIA could soft launch the card in Feb., with just enough inventory for launch reviews, and a few token sales here and there; with reasonable-availability towards June.


So, a replay of the GTX680, I hope it works that way, so AMD can see how best to set performance and pricing to maximize the market penetration. The last time AMD went first it gave at least 4mo for Nvidia to juggle their product. 

I will say it Titan (GK110) will be a great "premium product", but built and offered just like the GTX690. A Nvidia design/built that they just allows AIB to sticker. Sure AMD won't have any direct competitor, although the price on a 8970 Cross-Fire set-up might be inline, and may well out perform it at times, while not demanding as much power.


----------



## Covert_Death (Jan 31, 2013)

if the performance is that stellar i'll gladly sell my GTX670 and pay the difference when this comes out if price is realistic..... Titan 770 here i come


----------



## Animalpak (Jan 31, 2013)

niceee new nvidia gpu's coming !!!!


----------



## repman244 (Jan 31, 2013)

Hold on a second...doesn't the "780" fall in between 680 and 690 spec. wise? If yes, how can it outperform the 690?


----------



## BigMack70 (Jan 31, 2013)

If those numbers are both true AND indicative of performance in games and not just benchmarks..... *wow*

I'll be dumping my 7970s in a heartbeat for that. While Kepler does score a bit better in 3dmark11 than Tahiti, X7000 is about what my 7970s get at 1200/1800 MHz...

We'll have to wait and see, though... first the rumor was 85% of a GTX 690's performance and now something like 125% of a GTX 690's performance so who knows...


----------



## Covert_Death (Jan 31, 2013)

repman244 said:


> Hold on a second...doesn't the "780" fall in between 680 and 690 spec. wise? If yes, how can it outperform the 690?



the 690 is dual 680's on one card


----------



## Binge (Jan 31, 2013)

I know we have a bang-head-on-wall smilie and a few others, but we REALLY need a face-palm added.


----------



## repman244 (Jan 31, 2013)

Covert_Death said:


> the 690 is dual 680's on one card



And? I still don't see how the 780 can be faster than the 690 when you compare the specs.

K20X

Shading Units:	2688
TMUs:	224
ROPs:	48
SMX:	14
Pixel Rate:	41.0 GPixel/s
Texture Rate:	164.0 GTexel/s
Floating-point performance:	3,935.23 GFLOPS

GTX 690:
Shading Units:	1536 x2
TMUs:	128 x2
ROPs:	32 x2
SMX:	8 x2
Pixel Rate:	29.3 GPixel/s x2
Texture Rate:	117.1 GTexel/s x2
Floating-point performance:	2,810.88 GFLOPS x2


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jan 31, 2013)

GK 110 has 15 SMX 2880 CC. K20x is running at 732 MHz. If this Titan is a fully enabled GK110 and runs at 1GHz we might see something.


----------



## seronx (Jan 31, 2013)

Crap Daddy said:


> GK 110 has 15 SMX 2880 CC. K20x is running at 732 MHz. If this Titan is a fully enabled GK110 and runs at 1GHz we might see something.


It won't run at 1 GHz my algorithms put it close to ~900 MHz.


----------



## repman244 (Jan 31, 2013)

Crap Daddy said:


> GK 110 has 15 SMX 2880 CC. K20x is running at 732 MHz. If this Titan is a fully enabled GK110 and runs at 1GHz we might see something.



Does the 3Dmark even benefit from CC? Aren't they meant for computing?

If it is running at 1GHz, it still seems weird to me...where do those 1000 points come from if the 690 is running around 950MHz.


