Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Titans Actual Value? Worth The Buy?

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Titan
  • GTX Titan
  • Value
  • Computers
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 11, 2013 4:16:04 PM

Hello Toms Community!

I've been having a pretty big debate ever since the recent launch on the new GTX Titan and it's actual value. Many people had question the GTX690s value as well. But I believe anyone who planned on SLI 680s wouldn't regret getting a 690 anyway. As the value of two 680s was just about equal to the 690. Which is why I don't understand the Titan pricing.

Gaming wise. Sure, it's the fastest single GPU you can buy. We all know it's specs but does that make it worth it's value? And I'm not talking about just gaming. I'm talking about anything you can use a GPU for. Gaming, Video Editing etc. What card is closest to it?

Personally, I feel the Titan should be priced at around $850-$750. And what about the next gen cards? Are the 700 series cards not coming out this year? I can't imagine the next gen cards Flagship GPU being a lower performer of the Titan.

Sorry about the random talks about the card. I'm just a bit confused and would like to know people thoughts on the value of the Titan. Hope to hear from all of you!

Juke

More about : titans actual worth buy

a b 4 Gaming
March 11, 2013 4:19:38 PM

Titan isn't worth it unless your rich and like to throw around cash. 700 series is supposed to come out this year I believe. 2 680s sound better to me.


m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 11, 2013 4:30:13 PM

Hardware Canucks had the best analysis and justification for the Titan's pricing:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

Quote:
"If the GTX TITAN’s price is exclusively associated with raw frame rates, it seems like NVIDIA may have completely misjudged its positioning somewhere along the line. $1000 for a product that simply strides in the vast open space between the GTX 680 and GTX 690 yet is priced identically to the latter seems absolutely preposterous at first glance. But it isn’t. NVIDIA’s strategy here is spot-on and there are two reason for that: frame times and consistency.

When it comes to a consistent gameplay experience, the TITAN is head, shoulders and knees above its compatriots. The low standard deviation shown between frame times is a fraction of what other solutions offer, which in turn leads to significantly smoother onscreen performance. For example, the GTX 690 exhibits many of the issues normally associated with dual GPU cards like minor stuttering and outright frame hesitation, a situation the TITAN deftly avoids by virtue of being a single core solution. Gamers won’t have to wait for the latest SLI profile for optimal new game support either. So while the GTX 690 may outclass the TITAN in terms of raw framerate production, the GK110 clearly holds the edge this key area."
End Quote
m
0
l
Related resources
March 11, 2013 4:43:51 PM

It's too weak versus a 690 and not strong enough over a 7970 boost edition.

Plus it's anti-epeen. Like cruising in a rock-box turbo civic kit car. Ya... maybe it's ok fast, but too embarrassing...

And nVidia Maxwell GPU's are a legit concern. The 700 series may just be a name change/refresh, based on the same 28nm tech as the 600 series. But the next generation 20nm cards should be available in 2014 and will eclispe Titan(870/880 ?). Titan is way late, the 7970 was released 15 months ago.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 11, 2013 4:54:51 PM

There are other scenarios in which a titan makes sense over other options, though of course $ are involved.

A mini-ITX build, in which a 680 isn't strong enough and a 690 won't fit.

The strongest applicable SLI setup. 3 and 4 way SLI has limited support in games. If you have 3 or 4 GPU's, you need to check if the games you want to play benefit from a 3rd or 4th card. A pair of cards enjoys near-universal support, so a pair of titans is the strongest "practical" SLI setup - and I only use the word practical in regards to game benefit in the largest number of games.

I'm sure there's other I havent thought of.

Most peolpe would never buy a titan, myself included. It is a viable product however, and I can see it enjoying success.

Besides, a large part of the reason for flagship cards is braggin rights, they're not major moneymakers. Before the titan, how many people do you think bought a 690 or a 680 versus how many people bought 670's, 660ti's or 660's?
m
0
l
March 11, 2013 4:55:49 PM

10ms frame deviation doesn't mean a thing. that's like jumping from 100fps to 50fps for one frame. or from 40 to 30 fps. big whoop.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 11, 2013 5:18:49 PM

I personally think the card is overpriced. I wouldn't buy it.It should be selling for $750 instead it's going for $1,000 that's crazy.
m
0
l
March 11, 2013 5:26:25 PM

$1000 dollar card with no backplate...seriously
m
0
l
March 11, 2013 6:41:44 PM

Hm. So it seems there are some mixed feelings about this card. Some see it's benefits while others don't. I don't think anyone would really be questioning the card had it been priced at a lower value. $850 being the highest. But as most seem to agree on. $1000 for a single GPU that doesn't at least perform as well as a 690 is a bit much. Maybe it's compute performance is insanely good?

The one main reason I'm even looking towards this card vs others on the market is due to single GPU solution. I was running a SLI 680 set up prior to whatever next card I purchase. I had a GTX 690 as well. I actually had them all at the same time lol. Didn't know which to buy. In the end. I kept 680SLI for one major reason. Heat being thrown into the case. I really did not like the idea of that. Temps in my case went up by about 15c with it. So I stuck with SLI.

