Monday, December 3rd 2018

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

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

"Turing is NVIDIA's biggest advance in a decade - fusing shaders, ray tracing, and deep learning to reinvent the GPU," said Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of NVIDIA. "The introduction of T-Rex puts Turing within reach of millions of the most demanding PC users - developers, scientists and content creators."
Ultimate PC GPU
NVIDIA's greatest leap since the invention of the CUDA GPU in 2006 and the result of more than 10,000 engineering-years of effort, Turing features new RT Cores to accelerate ray tracing, plus new multi-precision Tensor Cores for AI training and inferencing. These two engines - along with more powerful compute and enhanced rasterization - enable capabilities that will transform the work of millions of developers, designers and artists across multiple industries.
Designed for a variety of computationally demanding applications, TITAN RTX provides an unbeatable combination of AI, real-time ray-traced graphics, next-gen virtual reality and high performance computing. It delivers:
  • 576 multi-precision Turing Tensor Cores, providing up to 130 teraflops of deep learning performance.
  • 72 Turing RT Cores, delivering up to 11 GigaRays per second of real-time ray-tracing performance.
  • 24GB of high-speed GDDR6 memory with 672GB/s of bandwidth - 2x the memory of previous-generation TITAN GPUs - to fit larger models and datasets.
  • 100GB/s NVIDIA NVLink can pair two TITAN RTX GPUs to scale memory and compute.
  • Incredible performance and memory bandwidth for real-time 8K video editing.
  • VirtualLink port provides the performance and connectivity required by next-gen VR headsets.
Built for AI Researchers and Deep Learning Developers
TITAN RTX transforms the PC into a supercomputer for AI researchers and developers. TITAN RTX provides multi-precision Turing Tensor Cores for breakthrough performance from FP32, FP16, INT8 and INT4, allowing faster training and inference of neural networks. It offers twice the memory capacity of previous generation TITAN GPUs, along with NVLink to allow researchers to experiment with larger neural networks and data sets.

Perfect for Data Scientists
A powerful tool for data scientists, TITAN RTX accelerates data analytics with RAPIDS. RAPIDS open-source libraries integrate seamlessly with the world's most popular data science workflows to speed up machine learning.
Content Creators Create Their Best Work
TITAN RTX brings the power of real-time ray tracing and AI to creative applications, so 5 million PC-based creators can iterate faster. It also delivers the computational horsepower and memory bandwidth needed for real-time 8K video editing.
Available This Month
TITAN RTX will be available later this month in the U.S. and Europe for $2,499.
Add your own comment

193 Comments on NVIDIA Presents the TITAN RTX 24GB Graphics Card at $2,499

#101
Vya Domus
It's just that I imagine one must have pretty conflicting feelings to call their favorite company stupid.
Posted on Reply
#102
Fluffmeister
Three grand is sensible, and not even a fake launch price at that.
Posted on Reply
#103
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
enya64So what you are saying is...you disagree. Cool.
Definitely disagree with A). Despite your local experience, Steam stats and even our enthusiast community here bear out that people using big HDTV’s to play their PC games is still a very small minority.
Posted on Reply
#104
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
FluffmeisterThree grand is sensible, and not even a fake launch price at that.
There is absolutely no way I could justify that though and I don't think it's wise to support nVidia for doing this kind of crap. So long as people buy it, they'll continue to get away with these kinds of shenanigans. Mind you, a big reason I got a Vega 64 was not because I wanted an AMD card, but because I didn't want to support nVidia. This is just another reason why I think my choice was justified. A sale lost is more useful than complaining about prices, even more so if you buy it anyways.

