Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › [Official] NVIDIA Titan X Pascal Owners Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Official] NVIDIA Titan X Pascal Owners Thread - Page 3

post #21 of 7589
Quote:
Originally Posted by pewpewlazer View Post

20% price increase over previous gen with no actual differences over the previous gen? At least Intel added some cores when they made a totally insane price increase. But I guess that's what you can get away with when you have literally zero competition and the future of multi-GPU is grim...

Nvidia did the exact same thing here, they just added more cores biggrin.gif
My home PC
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Threadripper 1950x Gigabyte Aorus X399 Gaming 7  MSI Geforce GTX 1080ti Gaming X G.Skill DDR4 3600 CL16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Evo 840 500GB Samsung 960 Pro 500GB Noctua NH-U14S TR4 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2711 Samsung 55" 4k Corsair K70  EVGA SuperNova G2 1300W 
CaseMouseAudio
Corsair Carbide Air 540 Logitech G502 Denon AVR-X3300W 
  hide details  
Reply
My home PC
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Threadripper 1950x Gigabyte Aorus X399 Gaming 7  MSI Geforce GTX 1080ti Gaming X G.Skill DDR4 3600 CL16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Evo 840 500GB Samsung 960 Pro 500GB Noctua NH-U14S TR4 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2711 Samsung 55" 4k Corsair K70  EVGA SuperNova G2 1300W 
CaseMouseAudio
Corsair Carbide Air 540 Logitech G502 Denon AVR-X3300W 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 7589
T
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtom320 View Post

Your assuming it will overclock like a 1080. Pretty big assumption. Why in the world would Nvidia neuter the Titan's performance with clock speed out of the box anyways? Doesn't even make sense for them to do that to their flagship.

Anyway these cards are priced very far apart. 700 dollars is a lot for me to spend on a GPU 1200 is unthinkable. It will be cool to see but speaking as a 1080 owner I was never going to buy it even if it launched first.

That's easy to keep the TDP. Titan X (the original) could easily reach the 1500 Mhz range, which very much is the range of the lower Maxwell cards...
post #23 of 7589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derpinheimer View Post

1417 vs 1607 base clock

So even if they both OC to 2100 on average, then the Titan would still be less than 50% faster. (1.14*1.3)

If the clocks adapt less aggressively then it would 50%+ in performance difference... Also non FE edition cards (that many of the people probably have here) would probably not reach as high as Titan X (binned, handpicked cards / the ones of lesser quality would probably become the 1080 TI)....
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfedorov11 View Post

Don't use amazon. I've read about lots of people getting ripped off selling expensive items. Use /r/hardwareswap
Probably to keep it at 250w. But I agree, I don't see it clocking past 2000 like the other cards. Heat and PT will be killer. The FE cooler can't even keep the smaller chips cool.

Keep in mind that Titan X are probably binned cards (non binned would become the 1080 ti series once enough stock of them is made). Binned cards don't need as high voltage. That's why you'd get something similar with the original Titan X (often times 1500+ clocks, which is what the lower cards would get too).
Edited by Steven185 - 7/25/16 at 12:29am
post #24 of 7589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mhill2029 View Post

It was something I expected to see happen this year, but not August 2nd. That was waaaaaaay sooner than I expected.

I'm more concerned with how GTX 1080 owners must be feeling right now, spending so much money on the GTX 1080 which was almost Titan X money in the first place for a midrange die, only for this monster to come along so soon after. Especially when you consider how long it was before people actually got hold of the GTX 1080 and SLI HB Bridge due to low stocks.

This is probably the biggest stab in the back I've ever seen from Nvidia. 6months later sure, but 2months? Man that's gotta hurt....

First off I don't consider a 400 dollar difference...almost titan money. Second i'd be happy if I bought a 1080 the the announced the new titan. the new Titan is twice the price of a 1080 and seems is going to only be about 30 percent more performance doesn't seem like enough for something that expensive. Also keep in mind this thigs 200 bucks more than the titan its replacing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meson1 View Post

I have a theory.

I'm sure I read that Nvidia pushed Volta back to 2018. So I think they're stretching Pascal out over two years. Like this.

They release flagship 1080 based on GP104 (as they have done already). But now the 1080 outperforms Titan X, so to rectify the situation they release new Titan X based on GP102 with GDDR5X memory.

NEXT YEAR, 2017: Is when they release the GP100 with HBM2 positioned above Titan X (or replacing it) and release a slightly cut down GP100 as 1080Ti. Both with performance improvements over the 2016 releases.

Just a theory.