Now, the Titan is released. It got me interested. Honestly the only thing I don't seem to like is the price. I do like that it's faster then anything else. After owning SLI I've decided I would not want to stick with SLI in the future. SLI just seems to complicate things more then help. So I'm excited about the chance to go back to a single card. I'm wondering if driver updates will make the Titan perform even better as time goes by.

If the next gen cards come out this year I might be a little pissed. As I expect at least two of them to surpass the Titan. That being said. If they do the same thing they did with the 600 series to the next. I won't be to pissed. The one thing I just can't stand about the 600 series was the fact that they cut compute performance to useless compared to the 500 series. AMD was smart enough to make both a fast gaming and compute GPU.

I'm also wondering how well it will perform in Sony Vegas and After Effects.

I love the amount of talk this thread is making. Lets keep it up as I'm still in a huge debacle of making up my mind on what to do. Again. I'd be using it for compute and gaming. More compute then gaming. Would be interested in hearing what others have to say. Any Titan owners in here?
m
0
l
March 11, 2013 6:43:47 PM

redeemer said:
$1000 dollar card with no backplate...seriously


I tend to agree with this. Just doesn't make sense that any of their flagship GPUs don't come with a back plate.
m
0
l
March 11, 2013 8:12:14 PM

@JukeBox360
Link below to Tom's review of the GTX Titan. Typically, the Radeon 7970 is better at compute(sometimes by a lot). I assume you would have dissected the review of all infomation; perhaps you just forgot. And remeber all of the rumors about Titan turned out to be extreme exaggerations. For example: the rumored 3dmark11 xtreme score was 7107. It's nowhere near that strong (~approx 2000 points lower).
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-titan-p...

And messing in menus to get full compute performance(disabling GPU boost) is bizarre, seems
antiquated really.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-titan-g...
m
0
l
March 11, 2013 9:05:58 PM

wdmfiber said:
@JukeBox360
Link below to Tom's review of the GTX Titan. Typically, the Radeon 7970 is better at compute(sometimes by a lot). I assume you would have dissected the review of all infomation; perhaps you just forgot. And remeber all of the rumors about Titan turned out to be extreme exaggerations. For example: the rumored 3dmark11 xtreme score was 7107. It's nowhere near that strong (~approx 2000 points lower).
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-titan-p...

And messing in menus to get full compute performance(disabling GPU boost) is bizarre, seems
antiquated really.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-titan-g...


That doesn't seem like a bad solution. It's only a quick settings change. From what I can see in that second article you can set the compute performance to kick in by simple selecting it to do so in certain applications. So you'd basically have to set which program within the nvidia control panel to allow full compute. Which seems easy enough to do. Or am I missing something here and it's not that easy?
m
0
l
March 11, 2013 9:20:16 PM

JukeBox360 said:
That doesn't seem like a bad solution. It's only a quick settings change. From what I can see in that second article you can set the compute performance to kick in by simple selecting it to do so in certain applications. So you'd basically have to set which program within the nvidia control panel to allow full compute. Which seems easy enough to do. Or am I missing something here and it's not that easy?

No, your not missing anything. True enough, just a setting. Unless you never had to do it, like with other GPU's...

m
0
l
March 12, 2013 1:06:19 PM

I'm pretty used to going into the control panel from running SLI for so long. SO it wouldn't really bother me.

Here is one thing I have to ask. Does anyone else think they made this GPU last year and just released it now? I feel like this is what the 680 should have been. The only main difference is compute performance vs the 600 series. The Titan also looks a lot like the 690. It seems like it makes more sense that nvidia saw that AMD wasn't as strong as expected?
m
0
l
March 12, 2013 1:16:12 PM

I'm on the fence between GTX Titan, SLI GTX 680 4GB versions, and a GTX 690. Comments like JukeBox360's about not wanting to go back to SLI are the only things making me consider the Titan. I don't want to run into any issues. Frankly, I don't know a huge amount about computers, so I want something very simple that I won't have to tamper with. I'm also planning on gaming on a 1440p monitor. Do you think it's worth getting the Titan, or should I get the greater power of the SLI GTX 680 4GB's, since I will be running it on a 27" monitor in extreme-definition?
m
0
l
March 12, 2013 6:36:52 PM

echamberlin8 said:
I'm on the fence between GTX Titan, SLI GTX 680 4GB versions, and a GTX 690. Comments like JukeBox360's about not wanting to go back to SLI are the only things making me consider the Titan. I don't want to run into any issues. Frankly, I don't know a huge amount about computers, so I want something very simple that I won't have to tamper with. I'm also planning on gaming on a 1440p monitor. Do you think it's worth getting the Titan, or should I get the greater power of the SLI GTX 680 4GB's, since I will be running it on a 27" monitor in extreme-definition?