Another way to look at it is this, if this card is twice as fast as my Vega 64, it's >6x the cost for 2x the performance (and 2x performance might be pushing it.)
Posted on Reply
#105
Vya Domus
AquinusAnother way to look at it is this, if this card is twice as fast as my Vega 64, it's >6x the cost for 2x the performance (and 2x performance might be pushing it.)
But for some unexplained reason people think you shouldn't apply the performance/price metric to these products because they are somehow special. Of course that's baloney, there is absolutely no rational reason for that differentiation to be made, both are products that can be bought by anyone. If the performance/dollar is dogshit , it can be dogshit whether it's an RTX Titan or a GT 1030. That can't be denied nor ignored.
Posted on Reply
#106
EarthDog
Vya Domus40 inch 4K TV here used as a desktop. You know one now. :)
Yippee!
Posted on Reply
#107
Prima.Vera
Curious about the reviews and comparison results with the Titan V.
Posted on Reply
#108
Unregistered
Vya DomusBut for some unexplained reason people think you shouldn't apply the performance/price metric to these products because they are somehow special. Of course that's baloney, there is absolutely no rational reason for that differentiation to be made, both are products that can be bought by anyone. If the performance/dollar is dogshit , it can be dogshit whether it's an RTX Titan or a GT 1030. That can't be denied nor ignored.
No better example of the power of Branding.
#109
Vya Domus
By the way, the comment section on every post Nvidia makes related to this is pretty hilarious.

Posted on Reply
#110
TheOne
RTX would have been better received if the card was an upgrade in performance from the previous generation, but because of its pricing it is a side step just touting new features.
Posted on Reply
#111
EarthDog
Vya DomusBut for some unexplained reason people think you shouldn't apply the performance/price metric to these products because they are somehow special. Of course that's baloney, there is absolutely no rational reason for that differentiation to be made, both are products that can be bought by anyone. If the performance/dollar is dogshit , it can be dogshit whether it's an RTX Titan or a GT 1030. That can't be denied nor ignored.
People think that though (maybe Fluff - but he's a fringe case, LOL)? I just think they don't care. Its a metric for those looking to spend the least amount for the best performance...and clearly that isn't everyone. Some just want the faster [insert product here] regardless if it costs more. I think we all get this card doesn't cut it on that front (how could we not, LOL). Not even close. That said, clearly, it never intended to be a champion of $/perf... which is OK as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDIT: WTH is with that GIANT arse pic from a phone. Resize that shiz... sheesh! LOL
TheOneRTX would have been better received if the card was an upgrade in performance from the previous generation, but because of its pricing it is a side step just touting new features.
It is an upgrade in performance though. Its just that price/perf. ratio that people get hung up on. Clearly they are better performing cards.
Posted on Reply
#112
Solaris17
Super Dainty Moderator
Vayra86Handicapped DP performance
Display Port? I don’t understand this. Does it have some kind of handicap with outputs?
Posted on Reply
#114
Vya Domus
EarthDogNow that it is actually better
Better ? Yes. Still horrendously bad ? Yep. You can't change that no mater how nuanced you get.
EarthDogIf they gave it full DP capabilities, then it would vulture sales from the Quadro line.
Again, this is wrong the Quadro has the same amount of DP cores. It's basically identical.
EarthDogreal gimping, in a different thread.
It's not gimped, that's the chip. Why are you using inflammatory words such as "gimped" ?
Posted on Reply
#115
EarthDog
Vya DomusBetter ? Yes. Still horrendously bad ? Yep. You can't change that no mater how nuanced you get.
Yeah... I think I covered that...
EarthDogthat same contingent (conveniently?) forgets about that and falls back to barking (speaking of dog shit - and there are those dramatic, polarizing, toxic words again... :() about the overall cost (which again, they are right).
....and accurately called the response too!

So the Titan V is a special snowflake and allows for the full DP capabilities while Quadro does not? What am I missing on that front? Note I wasn't talking about count, but performance in general. I don't have much knowledge in that area, admittedly. ;)
Vya DomusIt's not gimped, that's the chip. Why are you using inflammatory words such as "gimped" ?
@Vya Domus - I just saw this edit...

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

Again, I am asking for help to learn so I can understand better. Im really not looking for vague and, what I feel are, dismissive replies, but genuine help to understand. The RTX Quadros have what performance for DP? Titan V has what for DP performance? Titan RTX has what for DP performance? Sorry if what you are saying it isn't sinking in fast enough on my end... a more detailed explanation or link would be great. :)
Posted on Reply
#116
TheOne
EarthDogIt is an upgrade in performance though. Its just that price/perf. ratio that people get hung up on. Clearly they are better performing cards.
The problem is that the 2080Ti/2080/2070 are in different price brackets from the previous generation, a 2080 will net you roughly the same performance as a 1080Ti at the same MSRP, but with Tensor/RT/DXR, and if the card had been priced between $500-$700 then it would have been a successor to the 1080, but it is targeting people who pay/buy $800+/80Ti, NVIDIA may be trying to move each product line to a higher tier. NVIDIA was able to overcharge with Pascal because of the performance boost each card had with a 1070 taking on the 980Ti, but at a lower price, Turing doesn't have that advantage.

