Who has the GeForce Titan X?

[Bussard_x]

Thinking about a graphic card update. This is the last in line of the Maxwell chipset. Or should I wait for the next generation coming 2016.

[Dakpilot]

GTX980ti will be Titan X with 6GB Vram and much cheaper...if you need 12GB vram for extreme resolutions/commercial rendering then Titan is only Nvidia option, I thought about it (Titan) for 4k but could not justify the cost, and GTX980 with only 4GB is not enough for proper 4k either, so got a 970 to maybe tide me over till 980ti and see its reviews at 4k, supposed to be coming 3rd quarter this year.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I saw a second hand 780GTX on ebay earlier for only 200 quid. 

 

I have one of these and it's a brilliant card, runs BOS perfectly in 2560x1600 in Ultra.

 

If waiting for the next generation it would be a perfect stopgap. 

[SYN_Vorlander]

I have one.

[voncrapenhauser]

680 GTX dose me fine ....all settings on ultra.

[SYN_Vorlander]

Belief me there is a huge difference running BOS on Ultra with a 680 gtx vs. a Titan X.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I noticed he already has a 780GTX. Wouldn't you get just as much (if not more) benefit buying a 2nd 780GTX to run in SLI rather than spending all that cash on a Titan?

[Bussard_x]

I run a 780GTX at Ultra 2560 x1440, but I've seen problems with busy campaign missions. So an update in 2016 is for sure, do not know which one.

[Urra]

Had SLI before and noticed the game prefers single cards due to a little less load on the cpu. Single card smooths out frame rate jumps at least on the surface.

[AvengerSeawolf]

If you wan tot spent that much money of ra GPU in the class of titan  get this one it's faster. Memmory interface 512x2 as opposed to 386 bit of the titan, which falls short to this beast.

[SYN_Vorlander]

If you wan tot spent that much money of ra GPU in the class of titan  get this one it's faster. Memmory interface 512x2 as opposed to 386 bit of the titan, which falls short to this beast.

 

 

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-295X2-vs-GeForce-GTX-TITAN-X

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I run a 780GTX at Ultra 2560 x1440, but I've seen problems with busy campaign missions. So an update in 2016 is for sure, do not know which one.

 

BOS like other sims is CPU heavy, that's probably why your getting a slow down when things get busy in the campaign.

 

Have you overclocked your CPU? Mines at 4.2 GHz and I can't say I've ever seen a slow down.

[SYN_Vorlander]

FYI

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/04/14/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_x_video_card_review/14#.VS6AEBhXerU

[Bussard_x]

BOS like other sims is CPU heavy, that's probably why your getting a slow down when things get busy in the campaign.

 

Have you overclocked your CPU? Mines at 4.2 GHz and I can't say I've ever seen a slow down.

Yes, overclocked to 3.9 GHz. Does BOS use more than 4 cores at the moment?

[Dakpilot]

Does any game use more than 4 cores ? seriously just interested

 

Cheers Dalpilot

[361fundahl]

If you put a decent fan on your processor you can easily push 3770k to 4.2ghz per core

I put a fan that was like $150 I think.... Maybe less... Has a heat sink suspended and right around 4.4ghz is when it won't take it.... But I'm not a professional.overclocker either

[Bussard_x]

If you put a decent fan on your processor you can easily push 3770k to 4.2ghz per core

I put a fan that was like $150 I think.... Maybe less... Has a heat sink suspended and right around 4.4ghz is when it won't take it.... But I'm not a professional.overclocker either

Overclocking can be tricky. It has it's limits.

[SharpeXB]

My 3770k is ocd to 4.7Ghz and works very well

[AvengerSeawolf]

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-295X2-vs-GeForce-GTX-TITAN-X

 Doesn't tell me anything, as I know person who have used both when switched to  Radeon  frames went up to 4 times  more than the Titan X.  The card is unbelievable in what it can do.

[SYN_Vorlander]

 Doesn't tell me anything, as I know person who have used both when switched to  Radeon  frames went up to 4 times  more than the Titan X.  The card is unbelievable in what it can do.

 

4 times more in what? 