Depends how badly you want performance vs simplicity. SLI is awesome when it works. But it's so much more complex then a single gpu. I was running SLI 680 before and loved its performance but hated its issues in some games. That's also a big reason I'm leaning towards the Titan. It's the fastest SINGLE gpu on the market. I'm still pretty sure nvidia wouldn't have trouble selling these cards had they been priced at $800.
m
0
l
March 12, 2013 6:40:56 PM

quilciri said:
feeblepenguin said:
10ms frame deviation doesn't mean a thing. that's like jumping from 100fps to 50fps for one frame. or from 40 to 30 fps. big whoop.


The interwebz disagrees with you.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...



Even I didn't agree with his comment. I'd much rather have slightly lower FPS with more consistent and less frame dips vs unreliably. Which again is why I hated SLI. Most people can't tell micro stutter and what not with SLI. I sure as heck can. It's annoying. Which is why I'm here debating the Titan.

Back to my other question. Does anyone else feel this was the original 680 that was supposed to be released a year ago? I feel this is very true. If it is. I'd be doubtful I'd even buy from nvidia again.
m
0
l
March 12, 2013 7:29:26 PM

JukeBox360 said:
Here is one thing I have to ask. Does anyone else think they made this GPU last year and just released it now? I feel like this is what the 680 should have been. The only main difference is compute performance vs the 600 series. The Titan also looks a lot like the 690. It seems like it makes more sense that nvidia saw that AMD wasn't as strong as expected?

By the time the 7970 was released(Jan. 2012) it was too late for nVidia to do anything with design. The same company makes the essential GPU wafers for both AMD and nVidia, using the same technology. That being the 28nm fabrication process. And the company is TSCM(Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing).

The same thing is happening right now with the next generation of GPU's. Codenamed "Maxwell" (nVidia) and "Volcanic Islands" (AMD). The process from design to mass production takes years; you can't do a redesign based on your competitors release. But you can tune. It would be like going to Daytona for the 500. Analyzing the competition during practice and going back to "your shop" and building a better car in time for the race. It's not possible!

What happened at TSCM with the GK110 (Titan) was prob yield issues. And nVidia could have been doomed, they had to get something out the door to compete with 7970/7950. So they did a quick and radical re-tune. Gutting the mid-level GK104 of compute performance, in turn boosting it's graphical performance... and they got it out the door as the GTX 680/670.

At over 7 billion transistors the GK110 is likely very hard to produce. As the 7970/50 is based on a wafer with only 3.5 billion transistors, so I guess you could have 50% of them "bad" and still have higher yeilds then GK110 (as 100% is impossible). That also begs the question as to why the Titan doesn't "kill" the 7970... Well it just runs slower and has parts of it disabled (vs. Tesla K20), like the 7970 vs. 7950. Plus the Titan and 7970 both use about the same amount of power(250 watts) and both being 28nm chips, performance is close... and it shows in the benchmarks.

Other scenarios? Free free to speculate!
m
0
l
March 12, 2013 7:44:18 PM

So in short. You don't think this was suppose to be the 680? It just ended up not being quite ready in time? I do imagine the Titan getting much MUCH better in time with it's drivers. Just as AMD did this year.

It seems Maxwell is going to be insane. That being said. It's the PC world. Pretty much impossible to stay up to date. I wonder what the chances are of being able to sell a Titan after the next cards come out.
m
0
l
March 12, 2013 7:48:00 PM

Also how much faster do you think the next gen GPUs will be then the Titan? I don't expect the Titan to remain it's fastest card but I would expect it to remain in the top 3. What do you think of this based on the years of cards from before?
m
0
l
March 12, 2013 7:56:40 PM

Thanks for the responses, guys. Sorry, I've had a 15-hour-day at work, but I want to definitely post some responses to these tomorrow.

I'd be curious to hear just how much more complex SLI GPUs are than a single GPU IN DETAIL, since that would definitely help me make my decision. Can you give me as many details to this as possible? If it truly is a complicated process to play MOST games (I don't plan on just playing blockbuster AAA titles, but older games too, from Baldur's Gate to Half-Life 2 to Doom to whatever you can possibly think of), then I will just end up getting a Titan (or a GTX 690, but it sounds like that behaves just like SLI 680s).
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 12, 2013 8:08:33 PM

JukeBox360 said:
quilciri said:


Back to my other question. Does anyone else feel this was the original 680 that was supposed to be released a year ago? I feel this is very true. If it is. I'd be doubtful I'd even buy from nvidia again.

This was indicated in the prelude to most Titan reviews...

Quote:
"So here's a small secret, initially roughly a year ago we expected the GK110 chip to be launching in the GeForce GTX 680, but the GK104 currently in use for GeForce GTX 680 was, simply put, just too good and yielded so much better. See the GK110 chip is HUGE, and that makes it a difficult chip to bake, its recipe is so sweet though. So it made a lot of sense for Nvidia to wait as long as possible to release this chip once wafer yields would improve and the fabrication processes more refined."
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_titan_...

Quote:
"When AMD launched its Radeon HD 7970 in December 2011, it appeared for a brief moment as though AMD was set for 2012. Brief, because there was more than just arrogance in NVIDIA's dismissal of AMD's new flagship GPU and the architecture that drives it. NVIDIA's "Kepler" GPU architecture was designed under the assumption that the HD 7970 would be much faster than it ended up being, so the company realized its second best chip, the GK104, had a fair shot against the HD 7900 series.

The GK104 really was just a successor of the GF114 that drives the performance-segment GeForce GTX 560 Ti. What followed was a frantic attempt by NVIDIA to re-package the GK104 into a high-end product, the GeForce GTX 680, while shelving its best but expensive chip, the GK110 (which drives the GTX Titan we're reviewing today). The gambit paid off when the GTX 680 snatched the performance crown from the HD 7970 in March. AMD may have responded with the faster HD 7970 GHz Edition in June, but it flunked energy-efficiency and fan-noise tests big time."
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_T...
m
0
l
March 12, 2013 8:15:40 PM

echamberlin8 said:
Thanks for the responses, guys. Sorry, I've had a 15-hour-day at work, but I want to definitely post some responses to these tomorrow.

I'd be curious to hear just how much more complex SLI GPUs are than a single GPU IN DETAIL, since that would definitely help me make my decision. Can you give me as many details to this as possible? If it truly is a complicated process to play MOST games (I don't plan on just playing blockbuster AAA titles, but older games too, from Baldur's Gate to Half-Life 2 to Doom to whatever you can possibly think of), then I will just end up getting a Titan (or a GTX 690, but it sounds like that behaves just like SLI 680s).


For some reason older games SUCK with SLI. Way worse then 1 card. Only reason I can think as to why is because they were never optimized for SLI or Crossfire.

Keep in mind. I'm speaking from personal use over the past year. It was enough of a pain for me to no longer want to deal with two cards again. I now understand why the majority say it's just easier to deal with 1 card vs 2.

I owned SLI 680 while my friend owned just 1 680. He never had half the issues, frame rate drops, or stuttering like I did. I kept my 680 at stock. So it wasn't from anything I've done. Just wasn't as simple as 1 card.
m
0
l
March 12, 2013 8:35:29 PM

17seconds said:
JukeBox360 said:
quilciri said:


Back to my other question. Does anyone else feel this was the original 680 that was supposed to be released a year ago? I feel this is very true. If it is. I'd be doubtful I'd even buy from nvidia again.

This was indicated in the prelude to most Titan reviews...

Quote:
"So here's a small secret, initially roughly a year ago we expected the GK110 chip to be launching in the GeForce GTX 680, but the GK104 currently in use for GeForce GTX 680 was, simply put, just too good and yielded so much better. See the GK110 chip is HUGE, and that makes it a difficult chip to bake, its recipe is so sweet though. So it made a lot of sense for Nvidia to wait as long as possible to release this chip once wafer yields would improve and the fabrication processes more refined."
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_titan_...

Quote:
"When AMD launched its Radeon HD 7970 in December 2011, it appeared for a brief moment as though AMD was set for 2012. Brief, because there was more than just arrogance in NVIDIA's dismissal of AMD's new flagship GPU and the architecture that drives it. NVIDIA's "Kepler" GPU architecture was designed under the assumption that the HD 7970 would be much faster than it ended up being, so the company realized its second best chip, the GK104, had a fair shot against the HD 7900 series.

The GK104 really was just a successor of the GF114 that drives the performance-segment GeForce GTX 560 Ti. What followed was a frantic attempt by NVIDIA to re-package the GK104 into a high-end product, the GeForce GTX 680, while shelving its best but expensive chip, the GK110 (which drives the GTX Titan we're reviewing today). The gambit paid off when the GTX 680 snatched the performance crown from the HD 7970 in March. AMD may have responded with the faster HD 7970 GHz Edition in June, but it flunked energy-efficiency and fan-noise tests big time."
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_T...


So in short. I'm not the only one to believe this. Really makes me wonder if they would ever admit to such a thing? It actually ticks me off even more if it holds true. Anyone who purchased a 600 series card has basically been ripped off.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 9:56:48 AM

JukeBox360 said:
echamberlin8 said:
Thanks for the responses, guys. Sorry, I've had a 15-hour-day at work, but I want to definitely post some responses to these tomorrow.

I'd be curious to hear just how much more complex SLI GPUs are than a single GPU IN DETAIL, since that would definitely help me make my decision. Can you give me as many details to this as possible? If it truly is a complicated process to play MOST games (I don't plan on just playing blockbuster AAA titles, but older games too, from Baldur's Gate to Half-Life 2 to Doom to whatever you can possibly think of), then I will just end up getting a Titan (or a GTX 690, but it sounds like that behaves just like SLI 680s).


For some reason older games SUCK with SLI. Way worse then 1 card. Only reason I can think as to why is because they were never optimized for SLI or Crossfire.

Keep in mind. I'm speaking from personal use over the past year. It was enough of a pain for me to no longer want to deal with two cards again. I now understand why the majority say it's just easier to deal with 1 card vs 2.

