Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do you think the new NVIDIA GeForce Titan is silly looking?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 18, 2013 10:58:32 AM

Do you think the new NVIDIA GeForce Titan is silly looking?

2.18.13


Mates,

As I've gotten interested in GPU computing recently, while looking into the Oak Ridge "Titan", that is now the NO 1. fastest supercomputer, I stumbled onto these details and photos of the NVIDIA GeForce Titan to be released today >

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-pictured-g...

Kepler GK 110 , 384-bit interface (K20 is 256)m 2688 CUDA cores, 6GB GDDR5. The 837 / 878 MHz boost clocks- which for now are locked- is higher than the 732 MHz of the Tesla K20 that is really the workstation version of this card. This is apparently set up for quad SLI. The Titan will sell for about $900. As the Titan's brother, the Tesla K20 costs $3,500, the Titan may be a bargain. BTW, the $97M Titan supercomputer uses 18,688 Tesla K20X GPU's (and 18,688 AMD Opteron 6274 8-core CPU's) to produce it's 17.59 PetaFLOPS - Peta = Quadrillion.

Performance estimates for the GeForce Titan are said to be higher, equal, and/or lower than the GTX 690, so we'll have to see what the tests say. No doubt, this card will perform really well and generate extreme interest.

The thing is, while the Titan is the current pinnacle of graphics technology, in terms of cosmetic design it looks to me a bit goofy, not very serious, like a kid's transformer toy. It has a lighted logo on the side, and slapped on diagonal and radial decorations. I think it's supposed to look tough and purposeful, but to me it looks a bit cheap and contrived- decorated by a committee. the fan enclosure screws are obvious and probably supposed to be evocative of tough-guy rivets or space hardware torq's fittings, but the just look cheap- today you don't see exposed screws on car interiors or even $40 toasters. I don't think the lighted logo will help service visibility in the case. Perhaps NVIDIA thinks buyers will believe the light can impress girls. "Hey baby, you want to come over to my parent's basement ? I've got a thousand dollar video card with a light on it ! And a Pizza!"

Of course, any consumer object has to appeal to the buyer visually, but since this is a graphics card makes images, is nearly $1,000 chuck of the most advanced technology, the Titan is adolescent looking and in my view even a bit marketing committee insulting.

Don't get me wrong- while the K20 has already introduced this technology, I think the Titan is an important release- GPU computing is going to be the Next Big Thing- and if the Titan can do what the Tesla K20 can do, the appearance alone wouldn't stop me from buying it- or two or three-and saving the difference between $900 and $3,500. Rendering, fluidic / structural simulation, animation, computational analysis, and video editing should fly! Of course, as we all know, NVIDIA tends to delete features and capabilities from the GeForce cards to "steer" workstation buyers towards the professional line, but the Titan's performance may transcend hobbling.

What do you think?

Cheers,

BambiBoom
February 18, 2013 11:00:15 AM

Disagree it looks better than any card in market.Both gtx 690 and titan are the best looking card ever.
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2013 11:05:53 AM

cooldudesubho said:
Disagree it looks better than any card in market.Both gtx 690 and titan are the best looking card ever.


+1 for that. I also think that the 690, and thus the Titan, are really sexy cards, akin to the aesthetic appeal of sports cars.

Aesthetics is subjective tho' so you're bound to have folks who agree or disagree with you.
Related resources
a c 141 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 18, 2013 11:50:41 AM

silly look? i think GTX690 is a bit better but still those titan design still somewhat okay for me. to me the ugliest reference look was amd 6900 series lol which look a lot like brick. nvidia follow suit with their GTX670 and GTX660 Ti reference design :lol: 
February 18, 2013 12:07:24 PM

I've never understood why people value aesthetics over functionality regarding something that will not be visible for most of the time.
The graphic card card is going to be inside the cabinet and unless you have a transparent casing no one's gonna see it and appreciate how sexy it looks. And even then most of the time, you only get to see one side...
I would rather go for a card that looks "ugly" but has a better heat-dissipation than something that looks sexy but over-heats.
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 18, 2013 12:11:40 PM

Over the long haul, imho it's better to have something that puts out more or better than something that looks nicer.
February 18, 2013 12:31:15 PM

ubercake said:
Over the long haul, imho it's better to have something that puts out more or better than something that looks nicer.