With the prices cards are coming out at now could you imagine how much those cards would be if what you're saying is true? If the jump in price of the new titan is any indication you're probably talking about a 2k and a 1500 dollar graphics card respectively.
post #25 of 7589
Quote:
Originally Posted by loki993 View Post

With the prices cards are coming out at now could you imagine how much those cards would be if what you're saying is true? If the jump in price of the new titan is any indication you're probably talking about a 2k and a 1500 dollar graphics card respectively.
I withdraw that theory now. I misunderstood what the GP100 was. GP100 is the double precision chip intended for compute markets with the Tesla line.

However, with the latest news that Nvidia have supposedly decided to bring Volta forward by putting it on 16nm, we are now looking at 2017 for GVxxx products. Pascal was only supposed to be a stop gap until Volta. It's the Volta architecture is supposed to represent a significant jump.
post #26 of 7589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven185 View Post

Depends on whether one overclocks or not. I suspect that the new Titan X would be loaded, it will have the overclockability of a founder's edition card. So if you overclock you would get it quite a lot higher than that as compared to a GTX 1080. For example if you reach 2-2.1 GHz (which is very possible for a founder edtion's card), you get at least 30% on top of its initial performance. That totals to around 70% above GTX 1080.

You can say that you can overclock GTX 1080 too. But due to the high starting clocks and aggressive adaptive overclocking you don't actually net more than 10% additional performance. If all of the above are true, you can have +50-60% of greater performance as compared to GTX 1080 merely by overclocking your Titan X. This in turn would make Titan X (overclocked) the first 4K card (minimum FPS to most games maxed @ 4K > 50FPS)

Can't say I'm not excited, what I can say is that I'll probably not be able to justify that cost to me (or my wife).
Here are three Time Spy links, one with the card underclocked to reach the ~1670MHz that Computerbase saw as their average clock speed on the air-cooled FE after letting the card heat up, one stock and one overclocked mostly stable run.
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/80728
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/80588
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/48466

Compared to the underclocked result to try and compare it to the FE at stock on air, the score is 26% higher. Compared to the stock one, where it's already running almost 200MHz over the boost clock due to being under water, it's 15%. This is also on stock BIOS and one can expect it to go up once custom BIOS becomes available.

Yeah, the 1080 overclocks itself far beyond the boost clock, mine hovers around 1898MHz and 1911MHz stock, but the Titan would do the same thing, which cuts into the gains you would see when overclocking just the same. GM204 also reaches higher clock speeds than GM200, could very well be the same here that the Titan will fall 50-100MHz behind the 1080 when overclocked.

GTX 1080 is a 8.9TFLOPs card at 1733MHz, the Titan 11TFLOPs. That makes 24%. Let's say that the memory bandwidth brings that up to 30% at stock. Then let's also say that it overclocks a bit better, and maybe we'll have 35% at most when both are overclocked. If you think it'll be 70% you're setting yourself up for a major disappointment.
post #27 of 7589
Quote:
Originally Posted by versions View Post

Here are three Time Spy links, one with the card underclocked to reach the ~1670MHz that Computerbase saw as their average clock speed on the air-cooled FE after letting the card heat up, one stock and one overclocked mostly stable run.
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/80728
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/80588
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/48466

Compared to the underclocked result to try and compare it to the FE at stock on air, the score is 26% higher. Compared to the stock one, where it's already running almost 200MHz over the boost clock due to being under water, it's 15%. This is also on stock BIOS and one can expect it to go up once custom BIOS becomes available.

Yeah, the 1080 overclocks itself far beyond the boost clock, mine hovers around 1898MHz and 1911MHz stock, but the Titan would do the same thing, which cuts into the gains you would see when overclocking just the same. GM204 also reaches higher clock speeds than GM200, could very well be the same here that the Titan will fall 50-100MHz behind the 1080 when overclocked.

GTX 1080 is a 8.9TFLOPs card at 1733MHz, the Titan 11TFLOPs. That makes 24%. Let's say that the memory bandwidth brings that up to 30% at stock. Then let's also say that it overclocks a bit better, and maybe we'll have 35% at most when both are overclocked. If you think it'll be 70% you're setting yourself up for a major disappointment.

I explained how it will be 70%.
30% stock and another 30% from overclocking (2000 Mhz is 30% more than 1531mhz). 1.3*1.3=1.69 = 69% more performance

There's nothing to disagree there, it's a matter of math that the card will be 70% faster for overclockers (as compared to stock GTX 1080)

Of course one may also overclock GTX 1080 as well. According to reviews (even overclockers-club that makes some of the most extreme overclocks) you won't get more than 10%-12%. Due to the TDP limit (I assume) nVidia keeps the clocks down in real time performance. In benchmarks things are possibly different, in games not so.

A combination of better bins (=lower TDP even under overclock) + higher TDP limit would allow Titan X to sustain the clocks. I suspect that to be the case because that's happened to my original Titan X as well. I could get at 1500 Mhz sustained...