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

Now personally I've been waiting for RT since I saw my reflection in Duke Nukem 3D 20 years ago, so I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes.
Posted on Reply
#117
EarthDog
Thank you for clarifying your words. It is a side-grade in performance/$ but not in raw performance. I'm not terribly concerned about price brackets and where products land in the stack. We can go in circles saying the 2080 isn't a succesor to the 1080 and so on, but we'll agree to disagree on that point as in my mind, a successor to a product doesn't have anything to do with cost. With your thinking, the new Honda Accord isn't a succesor to last gen Accord because it costs more (as much as a TLX). Or the new Civic isn't a succesor to the old one but the Accord because its costs as much (loaded, bear with me, LOL). I don't follow that logic. Titan is to Titan as 1080Ti is to 2080Ti to me. :)
Posted on Reply
#118
Vya Domus
EarthDogWhat am I missing on that front?
This, the core ratio on the Quadro :


Same as on the Titan and 2080ti. It's not gimped in any way, the only differences stem from clockspeed.
EarthDogYou used the word handicapped
No, I didn't.
Posted on Reply
#119
EarthDog
Oops. Wrong person! My point still remains though about gimped..

*throws hook back. Not. Gonna. Dait'.
Posted on Reply
#120
Vya Domus
EarthDoglMy point still remains though about gimped..
How can something be gimped if that didn't exist from the beginning. TU102 doesn't have the same DP core ratio because those RT cores don't come for free, they use die space and eat away from the TDP budget. The memory bandwidth would also likely be insufficient to feed that many different ALUs/FPUs.

Unlike what some of you think Nvidia can't pull miracles and fit everything in this world on a single chip. Some things need to go.
Posted on Reply
#121
EarthDog
Performance of DP overall is 'handicapped' from the previous gen which ran it faster. They gimped it for Turing is more accurate, yes?
Posted on Reply
#122
Vya Domus
If the chip would have been identical except it had less DP cores then yes, I would have considered that to be gimped.

But it's not. You can choose between DP or RT performance but you can't have both. They likely couldn't have done it even if they wanted.
Posted on Reply
#123
jabbadap
Vya DomusHow can something be gimped if that didn't exist from the beginning. TU102 doesn't have the same DP core ratio because those RT cores don't come for free, they use die space and eat away from the TDP budget. The memory bandwidth would also likely be insufficient to feed that many different ALUs/FPUs.

Unlike what some of you think Nvidia can't pull miracles and fit everything in this world on a single chip. Some things need to go.
And the thing is gv100 has more shaders on it. There's no point of doing same size lesser shader version chip on in the same manufacturing process. Maybe we see die shrinked Turing with more shaders in future, but right now it's not really needed. Volta is monster on fp64 computing.
EarthDogPerformance of DP overall is 'handicapped' from the previous gen which ran it faster. They gimped it for Turing is more accurate, yes?
No, gp102/gp104/gp106/gp107/gp108/gm200/gm204/gm206/gm107/gm108 has the same fp32/fp64 ratio. Its have been 1:32 since first maxwell. "Non fp64 heavy" keplers were 1:24, while fp64 kepler was 1:3, not full do mind.
Posted on Reply
#124
EarthDog
So Titan V is a snowflake since it doesn't have the 1:32 ratio, yes?
Vya DomusIf the chip would have been identical except it had less DP cores then yes, it would have considered that to be gimped.
I wish my knife was a sharp as yours. I can't split hairs like that my man! :)
Posted on Reply
#125
Ubersonic
Solaris17Display Port? I don’t understand this. Does it have some kind of handicap with outputs?
Double Precision.

Refers to the FP64 mathematical performance, it's historically what separates Nvidia's consumer cards (GTX/RTX/Titan) from the industrial ones (Quadro/Tesla/etc). Though they did improve performance on the Titan XP via a driver update in response to Vega 64 teabagging it for half the price due to their standard gimping of DP performance.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 21st, 2024 15:32 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts