Friday, July 22nd 2016

NVIDIA Announces the GeForce GTX TITAN X Pascal
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.
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.
162 Comments on NVIDIA Announces the GeForce GTX TITAN X Pascal
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).
But yes, Nvidia aren't going out of their way to make things easy to follow ;)
Is it called Tesla? Can it use professional drivers? F*CK NO! It says "GTX" because it is a gaming card. Period.
HBM2 would've made it ridiculously more expensive without any added benefits over its current configuration.
You should care about performance, not fancy words. 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. When have the "Ti" version been faster than Titan? Stop spreading this lie!
Every technically competent person knows it's fully supported. No.
To what purpose? How will HBM help your gaming?
Even if I lived in the US making USD I wouldn't buy this card, $1200 is just too much, plain and simple.
Titan is for (semi-)professional graphics.
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.
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"?
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.
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.....
coming soon ...
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!