----------



## Covert_Death (Jan 31, 2013)

repman244 said:


> And? I still don't see how the 780 can be faster than the 690 when you compare the specs.



sorry, my point was that the 690 is spec'd the same as a 680, just two of them. 

if the 780 has 6gb of memory like the link a few posts back says it does that could go a long way towards achieving that score, in addition to a fully loaded 110 clocked higher i think we have a winner, an expensive one but a winner


----------



## NHKS (Jan 31, 2013)

It would be great 'if' this score turns out true/close, when the card is launched, which I doubt




Spoiler: but then.....












but can anybody tell if Extreme preset is GPU memory + DP perf(compute/physics) dependent? I ask this because of the expected 6GB Vram and that GK110 has much better DP performance than GK104


----------



## tokyoduong (Jan 31, 2013)

Unless this is one humongous, power hungry, expensive and low yielding chip then I don't see how this can be possible. I guess we'll just wait and see.

If this is true then prepare for sticker shock! and 300+W requirements.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 31, 2013)

I believe I just found a replacement gpu


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jan 31, 2013)

This is a balls deep high end card, and I personally can not wait!


----------



## Bytales (Jan 31, 2013)

*va Ares II*

This shot is in time to wipe the floor with the ARES II card. If that x7100 is from a single GPU, you can bet your ass ill stick 2 inside my rig.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 31, 2013)

Protagonist said:


> True, true..... Rumor Has It, Rumor Has It, Rumor Has It... x8 by Adele, now this song can't get out of my head "Rumor Has It"




(Looks at 7970) Rumor has it it's the one I'm leaving you for,Rumor Has It, Rumor Has It, Rumor Has It





:shadedshu I'm sorry, I couldn't resist


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 31, 2013)

Well holy shit....
I'm actually not sure what to say if this is accurate...except this card is gonna cost a lot but will be worth it if under $700


----------



## tokyoduong (Jan 31, 2013)

BarbaricSoul said:


> (Looks at 7970) Rumor has it it's the one I'm leaving you for,Rumor Has It, Rumor Has It, Rumor Has It
> 
> 
> 
> ...



or the movie starring jennifer aniston


----------



## erocker (Jan 31, 2013)

Not believable. Especially if this GPU is actually based on GK110, the numbers just don't make any sense. 

Wishful thinking from some Chinese enthusiast I would say.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 31, 2013)

Bytales said:


> This shot is in time to wipe the floor with the ARES II card. If that x7100 is from a single GPU, you can bet your ass ill stick 2 inside my rig.



Got to remember dude - all rumours and one of the main ones was it has 85% the performance of the 690.

Only now an oddly high x7100 score pops up - which seems unlikely, especially for the rumoured power envelope.

We'll all see soon enough.


----------



## dj-electric (Jan 31, 2013)

erocker said:


> Not believable. Especially if this GPU is actually based on GK110, the numbers just don't make any sense.
> 
> Wishful thinking from some Chinese enthusiast I would say.



Agreed, it's performance that cannot be achieved even with a full GK110 core


----------



## m1dg3t (Jan 31, 2013)

erocker said:


> Not believable. Especially if this GPU is actually based on GK110, the numbers just don't make any sense.
> 
> Wishful thinking from some Chinese enthusiast I would say.



Ahhh, someone with some sense! A wise cat you are indeed sir 

Same old same old from Nvidia marketing dept but i'll take the post, it helps mah peenUs grow


----------



## blibba (Jan 31, 2013)

repman244 said:


> Does the 3Dmark even benefit from CC?




Everything benefits from CC. They are the modern equivalent of shaders. Core-count and bus width are the main differences between low-end and high-end cards.


----------



## xvi (Jan 31, 2013)

> According to their info, NVIDIA is preparing one specific GeForce class GPU known as the GeForce Titan which would be available to consumers by the end of February at a price tag of $899 US.
> 
> Read more: http://wccftech.com/nvidia-reportedly-preparing-geforce-titan-gpu-gk110/#ixzz2JaE6AvlT



The price is ridiculous. I miss the good ol' days where $350 bought you the top of the line card.


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Jan 31, 2013)

Pretty spectacular performance. A new 8800 GTX it certainly is not: you didn't have to cough up 900 bucks to get it.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jan 31, 2013)

The rumoured price is crazy, but you can guarantee not long after it's launch you'll see people with two, three even four of them topping all the benchmarks.