(+1)
February 18, 2013 1:00:02 PM

bambiboom said:
Do you think the new NVIDIA GeForce Titan is silly looking?

2.18.13


Mates,

As I've gotten interested in GPU computing recently, while looking into the Oak Ridge "Titan", that is now the NO 1. fastest supercomputer, I stumbled onto these details and photos of the NVIDIA GeForce Titan to be released today >

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-pictured-g...

Kepler GK 110 , 384-bit interface (K20 is 256)m 2688 CUDA cores, 6GB GDDR5. The 837 / 878 MHz boost clocks- which for now are locked- is higher than the 732 MHz of the Tesla K20 that is really the workstation version of this card. This is apparently set up for quad SLI. The Titan will sell for about $900. As the Titan's brother, the Tesla K20 costs $3,500, the Titan may be a bargain. BTW, the $97M Titan supercomputer uses 18,688 Tesla K20X GPU's (and 18,688 AMD Opteron 6274 8-core CPU's) to produce it's 17.59 PetaFLOPS - Peta = Quadrillion.

Performance estimates for the GeForce Titan are said to be higher, equal, and/or lower than the GTX 690, so we'll have to see what the tests say. No doubt, this card will perform really well and generate extreme interest.

The thing is, while the Titan is the current pinnacle of graphics technology, in terms of cosmetic design it looks to me a bit goofy, not very serious, like a kid's transformer toy. It has a lighted logo on the side, and slapped on diagonal and radial decorations. I think it's supposed to look tough and purposeful, but to me it looks a bit cheap and contrived- decorated by a committee. the fan enclosure screws are obvious and probably supposed to be evocative of tough-guy rivets or space hardware torq's fittings, but the just look cheap- today you don't see exposed screws on car interiors or even $40 toasters. I don't think the lighted logo will help service visibility in the case. Perhaps NVIDIA thinks buyers will believe the light can impress girls. "Hey baby, you want to come over to my parent's basement ? I've got a thousand dollar video card with a light on it ! And a Pizza!"

Of course, any consumer object has to appeal to the buyer visually, but since this is a graphics card makes images, is nearly $1,000 chuck of the most advanced technology, the Titan is adolescent looking and in my view even a bit marketing committee insulting.

Don't get me wrong- while the K20 has already introduced this technology, I think the Titan is an important release- GPU computing is going to be the Next Big Thing- and if the Titan can do what the Tesla K20 can do, the appearance alone wouldn't stop me from buying it- or two or three-and saving the difference between $900 and $3,500. Rendering, fluidic / structural simulation, animation, computational analysis, and video editing should fly! Of course, as we all know, NVIDIA tends to delete features and capabilities from the GeForce cards to "steer" workstation buyers towards the professional line, but the Titan's performance may transcend hobbling.

What do you think?

Cheers,

BambiBoom



When I read a post like this one it makes me seriously consider not returning to this forum. Even worse, it's been responded to by more senior members. It's beyond me why anybody would want to buy...or not buy something that lives inside a box based upon its appearance. I really don't want to belong to any group that includes people like that.
February 18, 2013 1:02:50 PM

ubercake said:
Over the long haul, imho it's better to have something that puts out more or better than something that looks nicer.

I see what you did there.
February 18, 2013 1:30:09 PM

_kaos_ said:
I've never understood why people value aesthetics over functionality regarding something that will not be visible for most of the time.
The graphic card card is going to be inside the cabinet and unless you have a transparent casing no one's gonna see it and appreciate how sexy it looks. And even then most of the time, you only get to see one side...
I would rather go for a card that looks "ugly" but has a better heat-dissipation than something that looks sexy but over-heats.