 

"When we look at the TITAN X in comparison to the AMD Radeon R9 295X2, which is much less expensive, one quality truly becomes clear, and it is important in gaming; consistency. As you look over the graphs you start to realize that the framerates of AMD Radeon R9 295X2 are erratic and all over the place. When you look at the actual framerate line TITAN X/GTX 980 are much more efficient and consistent" - for me this is more important than "4 times"

 

 

"The Bottom Line

The NVIDIA GTX TITAN X simply delivers. Not just on out-of-box, stock performance, which nails the GTX 980 and AMD Radeon R9 295X2 to the floor. It also has room for improvement, but up to 20% greater performance via overclocking, and this was just a reference cooler too keep in mind. It could potentially do better with better cooling.

 

This evaluation has shown that an expensive $999 can help you at 1440p gaming. There are newer games out now that benefit from this faster video card. While 12GB may be overkill at 1440p, it isn't so much if you are looking toward NV Surround or 4K. We are going to evaluate GeForce GTX TITAN X SLI in the future at 4K, so stay tuned for that.

 

When it comes to the competition, there are less expensive alternatives but none of those provide the consistency and efficiency of a single-GPU video card like the GeForce GTX TITAN X. There is just something elegant about having this much performance and power efficiency in a small, single-GPU video card package without the fuss of SLI or CrossFire profiles. All the performance you want is always there 100% of the time, no waiting on driver profiles.

 

The TITAN X is expensive and not easy to find in stock, but it is easily the fastest single-GPU video card on the planet for gaming right now with VRAM to spare, and simply best video card for high IQ large resolution gaming."

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/04/14/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_x_video_card_review/14#.VTAenWccQUF

Edited April 16, 2015 by SYN_Vorlander

[AvengerSeawolf]

4 times more in what? 

 

"When we look at the TITAN X in comparison to the AMD Radeon R9 295X2, which is much less expensive, one quality truly becomes clear, and it is important in gaming; consistency. As you look over the graphs you start to realize that the framerates of AMD Radeon R9 295X2 are erratic and all over the place. When you look at the actual framerate line TITAN X/GTX 980 are much more efficient and consistent" - for me this is more important than "4 times"

 

 

"The Bottom Line

The NVIDIA GTX TITAN X simply delivers. Not just on out-of-box, stock performance, which nails the GTX 980 and AMD Radeon R9 295X2 to the floor. It also has room for improvement, but up to 20% greater performance via overclocking, and this was just a reference cooler too keep in mind. It could potentially do better with better cooling.

 

This evaluation has shown that an expensive $999 can help you at 1440p gaming. There are newer games out now that benefit from this faster video card. While 12GB may be overkill at 1440p, it isn't so much if you are looking toward NV Surround or 4K. We are going to evaluate GeForce GTX TITAN X SLI in the future at 4K, so stay tuned for that.

 

When it comes to the competition, there are less expensive alternatives but none of those provide the consistency and efficiency of a single-GPU video card like the GeForce GTX TITAN X. There is just something elegant about having this much performance and power efficiency in a small, single-GPU video card package without the fuss of SLI or CrossFire profiles. All the performance you want is always there 100% of the time, no waiting on driver profiles.

 

The TITAN X is expensive and not easy to find in stock, but it is easily the fastest single-GPU video card on the planet for gaming right now with VRAM to spare, and simply best video card for high IQ large resolution gaming."

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/04/14/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_x_video_card_review/14#.VTAenWccQUF

 

 

 So where is a live video with the compare ?

 Well here is one and the  Radeon is clearly faster ( and I am sure there can be more)

The rest are  just words.

[AvengerSeawolf]

+ One in Russian

 

And one in Japanese

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTEOLI-7mRs

 All agree and in real tests , not fantasy  the Radeon  is Faster in general

Edited April 17, 2015 by AvengerSeawolf

[SYN_Vorlander]

Thanks for the great info.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I've just bought a 2nd hand 780GTX to go with the one I already have to run them in SLI.

 

For the cost I think this seems like a fairly cheap upgrade which should give more performance than the Titan.

[AvengerSeawolf]

 

 

For the cost I think this seems like a fairly cheap upgrade which should give more performance than the Titan

 

 I think too that  most money/ performance efficient way is to go that way and get 2 cards. Although if you do not run 4k resolutions perhaps that's too much.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

 I think too that  most money/ performance efficient way is to go that way and get 2 cards. Although if you do not run 4k resolutions perhaps that's too much.

 

Yeh fair point. I have a 2560x1600 monitor so it's not 4k but still a pretty big resolution.

 

I'm planning on a triple monitor display (possibly 1440p) eventually although I doubt two 780GTX will be enough for that.

