Mega drop in price of Old School Titans.

Jacob Kiefer

Reputable
Jan 12, 2015
7
0
4,510
I've just been doing a little research, and I can get a titan for about 300 dollars on ebay, so 600 to run them in sli, that's cheaper than 1080 by a lot.

I mean, hell even the 780 ti's in sli should be able to hold their own even in 4k. I'm into building the biggest bang for the buck, I don't need the newest gpu's. I was thinking about just buying 3 more 670's and running them in sli, I'm just not very informed a lot on these things.

Any thoughts?
 
Solution
If you think about it though running 2 GPUs together especially when its not mainstream its reasonable to expect not all games to support it (up to the game devs), and its limitations are largely caused by the system bus. SLI has always had these problems.

You don't need 20k to play games on max in fact you can max out most anything for around $2500 and these days that will still last a while. The fact 4 year old hardware is still somewhat competitive shows that the companies, while all are greedy, maybe aren't THAT bad....

Also, please watch the language

GameFreak01048

Honorable
Feb 17, 2016
694
0
11,360


Hello!

Dual titans in SLI would be great, that would keep you busy for a while, personally I would go with newer architecture so that its just.....new :D I think your best bet would be to get two titans and SLI them, that would be very good I reckon :)
 

Jacob Kiefer

Reputable
Jan 12, 2015
7
0
4,510




I'm curious as to why more people aren't asking these type of questions? Sure the Titan is older, but it's still a damn tank. And for 300 dollars!? I just don't understand why it's being dismissed and the Titan x (what a ripoff) is getting so much hype.
 

Rogue Leader

It's a trap!
Moderator
MERGED QUESTION
Question from Jacob Kiefer : "Titans are very CHEAP now. Question."







 
Bad, bad choice.

The TITAN is slower than a GTX1060.
*By my calculations the GTX1060 is about 55% faster!!
benchmark 1: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan/27.html

benchmark 2: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1060/26.html

a GTX770 is slightly faster than a GTX680 so the calculation becomes:
GTX1060 vs Titan->
(100/53)/(100/82) = 82/53 = 54.7%

Yep!

On top of that there are more features with the newer card including much better VR support. Far less power draw, fan shut off, much quieter etc. There is quite a list really. Even some better DX12 support with Dynamic Load Balancing which will help some future DX12 titles add a little FPS and reduce STUTTER.

Other:
So the TITAN is really a waste of money. The other issue is whether to do SLI at all.

SLI doesn't scale every game, and of those it does there is sometimes stutter or other issues. Most experts recommend getting the fastest single GPU or close to it before using SLI. Let's not forget lack of WARRANTY.

*So I'd recommend getting a GTX1080, or if too much get a GTX1070.

**While the GTX1080 is 66% faster than a single GTX1060 in this list, it's going to favor SLI more than the average. It also means on average that you need faster than 66% on average to benefit from the GTX1060 (if price was the same).

But seriously. Think about this, the GTX1080 is 66% faster on average in games that do not support SLI. That's 66FPS instead of 40FPS.

You also get a bit more video memory. (if considering the GTX1060 still don't get a 3GB model by mistake)

Summary:
Look very carefully at the benchmark scores. I really can't recommend anything besides a GTX1070 or GTX1080.

Other:
More 670's?
Bad idea. As said, not all games support SLI and beyond 2x SLI isn't even supported well. In fact, NVidia flat out said they no longer support it since gaming engines currently are no longer working well with AFR.

You also don't add video memory. If you have 2GB of VRAM then that's what you have for a game and that's just not enough any more. 4GB is the minimum for higher-end gaming.
 
http://pcpartpicker.com/product/6shj4D/asus-geforce-gtx-1080-8gb-video-card-rog-strix-gtx1080-8g-gaming

I'd get something like that.

Also, I do not recommend 4K in general. I would consider a 2560x1440 monitor instead. GSYNC is awesome but it's currently expensive. There is a nice FREESYNC monitor (not all work well) and it's $550USD I believe but you need an AMD GPU. It would be worth considering if you waited for the RX-490.

Anyway, if you want the best help you should give a total budget. I'll make a quick build and post below.
 
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/ygxZJV

That's an example so you can see the configuration and COST. There are several ways to get the price down if need be. (I don't like when people spend $1500 and put in a $60 motherboard though).

It's a nice red/black theme if you like that sort of thing.

For MONITORS I recommend:
- 27"
- 2560x1440
- IPS
- response time 6ms or less

and:
- GSYNC (if you can afford it)
- 144Hz if possible, 60Hz otherwise

To me personally, the top list is the most important. Good visuals, and sufficient resolution.

1) $350
- 25" (not 27")
- 60Hz
- rest of specs are great, and the WARRANTY is excellent (3-year, zero dead pixel, no cost RMA). the cheaper ACER monitor with similar specs has a crappy warranty. (1-year, some dead pixels allowed, and some cost to repair and/or ship)

2) $360 http://pcpartpicker.com/product/LVV48d/asus-monitor-pb278q
- similar to above but 27"
(I mainly included the 25" Dell because I bought it so I know it's nice, plus I've used the same Dell Warranty and it worked great)

3) $550 http://pcpartpicker.com/product/c298TW/asus-monitor-mg279q
- requires AMD GPU to use asynchronous mode (FREESYNC) for smoother gaming
- 144Hz
- so similar to above but 144Hz instead of 60Hz
(great, but you would need to learn how to force on "HALF ADAPTIVE VSYNC" for some games. toggles VSYNC ON or OFF as needed and synchs to 72FPS which is ideal for some games if screen tear requires VSYNC. So aim for about 5% or so drops below 72FPS to optimize quality vs tearing)

4) $800
http://pcpartpicker.com/product/XvfmP6/asus-monitor-pg279q

GSYNC, 144Hz etc.
- really nice but also expensive considering it's $440 more than a 60Hz, non-GSYNC (2nd in list).

Summary:
- so pros and cons
- personally I'd play around with the budget to get a Freesync or GSync monitor. It may sound odd, but you can get smoother gameplay, and it's much less hassle to setup games.

You also don't need the same FPS in many games. For example, with Freesync (if a good 144Hz monitor) let's say an RX-480 gave you 50FPS average. If the game has bad screen tearing then you'd need to use Adaptive VSYNC (Half) and tweak to 72FPS. Your average without VSYNC ON would be closer to 90FPS possibly to minimize drops below 72FPS.

Yeah, it's a bit confusing.

You could have a really great gaming experience with an:
- RX-480 8GB
- i5-6600K
- cheaper case etc as needed
- above FREESYNC monitor ($550)
 

ledhead11

Reputable
Oct 10, 2014
585
0
5,160
There've already been some good answers on this but I'll throw my 2 cents in too. . . .Here's a small history of where I've been with this kind of tech:

2xGTX560TI's>Single GTX780SC>2xG1GTX970OC's>2xG1GTX1080ExtremeOC's
--------------1080P/3d/120hz---------1440P/3d/G-Sync144hz & 4k/10bit/60hz----

I normally try to use most game settings at max except any 'blur' options, and AA off. I will normally keep V-Sync on when fps are acceptable although the g-sync really helps(off in-game but on in CP per NVidia recommendations). Current demanding games I play/test with are Witcher 3/ROTTR/GTA V and even, cough---cough---choke---Batman AK, Dead Island Remasters, No Man's Sky, Metro's Redux, Assassin's Creed IV .

For 1080p/2d stuff the 780 averaged ~70-90fps while the 970's usually pegged ~100-120fps. 3d stuff took off about 20-30 fps from those numbers. At the time I was playing Crysis 3/Witcher 2/Batman's before AK/Original Metro's(970's only).

For 1440p/2d stuff the 970's averaged ~85-110fps while in 3d it dropped again ~20-30fps. The new 1080's hold ~110-150fps and in 3d they loose ~20fps.

For 4k(actually Cinema 4k which is 4096x2160) the 970's struggled for 35-45fps unless a I disabled or lessened many things. At that point they gained around 10fps but at considerable compromise. Then new 1080's rock it with 60-85fps! thus leaving me room for 4k/100+hz in the future, plus DP1.4.

If you really, really want to go the ebay route then I'd recommend a pair of 980ti's SC or G1 OC editions, they have better $ per performance than any of the those era Titans. There are plenty of happy people with those.

What I really recommend is get a pair of 1070's or 1080's. Most present games will eat 4-8gb of Vram in 4k. Sooner than later your going to need that Vram and both have nice clock speeds.