_______________________________________
2.18.13 > 10:30

_kaos_,

Very well put.

Since I was a kid, I loved vintage cars, and when my friends all wanted a new Corvette, I wanted a 1938 Type 57 Bugatti. One of the features of the real Bugattis- that is not so well done in the revival Veyron- is that every part had an elegant visual quality- there are people that will pay $2,000 to buy a Bugatti steering wheel and then mount it on the wall as a work of art. Even the front axles were , sculpturally formed and beautifully finished and just looked both strong and lightweight. This aesthetic is not so well done in the revival Veyron and which in fact is kind of inverted- instead of Ettore's lightness, Volkwagen's Veyron is made to look as massive /heavy as possible. I think this a valid comparison as both the Bugatti and the Titan are aspiring to a high performance industrial aesthetic.

The difference between a 1937 Bugatti and the GeForce Titan is that is that the Bugatti was not slapping patterns and decorations that had no relationship to the function- each component of the Bugatti was simply made an elegant expression of it function. "Form follows function" was the summation of early modern architects, and the post-modernist Robert Venturi refined that into categories of "Ducks" and "Decorated Sheds", the former being function/aesthetic integration and Decorated Sheds being a box with non functioning shutters and crown moldings tacked on. While I don't think the related Tesla K20 is beautiful, at least the various ribs and indentations probably make the fan enclosure more rigid and give a little extra surface area for heat dissipation. Speaking of overheating, the lower-clocked Tesla K20 was released without a fan- it has passive heatsink /vapor chamber cooling. I'm quite sure that the 18,688 Tesla K20X's in the Oak Ridge "Titan" do not have individual fans.

If I designed the Titan, it would be finned all over , some level of PCB /GPU heat conductivity bridge and I can see a more efficient -and probably quieter- way to conduct the air. Also, these big, bulky cards should have a arrangement with a good gripping area for installation- possibly something resembling a "handle".

The GeForce Titan to me falls definitely in the decorated shed category and I hope that as this configuration is released for production to EGVA, PNY, and etc. that there will be versions for grownups.


Cheers,

BambiBoom
February 18, 2013 1:59:07 PM

ram1009 said:
When I read a post like this one it makes me seriously consider not returning to this forum. Even worse, it's been responded to by more senior members. It's beyond me why anybody would want to buy...or not buy something that lives inside a box based upon its appearance. I really don't want to belong to any group that includes people like that.


_________________________________________

ram1009,

This is exactly the point of the thread- whether aesthetics matter for industrial components like graphics cards. I think it does. While a graphics cards lives inside a box, it would never get there in the first place unless it appealed to the buyer visually and we can imagine a lot of thought went into the appearance of the Titan from a marketing viewpoint- NVIDIA knew this would be an important product. As I mentioned in my original post, ",..if the Titan can do what the Tesla K20 can do, the appearance alone wouldn't stop me from buying it- or two or three,.." , but if a company is spending millions on a design, tooling, and production design, why can't the appearance reflect the serious purposefulness of the function, attempt to reflect the quality of construction, and justify a high price?

Cheers,

BambiBoom
a c 164 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 18, 2013 2:04:16 PM

Nope. Count me in with the group that doesn't care. It's going in a box, not being seen out in public with me behind the wheel. I honestly don't care who makes it or how ugly it is. If it gives me more FPS then anyone else while staying in my budget I'm on it. It can look like a big steaming pile, doesn't bother me at all.

a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 18, 2013 2:17:27 PM

^+1
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2013 2:18:36 PM

ram1009 said:
When I read a post like this one it makes me seriously consider not returning to this forum. Even worse, it's been responded to by more senior members. It's beyond me why anybody would want to buy...or not buy something that lives inside a box based upon its appearance. I really don't want to belong to any group that includes people like that.



agree totally with ram1009.........what is the point of this post. Visual appeal of the hardware is a moot point. It's about hardware performance. Anyone purchasing a card of that grade, would know the reasons why they are buying it, and it certainly has nothing to do with how aesthetically pleasing it looks.