I owned SLI 680 while my friend owned just 1 680. He never had half the issues, frame rate drops, or stuttering like I did. I kept my 680 at stock. So it wasn't from anything I've done. Just wasn't as simple as 1 card.


Thanks for the feedback. This definitely makes me lean towards the GTX Titan. I wonder if the GTX 690 has the same issues as SLI GTX 680s?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 15, 2013 11:23:18 AM

echamberlin8 said:
Thanks for the feedback. This definitely makes me lean towards the GTX Titan. I wonder if the GTX 690 has the same issues as SLI GTX 680s?


It does. The 690 is a pair of GPU's on a single card. It is SLI for all intents and purposes here.

m
0
l
March 15, 2013 11:40:37 AM

quilciri said:
echamberlin8 said:
Thanks for the feedback. This definitely makes me lean towards the GTX Titan. I wonder if the GTX 690 has the same issues as SLI GTX 680s?


It does. The 690 is a pair of GPU's on a single card. It is SLI for all intents and purposes here.



Damn. When I read all of these gushing reviews about GTX 690s, why do they never mention SLI problems? I guess they are mostly only testing them on the latest and greatest games, whereas if I wanted to go back and play older games, such as Half-Life, Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment, WHATEVER--any old games--they never really mention that or assume people even do that anymore.

So you think a GTX Titan would be the best high-end option for someone interested in playing both the latest and greatest games and older stuff? It's the cheapest graphics option for me out of my choices, since it's only $880 to add to a Maingear computer, versus $990 for a GTX 690 and $1,176 for SLI GTX 680 4GB cards. Plus the Titan has the highest VRAM.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 15, 2013 12:04:32 PM

Microstutter from 2 card setups is basically a thing of the past. Turn off v-sync (or adaptive v-sync for Nvidia cards). A single GPU will still have lower consecutive-frame latency, but the gap is considerably smaller than it used to be.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 1:43:01 PM

echamberlin8 said:
quilciri said:
echamberlin8 said:
Thanks for the feedback. This definitely makes me lean towards the GTX Titan. I wonder if the GTX 690 has the same issues as SLI GTX 680s?


It does. The 690 is a pair of GPU's on a single card. It is SLI for all intents and purposes here.



Damn. When I read all of these gushing reviews about GTX 690s, why do they never mention SLI problems? I guess they are mostly only testing them on the latest and greatest games, whereas if I wanted to go back and play older games, such as Half-Life, Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment, WHATEVER--any old games--they never really mention that or assume people even do that anymore.

So you think a GTX Titan would be the best high-end option for someone interested in playing both the latest and greatest games and older stuff? It's the cheapest graphics option for me out of my choices, since it's only $880 to add to a Maingear computer, versus $990 for a GTX 690 and $1,176 for SLI GTX 680 4GB cards. Plus the Titan has the highest VRAM.


I was in the same debacle as you. In the end. I went with the Titan. Unlike most in this thread I've literally owned all the other options. I'm talking from pure experiences. Single card set up is a ton easier to deal with then multi.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 15, 2013 3:36:08 PM

A new review comparing the Titan to various multi-card setups:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...



Quote:
The products playing in this market may have changed and the game titles may look better than ever, but it feels like we’ve been down this road already. Crossfire is still riddled with stuttering and various other bugs while SLI has its own set of teething problems. This unfortunate situation leaves the TITAN’s position in the market relatively unscathed since it can deliver consistently high performance with none of the dual card solutions’ excess drama. Is that actually worth potentially hundreds of dollars more than a competing SLI or Crossfire setup with lower priced GPUs? For a discerning gamer with enough cash, absolutely."
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 15, 2013 4:10:05 PM

I think BigMack70 put it best when he said, "If you have to ask if the Titan is a good value, it probably isn't." While the Titan make sense for some people, it is not a great value. It has definite advantages, but at the cost, it is not considered a value.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 4:25:50 PM

JukeBox360 said:
echamberlin8 said:
quilciri said:
echamberlin8 said:
Thanks for the feedback. This definitely makes me lean towards the GTX Titan. I wonder if the GTX 690 has the same issues as SLI GTX 680s?


It does. The 690 is a pair of GPU's on a single card. It is SLI for all intents and purposes here.



Damn. When I read all of these gushing reviews about GTX 690s, why do they never mention SLI problems? I guess they are mostly only testing them on the latest and greatest games, whereas if I wanted to go back and play older games, such as Half-Life, Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment, WHATEVER--any old games--they never really mention that or assume people even do that anymore.

So you think a GTX Titan would be the best high-end option for someone interested in playing both the latest and greatest games and older stuff? It's the cheapest graphics option for me out of my choices, since it's only $880 to add to a Maingear computer, versus $990 for a GTX 690 and $1,176 for SLI GTX 680 4GB cards. Plus the Titan has the highest VRAM.


I was in the same debacle as you. In the end. I went with the Titan. Unlike most in this thread I've literally owned all the other options. I'm talking from pure experiences. Single card set up is a ton easier to deal with then multi.



