Nvidia GTX 690 VS GTX Titan - DID I MESS IT UP???

I'm building a gaming PC and just ordered myself a brand new Nvidia GTX Titan for a hefty 1299 Aussie Dollars, and a friend let me know that he thinks the GTX 690 has much better comparison rating! :(

I'd be really bummed if I messed this up since I just got it like yesterday and the price of this was actually slightly dearer than the other card which I just realised is dual GPU where this is only a single GPU card.

What do you guys think? Did I mess it up??

Is the GTX 690 truly so much better than the GTX TITAN??
If so why is the TITAN deceptively positioned against the GTX 690??
17 answers Last reply
More about nvidia gtx 690 gtx titan mess
  1. IMO i would have both the gtx 690 over the titan unless your playing at like 5000x0000 res the titan is pointless.
  2. As the new consoles are released, the greater single pool of vram on the Titian will start to show its advantages.
  3. mdbrotha03 said:
    As the new consoles are released, the greater single pool of vram on the Titian will start to show its advantages.


    The new consoles will still be a gen behind. They always are.
  4. If you look at only raw FPS, the 690 is better, but if you look at latency and lack of issues, the Titan is better.

    There have been a few people here who have used both and had a better experience with the Titan.

    From following 120hz monitor threads, and what makes people like 120hz more than 60hz monitors, latency is one of the biggest reasons, if not the biggest reasons people like them. With Titan giving the best latency, it could very well be giving the better experience.
  5. cia24 said:
    mdbrotha03 said:
    As the new consoles are released, the greater single pool of vram on the Titian will start to show its advantages.


    The new consoles will still be a gen behind. They always are.


    Not in total amount of cram available to the gpu
  6. Look at it this way, even with w/e gpu they put in there it still wont be able to match the higher grade ones on the pcs. Consoles graphics are always behind.
  7. Meh it's not THAT bad OP. It depends whats your resolution is and how many monitors you use. Titan is still a good card but overpriced.
  8. i always support the single most powerful GPU---------:> TITAN
  9. sanilmahambre said:
    i always support the single most powerful GPU---------:> TITAN


    I support the idea of having as much in a computer case as possible. Lol single gpu over sli cf anyday
  10. The 690 is insanely good. But, if you're going to play on very high resolution on several screens, then the titan would be ideal due to the high vram and 384-bit.

    GK104 is made for the regular resolutions like 1080p and sometimes1440p that is only with the GTX 670, 680 and 690 though, while the GK110, the Titan, destroys the highest resolutions at several screens.
  11. I don't mean to insult anybody by pointing out the obvious, but if anyone purchases a Titan or a gtx 690 for any reason then they should ask their mothers if it is too late to have themselves aborted as an act of kindness.

    Here's why : both struggle to show noticeable gains over a pair of midrange gtx 660's which can be purchased for 50% of the cost for either of these pointless cards.

    All these cards are specifically designed to only perform for gaming and I can play any current game on the highest settings with a gtx 680 or on multiple displays with a pair of gtx 670's or even gtx 660's.

    In line with the current nvidia trend, the seemingly massive spec improvements have very little correlation to actual performance gains. Plus, even if the gains were there, who cares because we could already play any game on the highest settings just fine.

    At the risk of being repetitive, I will say it again, you can already play any game on the highest setting. It doesn't do Anything new. You gain nothing!

    Can anyone fault this logic? Claims that these things will suddenly start revealing themselves at some point in the future when companies start making better games for a platform people actually care about are letting Nvidia off too lightly. They are selling it for north of $1000 right now.

    Btw, single gpu vs sli is a meaningless issue. Games work well with sli generally and I'm sure that cards used by even the most reckless of overclockers will survive the additional heat for the 2 years it will be until the next generation where the most expensive cards of today will become worthless eBay fillers.

    "Titan" is the right name because they are a million miles away from where they should be. Its like they're on another planet.
  12. The GTX 690 only has 2GB of vram, so you will not be able to max some games (including max AA) even at 1920x1080. Hitman Absolution uses over 2GB of vram on 1920x1080 with MSAA x8. On 2560x1440, you can expect most high-end newer games to use more than 2GB. Battlefield 3 uses between 2-2.5GB of vram on some multiplayer maps, Far Cry 3 uses over 2GB on MSAA x8, Hitman Absolution uses over 3GB with MSAA x8, and Crysis 3 uses a little over 2.8GB with MSAA x8. While such high antialiasing is not practical for most people, why even buy these cards if you're not going to go all out? The Titan outperforms the 690 in Crysis 3 according to TechofTomorrow. This makes sense, considering Nvidia optimized the game quite well and you can expect the performance of one Titan to exceed the 690 with more driver updates.

    You also get a much better default cooling solution with the GTX Titan, s it blows air out of the back of your case rather than back into it, like the GTX 690. GPU Boost 2.0 essentially overclocks your Titan for you, so that's another big ede it has over the 690.