@Bambiboom.......no need to date/time stamp your posts. It's done automatically!! :) 
February 18, 2013 2:21:40 PM

ram1009 said:
When I read a post like this one it makes me seriously consider not returning to this forum. Even worse, it's been responded to by more senior members. It's beyond me why anybody would want to buy...or not buy something that lives inside a box based upon its appearance. I really don't want to belong to any group that includes people like that.

Yep, no kidding. When I read the OP I'm thinking "Is this Tom's or Hello Kitty"?
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2013 2:31:32 PM

Isn't the card in the OP's post just the OEM design of the card? In other words, once nVidia's partners start selling the card, why would it look the same?

Casey
a c 164 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 18, 2013 3:45:35 PM

More so with the top end cards they tend to stay with the reference design. Once you have a TDP 200+ they tend to stay ref, or a design with they already know works.

I would be willing to bet all the GTX690 use a reference design. If any doesn't it will be a cooling design used on other cards like the "Double D" cooler or whatever.
February 18, 2013 4:08:49 PM

MaxxOmega said:
Yep, no kidding. When I read the OP I'm thinking "Is this Tom's or Hello Kitty"?


MaxxOmega,

So, your comment is that the "Hello Kitty" site at which you apparently spend an equal amount of time as Tom's Hardware considers the industrial aesthetics of computer components within a historical marketing context to a degree that you find confusing?

Cheers,

BambiBoom
February 18, 2013 4:24:34 PM

The 690 was great looking. Professional with what looked like very little plastic. I'm very happy that they used the same design.
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2013 4:43:12 PM

Nice card, but I am gonna wait for Maxwell!
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 18, 2013 4:44:22 PM

My 680s look pretty hot after a couple of beers.
a c 141 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 19, 2013 1:41:33 AM

lol. have fun once in a while. so no need to be serious when someone posting thread like this. :p  btw 4745454b you just win the bet. with 690 nvidia did not allow the partner to make changes to the 690 design at all. heck i even heard the rumor about nvidia did not allow Asus to make Mars series card based on GK104 silicon
a c 164 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 19, 2013 3:34:59 AM

I'd make the same bet with the 7990, except we don't have a real one yet. Any of them that are out there probably use the Double D or DCII or DCIII coolers. You are going to see the same cooling designs simply because the TDP doesn't allow for many differences other then what we know already works.

I had that Asus 5750 with the F1 car heat sink. But that card barely even uses the 6pin plug they gave it. Doesn't need to worry about heat.
a c 141 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 19, 2013 7:00:19 AM

speaking of Asus i really like their DC coolers. my 460 still barely audible even with 60% fan speed. only start noticing the noise when the fan reaching 70% speed. unlike my previous gigabyte 250 with zalman fan even 40% speed is noticeable to my ear.
a c 164 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 19, 2013 8:04:19 AM

Fan noise doesn't bother me. I always game with my headset/mic on so I can't hear any fans running. Because I work nights and on my days off I stay up all night I even watch "TV" with them on so I don't bother the neighbors. But yes, the DC coolers do a great job keeping the cards cool.
February 19, 2013 10:16:54 AM

Voltage locked and ugly! Double fail
February 19, 2013 4:03:53 PM

bambiboom said:
MaxxOmega,

So, your comment is that the "Hello Kitty" site at which you apparently spend an equal amount of time as Tom's Hardware considers the industrial aesthetics of computer components within a historical marketing context to a degree that you find confusing?

Cheers,

BambiBoom

I'm saying anyone whose primary concern is if the card is ugly is an idiot...
February 20, 2013 2:11:52 PM

ubercake said:
Over the long haul, imho it's better to have something that puts out more or better than something that looks nicer.


.... we talking about GFX cards here, or women?
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 21, 2013 10:10:54 AM

PsychoSephic said:
.... we talking about GFX cards here, or women?

That's what I'm saying! Output > Aesthetics any day. The end result is the beauty.
!