I do appreciate the fact that you've had experience with all of the cards mentioned. Do you notice much of a step down going from SLI GTX 680s or a GTX 690 to a Titan? Does a Titan still run basically everything maxed-out these days?

Also, what resolution do you play on? Because I'm running on a 1440p resolution (using a Dell 2713HM), my fear is that the Titan won't be enough horsepower to run something like Crysis with all of the details maxed. I'm fine with playing at 30+ FPS, but I've heard sometimes that a very intensive game like that or maybe the upcoming BioShock Infinite would cause lag and framerate drops when playing with only a single GPU, no matter how strong that GPU is.

Does playing with a Titan seem like playing with an SLI set-up, since even though you are running with a slightly slower framerate, it's overall a much smoother experience because of no microstutter issues or whatever makes the SLI/CrossFires seem "choppy."

I guess I could always upgrade to another Titan in the future if I just get one.

Another question: you said lots of older games (and I know some current ones) don't support SLI. Do you have to physically change things with your graphics cards through their menus to get old games to load? Or do old games/non-SLI-supporting games simply not take advantage of the second card? Because if that's all it is, then I don't mind that, since I'm sure a single GTX 680 4GB is strong enough to play any game without SLI capability by itself.

The 6GB of the Titan is almost its selling point to me. It's either that or dual 4GB GTX 680s for me. I read about stuff like heavily-modded Skyrim using 3GB or more of VRAM and that scares me something fierce. :ouch:  Kinda joking, but kinda not.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 4:52:24 PM

To be honest the Titan doesn't feel like a step down for SLI. Which is something I was concerned about. I'm playing on a 1440P monitor without any issues at all. If anything it feels like an increase in performance due to much less ( if any ) stutter or dips in game play. As of now it seems to max out anything I play. BF3, Crysis, (all of em ) Tomb Raider and Farcry 3 are the current "demanding" games I play. Diablo 3 has gotten much smoother. But I know my SLI was messing with it's performance.

As for Bioshock. If that's the case SLI wouldn't be able to solve the frame drop.

I can certainly say it feel much smoother then before. Keep in mind. Some people don't notice micro stutter. ( I sure as hell did ) It drove me insane. The performance hit SLI can do sometimes just drove me insane.

What usually happens with games that don't support SLI is a performance hit. Overall your game play would be extremely buggy and glitchy. You have to go into your control panel and disable sli for that game.

The 6GB is also a big reason I got the card. I'll never run out of memory and as time goes by. Games are only going to need more of it vs less. Especially with the ps4 coming out and having so much memory.

I'd imagine you would be fine with the 4GB version. If you must go SLI. Get the 4GB cards. I always felt 2 was just to small.

As of now I don't regret getting the Titan. Even though yes. I'd say it's about $150 overpriced. But as I've said before. I don't think I'll ever go back to SLI. It's just so much easier with one card. Temps and quiet is a nice bonus as well.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 4:56:16 PM

JukeBox360 said:
To be honest the Titan doesn't feel like a step down for SLI. Which is something I was concerned about. I'm playing on a 1440P monitor without any issues at all. If anything it feels like an increase in performance due to much less ( if any ) stutter or dips in game play. As of now it seems to max out anything I play. BF3, Crysis, (all of em ) Tomb Raider and Farcry 3 are the current "demanding" games I play. Diablo 3 has gotten much smoother. But I know my SLI was messing with it's performance.

As for Bioshock. If that's the case SLI wouldn't be able to solve the frame drop.

I can certainly say it feel much smoother then before. Keep in mind. Some people don't notice micro stutter. ( I sure as hell did ) It drove me insane. The performance hit SLI can do sometimes just drove me insane.

What usually happens with games that don't support SLI is a performance hit. Overall your game play would be extremely buggy and glitchy. You have to go into your control panel and disable sli for that game.

The 6GB is also a big reason I got the card. I'll never run out of memory and as time goes by. Games are only going to need more of it vs less. Especially with the ps4 coming out and having so much memory.

I'd imagine you would be fine with the 4GB version. If you must go SLI. Get the 4GB cards. I always felt 2 was just to small.

As of now I don't regret getting the Titan. Even though yes. I'd say it's about $150 overpriced. But as I've said before. I don't think I'll ever go back to SLI. It's just so much easier with one card. Temps and quiet is a nice bonus as well.


I'm like right on the 50/50 fence between SLI 680 4GBs and a Titan right now. I don't see a point in buying the GTX 690 at all anymore, since it's just a weaker version of GTX 680 4GBs (albeit slightly cheaper). But a Titan is cheapest of all for me ($890 versus the $1,176 SLI GTX 680s). What scares me is reading so many benchmarks of Crysis 3 not able to hit 30FPS consistently with a Titan. You said you have played Crysis 3 on it. It works okay?