I hope all these numbers help!
 

ledhead11

Reputable
Oct 10, 2014
585
0
5,160
"I was thinking about just buying 3 more 670's and running them in sli, I'm just not very informed a lot on these things. "

Big problem with this strategy is that:
A. NVidia has very publicly stated they're no longer supporting 3 or 4 way SLI(i.e. no new game profiles) and instead leaving it to the Dev's(i.e. nothing). I spent about a year considering a 3rd 970 and read several articles stating bad scaling for games(but good scores for 3d mark).
B. Power and Heat. Newer cards use less and produce less.
C. Losing out on possible features(DirectX 11-12/Vulkan). If you're really committed to the older cards you need to research the cut offs are for the most recent bells & whistles.
D. There are some open source solutions for some of those issues but again it does put more labor and time on you to configure and research. How much is your present time worth compared to investing in the future?
E. MOBO and case issues. It gets complicated going with 3 or more cards. I just spent the last 2 years with my 970's in SLI and the 780 as a PhysX. It was crowded in there.

There are many who say 2 way SLI is getting to the end of the road. I really disagree but 3/4 way is definitely on the way out, at least until the new multi GPU API's really get implemented and that's not looking like anytime soon for the big Dev's.
 

Jacob Kiefer

Reputable
Jan 12, 2015
7
0
4,510
Hmmm.. I just find it hard to believe that the 1070 is just that much better than a gpu that is slightly older that is still a beast running it in sli... There has be some sort of catch. Obviously Nvidia wants you to buy the new stuff, but I can't help but think they are duping us most of the time.

Thanks for all the answers guys. I have a 3570k (ivy) 16 gb ram, a 670, ssd and tb hd. No way in hell I'm upgrading to skylake or whatever, the 3570k is still a beast and I've had no problems, again, just intel trying to rob people of money constantly, that cpu will prob still be damn good in 5 years too.
 

ledhead11

Reputable
Oct 10, 2014
585
0
5,160


I completely agree on the CPU end of things. Intel is just crawling along these days and doesn't look like its going to change any time soon.

Here's a pretty comprehensive comparison if you really want to keep you costs down and just get a second 670:

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=3505&gid2=1542&compare=geforce-gtx-1070-vs-geforce-gtx-670-sli

For the most part the single 1070 wins but its not a complete smack down. Two 1070's, however, would be a completely different story.

 

Rogue Leader

It's a trap!
Moderator
The problem with 2 670's is twice the wattage and reliance on SLI for your performance.

SLI comes with a lot of caveats. Not all games support it, in the case of the 670 older GPUs support less new DX12 features, micro stutter (noticeable in fast action and panning), and even the games that do support it have issues.

The 1070 runs good all the time no matter the game. The 670s can keep up, but with a lot of annoyances involved in getting it right.
 

Jacob Kiefer

Reputable
Jan 12, 2015
7
0
4,510



This is what is so wrong with Nvidia and the like. They are just a money grabbing bunch of bastards (they all are though), You just said sli 670's could keep up, but... there are problems, that NVIDIA won't fix, because why buy 3 100 dollar cards that would put out just as much performance? They just stop selling them completely. You spend 20k on a rig, and in a year you can't run the new games at max.

I remember reading a while ago in the deep web from a nvidia employee this exact type of argument. They don't want people running sli and getting as much performance much cheaper, they want you to buy the new 1500 dollar card that is outdated in a year. I know it's business, but it's so shady. I don't think I can support these companies anymore.
 

Rogue Leader

It's a trap!
Moderator
If you think about it though running 2 GPUs together especially when its not mainstream its reasonable to expect not all games to support it (up to the game devs), and its limitations are largely caused by the system bus. SLI has always had these problems.

You don't need 20k to play games on max in fact you can max out most anything for around $2500 and these days that will still last a while. The fact 4 year old hardware is still somewhat competitive shows that the companies, while all are greedy, maybe aren't THAT bad....

Also, please watch the language
 
Solution

KingDWS

Honorable
Jan 21, 2014
10
0
10,510


Just be aware that running two video cards in SLI does not mean you are going to see twice as fast frame rates. On some cards in certain situations and of course depending on the card design you might only see 10-30% improvement. This is due to how efficiently the cards pass the data and how much load is placed on the GPS to handle that data and make use of it. Luckily if you search a bit here you can find the actual numbers to see just how well it performs. You might find its worth the extra money for the newer card or that the SLI setup works well enough.