----------



## xcaninox (Jan 31, 2013)

awesome performance, horrible price..

900 dollars is A LOT of money.. no chance i'll pay that for a VGA.


----------



## Scrizz (Jan 31, 2013)

xvi said:


> The price is ridiculous. I miss the good ol' days where $350 bought you the top of the line card.



what good ol' days lol.

I remember radeon 9800xt was like $500
and that was 10 years ago


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jan 31, 2013)

xcaninox said:


> awesome performance, horrible price..
> 
> 900 dollars is A LOT of money.. no chance i'll pay that for a VGA.



Good, one more for me. I am waiting for GTX 690 ballpark performance from single GPU. If I get that I am happy even at 900 USD.

Basically having that kind of monster single GPU without SLi downsides is win win win. 8800 Ultra oh yes.


----------



## tastegw (Jan 31, 2013)

Couple things:

Did anyone ever confirm that the Titan was the 780?
I see it as a "special edition" type card with limited production, after all I remember reading "no changes can be made by the manufacturers" so they will all look the same, not even a sticker from asus or evga or etc
But was that confirmed?

Secondly, when was the last single card with 6gb ddr5 benchmarked in 11?

Thirdly, if the score is true, I'll be buying one for sure, if its not true but close, I'll still be buying it.
If its only 50% better then single 680, I'll pass.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 31, 2013)

erocker said:


> Not believable. Especially if this GPU is actually based on GK110, the numbers just don't make any sense.
> 
> Wishful thinking from some Chinese enthusiast I would say.


One never knows!  

But it doesn't hurt to hope for it being the real thing does it?!


And I think the price will be $549 at launch


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jan 31, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> One never knows!
> 
> But it doesn't hurt to hope for it being the real thing does it?!
> 
> ...



Wishful thinking from some Canadian enthusiast I would say.


----------



## NeoXF (Jan 31, 2013)

Bollocks!


----------



## Casecutter (Jan 31, 2013)

tastegw said:


> Did anyone ever confirm that the Titan was the 780?
> I see it as a "special edition" type card with limited production, after all I remember reading "no changes can be made by the manufacturers" so they will all look the same, not even a sticker from asus or evga or etc



I don’t believe Titan will be the 780, but again a standalone design, manufactured in limited production same as a 690, but they may well permit stickers.


----------



## Nordic (Jan 31, 2013)

I can understand upgrading from maybe a 580, but not a 680. How many games do you 680 owners have problems with?


----------



## xorbe (Jan 31, 2013)

I'd say 680 + 1920, no reason.  But at 2560x1600, it'd help.


----------



## NeoXF (Feb 1, 2013)

If it is faster than the GTX 690 and costs less... than that's a good thing right, we really need GPUs to push biger ressolutions don't we... We've been playing around (literally) with 1920x1080, for what, 8 years now. Booooring...

Bring on 3840x2160@120Hz/3D gaming! Yeah! LOL


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 1, 2013)

btarunr said:


> The rumor mill is spinning to galeforce (or should we say GeForce) winds.



I hope w1z pays you extra for adding those terrible jokes.


----------



## KissSh0t (Feb 1, 2013)

I'm still chugging along with good performance in games with my trusty EVGA 460 GTX 1GB ...

But my resolution is small 1366x768

To me 1920x1080 is a crazy resolution xD


----------



## fullinfusion (Feb 1, 2013)

KissSh0t said:


> I'm still chugging along with good performance in games with my trusty EVGA 460 GTX 1GB ...
> 
> But my resolution is small 1366x768
> 
> To me 1920x1080 is a crazy resolution xD


1920x1080 is the norm man! But Yeah that 460 is a great card. I used one for a night playing CODMW and the piss-x was Awesome compared to a 5870!!!! But Im waiting for the next breed to hit the market!


----------



## ueutyi (Feb 1, 2013)

this is geforce 670 SLI


----------



## aayman_farzand (Feb 1, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> 1920x1080 is the norm man! But Yeah that 460 is a great card. I used one for a night playing CODMW and the piss-x was Awesome compared to a 5870!!!! But Im waiting for the next breed to hit the market!