Anybody else with a Titan care to come in and defend theirs too? I am very tempted by it. I plan on playing A LOT of old games, just as often as new games probably, and I wonder which cards would be best for that. I guess a Titan?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 15, 2013 4:58:12 PM

I don't currently play any games that don't support SLI, but from my past experience, if a game doesn't support SLI or CF, it just simply uses 1 card and ignores the other. Now, there may be games which do support SLI/CF but do so with lots of bugs. Those are the ones you'd have to disable SLI/CF for a good experience, though I've never run into that.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 5:11:37 PM

bystander said:
I don't currently play any games that don't support SLI, but from my past experience, if a game doesn't support SLI or CF, it just simply uses 1 card and ignores the other. Now, there may be games which do support SLI/CF but do so with lots of bugs. Those are the ones you'd have to disable SLI/CF for a good experience, though I've never run into that.


Overall, would you say your GTX 680 SLI experience has been positive? Would you recommend it? Any negatives with using SLI or anything that would be confusing for a computer beginning like myself?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 15, 2013 5:18:10 PM

I use 680's SLI for high FPS. I find it to be great. With FPS at 80+ in 2D, I do not experience nausea that I do otherwise. In 3D, they work great, but I have to take breaks every 30-60 minutes due to nausea. Simulator sickness requires me to have low latency and high FPS reduces it. A single GPU solution would likely have better latency with less FPS, which definitely intrigues me.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 5:26:15 PM

Lower FPS yet much much MUCH smoother game play. I'll get on crysis now and post back my FPS. Should take 20 mins.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 5:26:24 PM

bystander said:
I use 680's SLI for high FPS. I find it to be great. With FPS at 80+ in 2D, I do not experience nausea that I do otherwise. In 3D, they work great, but I have to take breaks every 30-60 minutes due to nausea. Simulator sickness requires me to have low latency and high FPS reduces it. A single GPU solution would likely have better latency with less FPS, which definitely intrigues me.


Yes, I've heard that Titan has especially low latency in comparison to other video cards.

What's simulator sickness? Also, does one have to buy a 3D monitor to play games in 3D? I know (obviously) you have to have a 3D TV to watch 3D Blu-rays, but I'm curious with gaming monitors. I hear a lot of people talk about 3D gaming, but I've never actually seen a 3D monitor before.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 15, 2013 5:33:00 PM

JukeBox360 said:
Lower FPS yet much much MUCH smoother game play. I'll get on crysis now and post back my FPS. Should take 20 mins.


I don't have a Titan to compare, but I have a hard time believe it is much much MUCH smoother, as what I get is extremely smooth. It might be in part due to playing at 80+ FPS on a 120hz monitor with v-sync on. It may also be you had a bad experience with a dual GPU setup that may have been faulty or experiencing problems that are not normal, or the settings or games you use it with had problems. I just don't have the issues you are talking about, not that the Titan may not be better, but "much, much MUCH" better doesn't seem possible, as it's great now.

EDIT: btw, what game(s) did you have issues with? It may be I just hadn't played the games you had problems in.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 15, 2013 5:37:57 PM

echamberlin8 said:
bystander said:
I use 680's SLI for high FPS. I find it to be great. With FPS at 80+ in 2D, I do not experience nausea that I do otherwise. In 3D, they work great, but I have to take breaks every 30-60 minutes due to nausea. Simulator sickness requires me to have low latency and high FPS reduces it. A single GPU solution would likely have better latency with less FPS, which definitely intrigues me.


Yes, I've heard that Titan has especially low latency in comparison to other video cards.

What's simulator sickness? Also, does one have to buy a 3D monitor to play games in 3D? I know (obviously) you have to have a 3D TV to watch 3D Blu-rays, but I'm curious with gaming monitors. I hear a lot of people talk about 3D gaming, but I've never actually seen a 3D monitor before.


Simulator sickness is very similar to motion or sea sickness caused by gaming or playing simulators. It is something the Army once did a small study on a number of years ago and found that almost half their participants had some symptoms, but there has never been a study I've read that found a direct cause. There may be many different causes, but for me, the cause appears to be Latency while using the mouse in a 1st person game.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 5:47:22 PM

I'm getting a constant 60FPS in Crysis 3 with the Titan at stock.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 15, 2013 5:49:24 PM

JukeBox360 said:
I'm getting a constant 60FPS in Crysis 3 with the Titan at stock.


Was that the game you had issues with in SLI? I was more interested in the games which gave you issue in SLI. I do know by the benchmarks, Crysis is all CPU bound, and there isn't much difference between a 680, 680 SLI or Titan and their AMD equivalents.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 5:51:04 PM

echamberlin8 said:
bystander said:
I use 680's SLI for high FPS. I find it to be great. With FPS at 80+ in 2D, I do not experience nausea that I do otherwise. In 3D, they work great, but I have to take breaks every 30-60 minutes due to nausea. Simulator sickness requires me to have low latency and high FPS reduces it. A single GPU solution would likely have better latency with less FPS, which definitely intrigues me.


Yes, I've heard that Titan has especially low latency in comparison to other video cards.