Under the light of the above $1200 is still too expensive, but if it was $1000 it would be a bargain (especially since you rarely find GTX 1080 for less than $700)...


Yes unlocking the TDP limit on GTX 1080 may change all that, but even then the difference will hover around 40-45% (due to the similar clocks).
Edited by Steven185 - 7/25/16 at 5:53am
post #28 of 7589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven185 View Post

I explained how it will be 70%.
30% stock and another 30% from overclocking (2000 Mhz is 30% more than 1531mhz). 1.3*1.3=1.69 = 69% more performance

There's nothing to disagree there, it's a matter of math that the card will be 70% faster for overclockers (as compared to stock GTX 1080)

Of course one may also overclock GTX 1080 as well. According to reviews (even overclockers-club that makes some of the most extreme overclocks) you won't get more than 10%-12%. Due to the TDP limit (I assume) nVidia keeps the clocks down in real time performance. In benchmarks things are possibly different, in games not so.

A combination of better bins (=lower TDP even under overclock) + higher TDP limit would allow Titan X to sustain the clocks. I suspect that to be the case because that's happened to my original Titan X as well. I could get at 1500 Mhz sustained...

Under the light of the above $1200 is still too expensive, but if it was $1000 it would be a bargain (since you rarely find GTX 1080 for less than $700)...


Yes unlocking the TDP limit on GTX 1080 may change all that, but even then the difference will hover around 40-45% (due to the similar clocks).
It won't overclock 30% because it will boost over the rated boost clock at stock just like every other Pascal card does. It probably won't be able to maintain said clock speed for a very long time on air though, and would throttle down like the 1080. That won't happen on water, which should also be needed to overclock it properly. The results you see in benchmarks for stock clocks are probably going to be a good bit higher than the boost clock.

Let's say it runs at 1650MHz on air at stock for a short time before it throttles down, and maintains 1700MHz under water. If we then say that it does 2000MHz on water with stock BIOS, that's 18% compared to stock (and my 1080 does 15% under the same circumstances, with mine being average).

It won't hold the clocks on air, pretty sure it's the same cooler as it is on the 1080 and it's a good bit more power hungry than the 1080 so if anything it should struggle more to maintain the clocks.

The Titan X will be faster than the 1080, yes. A good bit faster, too. Just don't overhype it because you will be disappointed.
post #29 of 7589
Quote:
Originally Posted by versions View Post

It won't overclock 30% because it will boost over the rated boost clock at stock just like every other Pascal card does. It probably won't be able to maintain said clock speed for a very long time on air though, and would throttle down like the 1080. That won't happen on water, which should also be needed to overclock it properly. The results you see in benchmarks for stock clocks are probably going to be a good bit higher than the boost clock.

Let's say it runs at 1650MHz on air at stock for a short time before it throttles down, and maintains 1700MHz under water. If we then say that it does 2000MHz on water with stock BIOS, that's 18% compared to stock (and my 1080 does 15% under the same circumstances, with mine being average).

It won't hold the clocks on air, pretty sure it's the same cooler as it is on the 1080 and it's a good bit more power hungry than the 1080 so if anything it should struggle more to maintain the clocks.

The Titan X will be faster than the 1080, yes. A good bit faster, too. Just don't overhype it because you will be disappointed.

OK, to be fair haven't tried any pascal card yet , all I know I know from reviews. I did try Titan X maxwell though and even on air I could sustain 1500 Mhz, no water needed just good case ventilation that's 38% over boost. So Titan series are known for insane overclocks over their initial clocks.

I think we should take that into account too instead of quoting the oft said 30%. Yes it's only 30% faster if you keep it stock, but if you have just given so much money you better not keep it stock, especially if it is over clocking as well as the original Titan X. Better overclockability + 30% may actually give insane performance.

Of course like you said it may not be able to sustain clocks. If so ... bummer, but if it can sustain high clocks while gaming, even without water that would be huge. My 70% (over stock GTX 1080) figure would not be far from reality...
post #30 of 7589
Quote:
Originally Posted by meson1 View Post

I withdraw that theory now. I misunderstood what the GP100 was. GP100 is the double precision chip intended for compute markets with the Tesla line.

However, with the latest news that Nvidia have supposedly decided to bring Volta forward by putting it on 16nm, we are now looking at 2017 for GVxxx products. Pascal was only supposed to be a stop gap until Volta. It's the Volta architecture is supposed to represent a significant jump.

I wasn't calling you out, I was merely stating that going by the prices in this cycle of cards anything better that whats out now or coming soon will be mind numbingly expensive.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: NVIDIA
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › [Official] NVIDIA Titan X Pascal Owners Thread