Originally Posted by magnek
Not this again. See below:
Even your own cherry picked review doesn't agree with those numbers...sigh.
Dragon Age Inquisition 39% increase with TITAN X over 980
Shadow of Mordor ~37% increase with TITAN X over 980
GRID Auto 36% increase with TITAN X over 980
Far Cry 4 35% increase with TITAN X over 980
And in other reviews you'll see it floating much more towards 40% and often close to 43-45% in some games. On average the TITAN X maxwell is close to 40% over the 980. You're trying to claim that this new TITAN won't be nearly as big of a difference simply due to a slight change in cuda-core percentage which is ludicrous. That "10%" is only 256 cuda cores, which we should ALL be well aware of the fact that "when on the same die" a difference of 256 is exactly the difference between the Maxwell TITAN X and 980 TI! And EVERYONE and their mom was saying "TITAN X isn't worth anything, 980 TI made it UTTERLY redundant" because there was literally like 3-4% difference AT MOST between the two. And using your same argument of "percentages" i can point out that 3,840 (50% over 1080 core-wise) vs 3,584 (40%) is even SMALLER of a real world difference than it was in the 980 TI vs Maxwell TITAN X comparison due to the larger starting numbers. 3072 vs 2816 (TITAN X vs 980 TI) was only a ~9% difference if you divide larger by smaller; do the same for 3840 vs 3584 and you get 7%. This means that the ~3-4% real world difference between TITAN X and 980 TI will actually be LARGER than the difference between THIS card and the theoretical "full GP102 3840 core" meaning only ~2% difference!
This means you are going to see AT MOST a ~2-3% lower difference between 1080 and this TITAN than we saw from 980 to Maxwell TITAN X! That is just pure math.
The fact of the matter is, this TITAN X is STILL 1024 cores more than the x80 model; which is the EXACT same as the 1024 cores that the 3072 core Maxwell TITAN X had over the 2048 core 980. That is why it will perform very close to identical to how the TITAN X did over the 980 in this comparison of 1080 vs TITAN XP.
Originally Posted by junkman People are allowed to complain about anything they want to complain about. At $1200, you can should be able to complain about the color if you want to.
Oh of course! I didn't mean to infer that i was calling out people who are complaining about PRICE! Please don't misunderstand, even "I" am complaining about the price. It is 100% true that Nvidia has us almost conditioned to expect price hikes on flagship parts and we have just gotten used to it over time like a lobster slowly boiling in a pot that thinks it's a hot spring until he suddently starts burning to death; whereas if they raised the temps/price at once we would jump out of the pot so to speak.
I'm talking about people who are complaining about the PERFORMANCE, not people complaining about PRICE. Some people are saying this card is so much worse than previous TITAN cards and that it isn't even worth $999 or even $899 etc.. and such; even people comparing this card to an x70 card performance wise lol. Mostly it's due to the die size not being the magical 600mm2 that people expect from TITANs (even though the ONLY ~600mm2 dies Nvidia has EVER made were the original Keplar GK110/210 TITAN/780 TI etc.. and the Maxwell GM200 980 TI/TITAN X. They claim that past x80 flagships have been just as big; but fail to see that the vast majority of past flagships are between 350mm2 and ~425mm2 or so. The 9800 GTX was just a TINY bit bigger than the GTX 1080 die size. The only flagship that ever got even close to 600mm2 was the GTX 480/580 with their 520mm2 size that is alot closer to the 475mm2 size of this TITAN XP than it is to the massive 600mm2 of the GK210/GM200.)
People forget that the ONLY reason that Nvidia was ever making 600mm2 die's for consumer parts was that they were stuck at 28nm for longer than anticipated due to the fact that someone apparently forgot to mention how insanely difficult putting transistors 20nm, 16nm, and 10nm apart is lol. They NEEDED extra performance to keep people happy, so their flagship ~350mm2 GTX 680 ended up being superseded by the ~599mm2 OG TITAN; which was TOTALLY unheard of and is why people originally jumped all over the TITAN (the ones that could afford it of course). Nvidia had originally planned to go straight from the 600 series to 20nm Maxwell but had trouble; thus the 780 TI just re-used the TITAN die and the 780 caught the bad yield. We may NEVER see a 600mm2 die again due to the massive difficulty of 16nm and 10nm tech; who knows!
Originally Posted by carlhil2
Clock for clock, this gpu is going to put a whooping on the 1080, I mean, it should easily hit 2000+. it should OC just as well as the 1080/1070/1060, only, because of it's lower stock clocks, people will be fooled into thinking that it is the better OC'er......
Nobody is being fooled. It technically IS the better overclocker if it has the same mhz increase. Going from 1000mhz to 1500mhz like the 980 TI etc.. does is a flat 50% increase. Whereas the 980 going from ~1250mhz to 1,550mhz is still 500mhz yes, but is only a 24% increase!! Yes they both OC the same "number" but the one that has the lower numbers will get a MUCH larger PERFORMANCE increase. THAT is why they call it "the better overclocker" if you see what i mean.Edited by DarkIdeals - 7/28/16 at 6:41am