What's simulator sickness? Also, does one have to buy a 3D monitor to play games in 3D? I know (obviously) you have to have a 3D TV to watch 3D Blu-rays, but I'm curious with gaming monitors. I hear a lot of people talk about 3D gaming, but I've never actually seen a 3D monitor before.


Yes you need a 3D monitor or TV to use 3D with a GPU.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 5:54:55 PM

bystander said:
JukeBox360 said:
Lower FPS yet much much MUCH smoother game play. I'll get on crysis now and post back my FPS. Should take 20 mins.


I don't have a Titan to compare, but I have a hard time believe it is much much MUCH smoother, as what I get is extremely smooth. It might be in part due to playing at 80+ FPS on a 120hz monitor with v-sync on. It may also be you had a bad experience with a dual GPU setup that may have been faulty or experiencing problems that are not normal, or the settings or games you use it with had problems. I just don't have the issues you are talking about, not that the Titan may not be better, but "much, much MUCH" better doesn't seem possible, as it's great now.

EDIT: btw, what game(s) did you have issues with? It may be I just hadn't played the games you had problems in.


The main game I had issues with was Diablo 3. Which SLI isn't needed for. I'd have huge performance drops in BF3 as well. It was never constant. But whenever it did happen it was annoying as hell. The card does run very smooth. Ive always played with adaptive V Sync on. I'm very used to 80+ fps. But clearly higher FPS doesn't mean smoother gameplay. I can tell you that by 1st hand lol.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 5:55:09 PM

JukeBox360 said:
I'm getting a constant 60FPS in Crysis 3 with the Titan at stock.


With all the settings turned up? How come sometimes I see benchmarks showing like 27FPS for Crysis 3 at 1440p with a Titan? I think there is a YouTube vid of that as well.

Also, what's the deal with this V-Sync I keep hearing about? Turn it off or on? What does it do?

Do you guys turn up your AA all the way? Do you turn basically every single graphical option to the highest setting?
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 5:58:34 PM

bystander said:
JukeBox360 said:
I'm getting a constant 60FPS in Crysis 3 with the Titan at stock.


Was that the game you had issues with in SLI? I was more interested in the games which gave you issue in SLI. I do know by the benchmarks, Crysis is all CPU bound, and there isn't much difference between a 680, 680 SLI or Titan and their AMD equivalents.


I never played the retail Crysis 3 in SLI. Only the beta. I literally got my Titan on Monday. So that's as much knowledge as I have with the Titan gaming on Crysis 3. It's smoother then what I was doing before. But in all fairness the last time I played it in SLI it was in Beta. So that could be part of the issue. ( With that game )
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 15, 2013 5:59:21 PM

JukeBox360 said:
bystander said:
JukeBox360 said:
Lower FPS yet much much MUCH smoother game play. I'll get on crysis now and post back my FPS. Should take 20 mins.


I don't have a Titan to compare, but I have a hard time believe it is much much MUCH smoother, as what I get is extremely smooth. It might be in part due to playing at 80+ FPS on a 120hz monitor with v-sync on. It may also be you had a bad experience with a dual GPU setup that may have been faulty or experiencing problems that are not normal, or the settings or games you use it with had problems. I just don't have the issues you are talking about, not that the Titan may not be better, but "much, much MUCH" better doesn't seem possible, as it's great now.

EDIT: btw, what game(s) did you have issues with? It may be I just hadn't played the games you had problems in.


The main game I had issues with was Diablo 3. Which SLI isn't needed for. I'd have huge performance drops in BF3 as well. It was never constant. But whenever it did happen it was annoying as hell. The card does run very smooth. Ive always played with adaptive V Sync on. I'm very used to 80+ fps. But clearly higher FPS doesn't mean smoother gameplay. I can tell you that by 1st hand lol.


That is odd with Diablo 3. It ran buttery smooth for me. I did have to go into the settings and change their limiters. They had the background set to only update at a max of 30 FPS. Another issue was I had to set the Nvidia control panel to set to maximum performance under power management, as in Diablo 3, it kept down clocking. Those two things might have helped you a ton, but I haven't played Diablo 3 in many months, so it is possible there is some new problems I'm not aware of.

I haven't played the other two games, but I can believe the BF3 issues for sure. I see a lot of people with bad drops. Do you have a 120hz monitor? You mentioned you played with adaptive v-sync, and get 80+ FPS.
m
0
l
March 15, 2013 6:00:49 PM

echamberlin8 said:
JukeBox360 said:
I'm getting a constant 60FPS in Crysis 3 with the Titan at stock.


With all the settings turned up? How come sometimes I see benchmarks showing like 27FPS for Crysis 3 at 1440p with a Titan? I think there is a YouTube vid of that as well.

Also, what's the deal with this V-Sync I keep hearing about? Turn it off or on? What does it do?

Do you guys turn up your AA all the way? Do you turn basically every single graphical option to the highest setting?


That's with the game on "Very High" as there doesn't seem to be a higher mode then that. For aa it shows SMAA on.
( No idea what that is but that's what it's on. )
m
0
l
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!