That wasn't PhysX. I remember that CODBO had additional effects enabled when playing with an nvidia card but I don't know if that is the case with MW as well.


----------



## fullinfusion (Feb 1, 2013)

aayman_farzand said:


> That wasn't PhysX. I remember that CODBO had additional effects enabled when playing with an nvidia card but I don't know if that is the case with MW as well.


670 SLI, yeah ya Gotcha but yeah certain screens would show the Phys-x big time over an ATI card


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Feb 1, 2013)

Going to get this XD.


----------



## Ralfies (Feb 1, 2013)

KissSh0t said:


> I'm still chugging along with good performance in games with my trusty EVGA 460 GTX 1GB ...
> 
> But my resolution is small 1366x768
> 
> To me 1920x1080 is a crazy resolution xD



You're lucky, you don't know what you're missing. Once you move to a higher resolution you can't go back and you have to spend a fortune on cards like the Titan to max out games. I love my 2560x1440 monitor, but it sure is disappointing to have to turn down settings with my $400 high-end card!


----------



## jihadjoe (Feb 1, 2013)

repman244 said:


> Hold on a second...doesn't the "780" fall in between 680 and 690 spec. wise? If yes, how can it outperform the 690?



I posted in the earlier thread, that "85%" is misleading. If it's 85% of the theoretical performance, then the Titan may well be faster than the 690 in games because it won't have to deal with SLI scaling issues.

Anyways if it does end up performing that good, I'm eating my hat ...





... and then getting one.



Scrizz said:


> what good ol' days lol.
> 
> I remember radeon 9800xt was like $500
> and that was 10 years ago



Factor in inflation and that $500 isn't too far off from today's $800.


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 1, 2013)

It's somewhat very unlikely that performance will be more than 2x of its predecessor. Usually 2x is the limit at which they hold onto. Though they rarely do it. For AMD i only remember it happening with HD4800 -> HD5800 transition where HD5800 was twice as fast.


----------



## KissSh0t (Feb 1, 2013)

I remember paying over $1000 for the X1900XTX on the first week of it's release.. Video cards are so cheap these days.. but then all pc hardware pretty much is now.

Like memory.. Memory is crazy cheap now compared to say, what it was like in 2005.


----------



## jihadjoe (Feb 1, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> It's somewhat very unlikely that performance will be more than 2x of its predecessor. Usually 2x is the limit at which they hold onto. Though they rarely do it. For AMD i only remember it happening with HD4800 -> HD5800 transition where HD5800 was twice as fast.



Except the 680 (1st gen, medium kepler) isn't really its predecessor. The GK110 is already the refined big kepler.

This is like GTX580 (second gen, big fermi) compared to GTX460 (1st gen, medium fermi). Double the performance is very plausible. I'm just hoping Nvidia is sensible about it and doesn't go for double the price.


----------



## Aceman.au (Feb 1, 2013)

Depending on performance numbers, I'll be getting either a 790 or 8990. (or whatever the dual GPU card will be called.) My 7970's have been disappointing. Low FPS in WoW @ maxxed out 1080p


----------



## symmetrical (Feb 1, 2013)

Aceman.au said:


> Depending on performance numbers, I'll be getting either a 790 or 8990. (or whatever the dual GPU card will be called.) My 7970's have been disappointing. Low FPS in WoW @ maxxed out 1080p



Is this a joke?


----------



## Aceman.au (Feb 1, 2013)

symmetrical said:


> Is this a joke?



No I'm disappointed with my 7970's severe stuttering on games, shitty FPS in some games


----------



## Bytales (Feb 1, 2013)

*Speculation*

If that score is from 2 cards, then one card would be betwen 680 and 690. And for a 3500 4000 X score, it tottaly wont be worth the price. But for a single GPU, that may well be the mother ship of gpus out there.