[SharpeXB]

The problem with the Radeon card is that giant ridiculous cooling fan cabled to it. How on earth is that going to fit anywhere in your case? Would make installing it a big headache.

Also it's iportant to realize ATI cards don't support DX9 well which BoS is.

Edited April 27, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Guest deleted@1562]

 

 

ATI cards don't support DX9 well which BoS is

 

And that's why the Nvidia cards perfom much better in BoS. So better go with the Titan X, if BoS is the main reason to upgrade.

[SharpeXB]

Test of the Titan X

8 vs 8 quick mission over Stalingrad

Ultra 2xAA at 3840x2160

 

Min 26 Max 70 Avg 50

 

Min 27 Max 66 Avg 46

 

With Vsync On

Min 32 Max 61 Avg 49

 

So about the same results as 2x GTX 980 SLI

[361fundahl]

Is that "4k"?

[SharpeXB]

Is that "4k"?

Well yes but to be technically correct 4K is actually 4096x2160. Ultra HD or UHD is 3840x2160 but both tend to get refered to as "4K"

[SharpeXB]

Test of 2x GTX Titan X in SLI

Ultra 2xAA at 3840 x 2160

 

Min 31 Max 76 Avg 50

 

So not as much improvement over a single GPU certainly it's the CPU that's the limiting factor here. the game does feel very smooth and looks great, the utilization of both GPUs is down around 60% whereas with one it was up to 100% and made the menu a bit laggy

 

 

[Urra]

Test of 2x GTX Titan X in SLI

Ultra 2xAA at 3840 x 2160

 

Min 31 Max 76 Avg 50

 

So not as much improvement over a single GPU certainly it's the CPU that's the limiting factor here. the game does feel very smooth and looks great, the utilization of both GPUs is down around 60% whereas with one it was up to 100% and made the menu a bit laggy

Would be nice find Intel is releasing a 6ghz cpu chip next month...

[SharpeXB]

Some more tests

Ultra 3840x2160 AA 2x

Live runs not recorded tracks so there's a bit of variation

 

Quick Mission Free Flight, Stalingrad 109G

SLI

Min 66 Max 98 Avg 87

 

1 GPU

Min 51 Max 73 Avg 61

 

"Dive Bombing" Stock Mission Ju-87 squadron take off

SLI

Min 37 Max 75 Avg 54

 

1 GPU

Min 37 Max 76 Avg 60

 

So once again it looks like missions with many other planes like the Dive Bombing squadron takeoff are more governed by the CPU and benefit less from the multiple GPUs

 

Repeated replay Track Test of Dive bombing takeoff

AA 2x Vsync On

Min 32 Max 61 Avg 54

 

AA 4x Vsync On

Min 22 Max 61 Avg 54

 

So AA affects the min frame rate but the average remains the same. 4x AA isn't really needed in UHD though. 2x is in order to reduce a bit of flickering that can still be seen even at that resolution

Edited May 12, 2015 by SharpeXB

[SYN_Vorlander]

SharpeBX,

 

DO you think that its worth spending the extra cash on the second Titan X?

 

ps. Thanx for the great info!

Edited May 13, 2015 by SYN_Vorlander

[SharpeXB]

SharpeBX,

 

DO you think that its worth spending the extra cash on the second Titan X?

 

ps. Thanx for the great info!

The second Titan X is really a must for running games at 4K and Ultra graphics at 60fps.

I had two 980s prior and they would not handle for example Far Cry 4 at even 1440 Ultra. They would barely handle BoS at Ultra 4K. I posted some results in the other thread.

So the trouble with the Titan X, if it can be called trouble is that using it for anything other than 4K might be overkill. Well one Titan will handle Far Cry 4 or Battlefield 4 at 1440 fine. But when you step up to 4K it will take two. That's where the card really shines but it requires a pair of them.

Whether that's worth the cost? Hmm yeah it's a set of graphics cards that cost more than the PC they're in... I suppose that's all relative.

Flight sims are the only game imo that benefit greatly from 4K. Other games look just fine and play well at lower res. This is more an experiment in extreme hardware than something that can be considered mainstream.

Edited May 13, 2015 by SharpeXB

[SYN_Vorlander]

Thx once again.

[bane]

I have one.

Hi,

what brand? She silentieuse?

 

thank you

[SYN_Vorlander]

I have the gigabyte version