----------



## Ralfies (Feb 1, 2013)

Aceman.au said:


> No I'm disappointed with my 7970's severe stuttering on games, shitty FPS in some games



I think he's confused as to why you'd want to upgrade to another dual gpu system and have the same problems.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Feb 1, 2013)

xvi said:


> The price is ridiculous. I miss the good ol' days where $350 bought you the top of the line card.



I bought my 5870 with EXACTLY the same money.


----------



## Nordic (Feb 1, 2013)

Aceman.au said:


> Depending on performance numbers, I'll be getting either a 790 or 8990. (or whatever the dual GPU card will be called.) My 7970's have been disappointing. Low FPS in WoW @ maxxed out 1080p









I would not call what w1zz's review shows bad fps. Sounds like you have a possible crossfire problem, or maybe something else. Why did you get crossfire anyways? Isn't 100 fps enough, if you at least got that?


----------



## Calin Banc (Feb 1, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> It's somewhat very unlikely that performance will be more than 2x of its predecessor. Usually 2x is the limit at which they hold onto. Though they rarely do it. For AMD i only remember it happening with HD4800 -> HD5800 transition where HD5800 was twice as fast.



As far as I remember, the difference was huge if you'd compare the 4850 512MB model with the 5870 1GB one. A lot of games went beyond 512MB mark and that took a hit. Although 6970 was close to 5870, Crysis 3 seems to show a 57% gap between them - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=23672202&postcount=112
BF 3 and and Max Payne 3 in the TPW "never settle bundle" review, show an almost double performance when 6970 goes head to head with the 7970 ghz.ed. - http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/5.html . At the end of the day, it depends on the benchmark you put them through and how fast the software makes good use of the new hardware available.


----------



## tacosRcool (Feb 1, 2013)

That number is awesome! When the GTX 7XX series comes out, I'll stick to my GTX 670 and will buy another one just cuz everybody is rushing to grab the newer models


----------



## Aceman.au (Feb 1, 2013)

james888 said:


> http://tpucdn.com/reviews/HIS/HD_7970_X_Turbo/images/wow_1920_1200.gif
> 
> I would not call what w1zz's review shows bad fps. Sounds like you have a possible crossfire problem, or maybe something else. Why did you get crossfire anyways? Isn't 100 fps enough, if you at least got that?



I get 50 at best, average around 30-40


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 1, 2013)

Aceman.au said:


> I get 50 at best, average around 30-40



Are your sure that it's your video card slowing down? WoW has a nasty CPU bottleneck problem. It's not like it can take full advantage of your 6-core SB-E chip. What does your GPU usage look like and does reducing shadow quality make your FPS skyrocket?


----------



## Aceman.au (Feb 1, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> Are your sure that it's your video card slowing down? WoW has a nasty CPU bottleneck problem. It's not like it can take full advantage of your 6-core SB-E chip. What does your GPU usage look like and does reducing shadow quality make your FPS skyrocket?



I stood still in front of the Stormwind AH. Its fairly populated. About 55 FPS, turning the shadow quality from Ultra to Low bumped it up to 77 FPS.

GPU-Z reports my core clock @ 1000mhz and memory clock @ 1375mhz (these 7970s arent the GHZ editions, but the overclocked editions)

I cant access CCC to see activity. I click the exe and my mouse flickers with a loading circle and nothing...


----------



## Crap Daddy (Feb 1, 2013)

I'm starting to think it's not so impossible to be faster than a GTX690 which is basically 2 fully enabled  GK104 SLIed running at 915+MHz. The 690 is around 1.6x a GTX680 (correct me if I'm wrong). GK110 has almost double the TMUs 240 vs. 128, almost double CUDA cores 2880 vs. 1536 and memory interface of 384bit giving 288 MB/s bandwidth vs. 256/192MB/s compared to GK104. Let's not forget it has 7 billion transistors, again almost double the GK104 (not that it matters much but it's really a monster chip). If they will clock it at 1GHz and don't care about power consumption since it's uber enthusiast category, I think it's not such a SF presumption that it will top the GTX690.


----------



## THE_EGG (Feb 1, 2013)

Hmmm those numbers seem a little too good to be true. But even if it _only_ achieves 6000 or over, Nvidia can still take my money. One of the few top end video cards I'd be interested in getting on release as usually I hold off for the initial price drop but this seems too good to pass up.


----------



## Assimilator (Feb 1, 2013)

Aceman.au said:


> I cant access CCC to see activity. I click the exe and my mouse flickers with a loading circle and nothing...



I had the same issue and this fixed it: http://www.sevenforums.com/graphic-...control-center-ccc-will-not-open-install.html


----------



## Hayder_Master (Feb 1, 2013)

i see it's nothing approaching, it's remind me in nvidia gtx200 series and ATI 4000 series times, Nvidia gtx600 series and AMD 7000 series are doing the job and booth of them is really Satisfied for performance and sales, maybe in Q3 2013 or Q4 wii see something.


----------



## Recus (Feb 1, 2013)

Titan is Titan. : P

http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/16487-nvidia-geforce-titan-ar-geforce-titan


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 1, 2013)

Aceman.au said:


> I cant access CCC to see activity. I click the exe and my mouse flickers with a loading circle and nothing...



Why are you using CCC to view usage? It doesn't even give you vram usage and doesn't graph it or anything so it's basically useless for that purpose.  Use the GPU-Z OSD server or use Afterburner's OSD so you can see it right in the WoW viewport. I suspect you're bottlenecking on your CPU (yes, I know that its blasphemous to say an Intel 6-core is bottlenecking.)

You know, this might sound odd but try disabling hyperthreading and try it again. If your framerate improves it's very likely to be a CPU bottleneck on one or two cores. Could you try and setup turbo so it boosts the first couple cores a bit higher than 4Ghz? Maybe that might help if it is a bottleneck with the most used thread in WoW. Most games won't be able to utilize the full ability of all 6 cores, so no use overclocking all 6 cores unless you need it imho.

Seeing what your GPU usage looks like could also say if its a CPU bottleneck or not. If its anything less than 85%, you know what's going on.


----------



## Aceman.au (Feb 2, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> Why are you using CCC to view usage? It doesn't even give you vram usage and doesn't graph it or anything so it's basically useless for that purpose.  Use the GPU-Z OSD server or use Afterburner's OSD so you can see it right in the WoW viewport. I suspect you're bottlenecking on your CPU (yes, I know that its blasphemous to say an Intel 6-core is bottlenecking.)
> 
> You know, this might sound odd but try disabling hyperthreading and try it again. If your framerate improves it's very likely to be a CPU bottleneck on one or two cores. Could you try and setup turbo so it boosts the first couple cores a bit higher than 4Ghz? Maybe that might help if it is a bottleneck with the most used thread in WoW. Most games won't be able to utilize the full ability of all 6 cores, so no use overclocking all 6 cores unless you need it imho.
> 
> Seeing what your GPU usage looks like could also say if its a CPU bottleneck or not. If its anything less than 85%, you know what's going on.




Wow what, the GPU usage is at 78 percent on GPU2 and 24 percent on GPU1


----------



## Finners (Feb 2, 2013)

3dmark is fake just an OC'd 690. From Devast8nDiscoDave over on aria forums


----------



## syeef (Feb 2, 2013)

Finners said:


> 3dmark is fake just an OC'd 690. From Devast8nDiscoDave over on aria forums
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/oGPVPHY.jpg



so you mean around 90 posts over nothing?


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Feb 2, 2013)

"Prestandan beräknas uppgå till cirka 85 procent av ett Geforce GTX 690." 

http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/164...-geforce-titan


----------



## Gradius2 (Feb 2, 2013)

It was already confirmed to be **FAKE**.

People should investigate a bit before posting such obvious (fake) news.  

Every GPU bench pre-official-release specially for China is meant to be fake.


----------



## ThunderStorm (Feb 2, 2013)

repman244 said:


> And? I still don't see how the 780 can be faster than the 690 when you compare the specs.
> 
> K20X
> 
> ...



Exactly. The specs speak for themself. There is no way the 780 can beat 690, that's just way unreal.

  With pure mathematical calculation: 2688/1532 = 1.75 ergo a theoretical  75% performance increase over the 680 with no power leak and 100% effective input power ( sorry I forget the exact phrase for this particular expression, I'm just 19 you know. ) 
  If you insert the exhaust power into the theoretical equation, so let's say 20%, that 75% would now ve 55%. 

  And now the price comparison: 900$ / 1.55 vs 469$ ( the cheapest one i can find on newegg )/ 1. I would say NV is applying the same strategy as the one ASUS are now using with the ARES II, so anyone who is bitching about it now can stay silenced. Thus, Videocardz recently posted an article about the delay of next generation to Q4 2013. Therefore, I would say buying either ARES II or 780 would not be stupid.



Gradius2 said:


> It was already confirmed to be **FAKE**.
> 
> People should investigate a bit before posting such obvious (fake) news.
> 
> Every GPU bench pre-official-release specially for China is meant to be fake.



Not just every GPU bench pre-official-release, everything related to China is FAKE......, merchandise/people/culture... EVERYTHING.


----------



## erocker (Feb 2, 2013)

syeef said:


> so you mean around 90 posts over nothing?



Lol, yes. But really, it is entertaining to see people get carried away with obviously bad/fake information.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Feb 2, 2013)

Finners said:


> 3dmark is fake just an OC'd 690. From Devast8nDiscoDave over on aria forums
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/oGPVPHY.jpg



Whilst I appreciate the score is most likely bull, why does this magic technic apparently reveal the cards name, yet not even a smidgen of the time and date it was run?

The original pic my be fake [score], but the fake to prove it's a fake is also a fake.


----------



## Gradius2 (Feb 2, 2013)

Well, that was good for the LOL (post #95 to the end).


----------



## Crap Daddy (Feb 2, 2013)

Information is that PCPer and TechReport have the card for testing. Fake or not I'm sure we'll find out soon what's in the bag.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Feb 2, 2013)

Crap Daddy said:


> Information is that PCPer and TechReport have the card for testing. Fake or not I'm sure we'll find out soon what's in the bag.



Indeed, and regardless it will be interesting to see what the fastest GPU on the planet can do.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Feb 3, 2013)

erocker said:


> Lol, yes. But really, it is entertaining to see people get carried away with obviously bad/fake information.



I think TPU should have an official turd pic for instances just like this...Perhaps one of somebody holding a fresh squeezed one in their hand with a toilet in the background...just saying


----------



## Cotton_Cup (Feb 3, 2013)

oh my freaking graphics card. ima get one


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Feb 3, 2013)

If this is true I am excite!


----------



## Am* (Feb 3, 2013)

Hold up a freaking second...this directly contradicts the other rumour



> Other reports suggest that the upcoming GeForce Titan will also not be called the GeForce GTX 780, nor will it take a GTX 600 series name. It will simply be called the GeForce Titan, likely inspired by the by the Cray Titan supercomputer, which houses nearly 19 thousand Nvidia Tesla K20X cards.



http://www.tomshardware.com/news/GeForce-Titan-GK110-GTX690,20797.html

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

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

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

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

This whole story reeks of horse shit. 85% of performance of a GTX 690 sounds about right, and that's the best anyone should expect.


----------



## xenocide (Feb 4, 2013)

Am* said:


> The only way it could even come close would have to be at some ridiculously VRAM-intensive resolution, like 3840x2160 or higher and even then it would be a struggle.



Anyone that buys a top of the line GPU to play anything less than high resolution is--generally speaking--a fool.  Nobody buys a GTX690 to play WoW at 800x600.



Am* said:


> This whole story reeks of horse shit. 85% of performance of a GTX 690 sounds about right, and that's the best anyone should expect.



For starters, it's a rumor.  The first line of the post reads "The rumor mill is spinning".  If you're taking this as fact you're doing it _wrong_.  Also, even 85% the performance of a GTX690 would be pretty damn impressive.


----------



## N3M3515 (Feb 4, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> It's somewhat very unlikely that performance will be more than 2x of its predecessor. Usually 2x is the limit at which they hold onto. Though they rarely do it. For AMD i only remember it happening with HD4800 -> HD5800 transition where HD5800 was twice as fast.


 
3870 -> 4870 was 2.5 times performance increase!


----------



## N3M3515 (Feb 4, 2013)

Aceman.au said:


> No I'm disappointed with my 7970's severe stuttering on games, shitty FPS in some games



Install Radeon Pro.


----------



## Slizzo (Feb 5, 2013)

N3M3515 said:


> 3870 -> 4870 was 2.5 times performance increase!



That's more because of the huge issues ATi had at the time of producing that card. Was a huge mis-step on their end.

Same with the 79xx series cards in a way. Although all we have is speculation as to why nVidia chose to release GK104 as their top end chip rather than GK100.


----------



## N3M3515 (Feb 6, 2013)

Slizzo said:


> That's more because of the huge issues ATi had at the time of producing that card. Was a huge mis-step on their end.
> 
> Same with the 79xx series cards in a way. Although all we have is speculation as to why nVidia chose to release GK104 as their top end chip rather than GK100.



Whatever the reason is, the fact is that they couldn't do it.


----------



## Slizzo (Feb 6, 2013)

N3M3515 said:


> Whatever the reason is, the fact is that they couldn't do it.



Couldn't, or wouldn't? We just don't know. No information was released, and nVidia released their usually mid-range GPU as a top tier product. Mainly because AMD's performance just wasn't there.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 6, 2013)

Slizzo said:


> Couldn't, or wouldn't? We just don't know. No information was released, and nVidia released their usually mid-range GPU as a top tier product. Mainly because AMD's performance just wasn't there.



...but it's not like the GTX 680 walked over the 7970. If they had something faster that was working would have made those number easily favor nVidia if that is the case. You're right though, we don't know, so something faster than the 680 could have been ready, then again it might not. It also did take a while for nVidia to roll out the 680, so I think to say a faster card was ready to be marketted would be a hell of a stretch.


----------



## Slizzo (Feb 6, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> ...but it's not like the GTX 680 walked over the 7970. If they had something faster that was working would have made those number easily favor nVidia if that is the case. You're right though, we don't know, so something faster than the 680 could have been ready, then again it might not. It also did take a while for nVidia to roll out the 680, so I think to say a faster card was ready to be marketted would be a hell of a stretch.



It's true the 680 didn't walk all over the 7970, but nVidia realized they could match the performance of the 7970 with their GK104 chip, and decided to roll that out instead of the GK100. Whether they were able to produce great quantities of the GK100 or not we will never really know. However, if the 7970 performed at the level that the GK100 was supposed to be capable of, you bet your bacon that nVidia would have held off longer and released that chip as top tier.

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

EDIT: Additionally, nVidia typically releases their top tier first then back fills the line up. So it's entirely possible GK100 was ready to go, and they decided to wait until GK104 was ready and released that to compete with the 7970.


----------



## xenocide (Feb 7, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> ...but it's not like the GTX 680 walked over the 7970. If they had something faster that was working would have made those number easily favor nVidia if that is the case. You're right though, we don't know, so something faster than the 680 could have been ready, then again it might not. It also did take a while for nVidia to roll out the 680, so I think to say a faster card was ready to be marketted would be a hell of a stretch.



They were in the position where they could release a mid-range card, as a high-end card (according to the gaming performance of their competitors) and *double* their profit margins.  They would have been insane not to do it--from a business perspective.  If AMD had released the HD7970, and it was 15-20% faster than it was at launch, Nvidia would have launched GK104 as the GTX660, GTX650Ti, and the GTX650, and filled the $200-300 price range.  Instead, they were able to overclock it to high hell and sell it for $350-550.  Why would they *not* do that?  It meant for every GTX680 they would sell, they'd make something like $200 in *pure profit*.


----------