    If you're big on expanding to more cards in the future, you have much more room to work with if you have a Titan. You can have a potential 4 Titans in your system, whereas you can only add another 690 to your system since it's a dual GPU card. Thus, once two 690s are no longer sufficient for your needs, you'll have to start from scratch again.
  13. robertbhart said:
    I don't mean to insult anybody by pointing out the obvious, but if anyone purchases a Titan or a gtx 690 for any reason then they should ask their mothers if it is too late to have themselves aborted as an act of kindness.

    Here's why : both struggle to show noticeable gains over a pair of midrange gtx 660's which can be purchased for 50% of the cost for either of these pointless cards.

    All these cards are specifically designed to only perform for gaming and I can play any current game on the highest settings with a gtx 680 or on multiple displays with a pair of gtx 670's or even gtx 660's.

    In line with the current nvidia trend, the seemingly massive spec improvements have very little correlation to actual performance gains. Plus, even if the gains were there, who cares because we could already play any game on the highest settings just fine.

    At the risk of being repetitive, I will say it again, you can already play any game on the highest setting. It doesn't do Anything new. You gain nothing!

    Can anyone fault this logic? Claims that these things will suddenly start revealing themselves at some point in the future when companies start making better games for a platform people actually care about are letting Nvidia off too lightly. They are selling it for north of $1000 right now.

    Btw, single gpu vs sli is a meaningless issue. Games work well with sli generally and I'm sure that cards used by even the most reckless of overclockers will survive the additional heat for the 2 years it will be until the next generation where the most expensive cards of today will become worthless eBay fillers.

    "Titan" is the right name because they are a million miles away from where they should be. Its like they're on another planet.


    Your argument is quite ignorant. While the 660Ti performs well for the money, you're limited to 1920x1080 with low antialiasing settings. You're stuck with 2GB of vram and you're essentially not able to make the jump to higher resolutions, unless you're willing to sacrifice antialiasing. With that said, there are people out there (me included) who like to max their games out. If I had 4 GTX 660Tis, I'm bounded by my vram and all of that horsepower is for nothing. I don't even know if the 660Ti allows 4-way SLI, which would be pointless given what I just said.

    A lot of people are naïve when then look at charts comparing graphics cards all tested on 1920x1080 with low antialiasing and think that the 660Ti being less than 50% away from the higher-end cards makes the other cards a stupid buy. You're paying for the ability to play with higher settings on higher resolutions that no amount of mid-range cards stacked in SLI or crossfire would be able to run because of vram limitations.

    I understand your situation, you play on 1920x1080 and you don't care for antialiasing or higher resolutions. That's great, but some consumers want to play on higher resolutions and with high antialiasing settings. Thus, the GTX Titans makes sense for them. You're about as ignorant as a console gamer saying that PC gaming is illogical due to the price.
  14. I wouldn't consider the 660 for multi monitor gaming with that smaller bus. I found even the 670 to be limiting a bit.
  15. gridironcj said:
    robertbhart said:
    I don't mean to insult anybody by pointing out the obvious, but if anyone purchases a Titan or a gtx 690 for any reason then they should ask their mothers if it is too late to have themselves aborted as an act of kindness.

    Here's why : both struggle to show noticeable gains over a pair of midrange gtx 660's which can be purchased for 50% of the cost for either of these pointless cards.

    All these cards are specifically designed to only perform for gaming and I can play any current game on the highest settings with a gtx 680 or on multiple displays with a pair of gtx 670's or even gtx 660's.

    In line with the current nvidia trend, the seemingly massive spec improvements have very little correlation to actual performance gains. Plus, even if the gains were there, who cares because we could already play any game on the highest settings just fine.

    At the risk of being repetitive, I will say it again, you can already play any game on the highest setting. It doesn't do Anything new. You gain nothing!

    Can anyone fault this logic? Claims that these things will suddenly start revealing themselves at some point in the future when companies start making better games for a platform people actually care about are letting Nvidia off too lightly. They are selling it for north of $1000 right now.

    Btw, single gpu vs sli is a meaningless issue. Games work well with sli generally and I'm sure that cards used by even the most reckless of overclockers will survive the additional heat for the 2 years it will be until the next generation where the most expensive cards of today will become worthless eBay fillers.

    "Titan" is the right name because they are a million miles away from where they should be. Its like they're on another planet.


    Your argument is quite ignorant. While the 660Ti performs well for the money, you're limited to 1920x1080 with low antialiasing settings. You're stuck with 2GB of vram and you're essentially not able to make the jump to higher resolutions, unless you're willing to sacrifice antialiasing. With that said, there are people out there (me included) who like to max their games out. If I had 4 GTX 660Tis, I'm bounded by my vram and all of that horsepower is for nothing. I don't even know if the 660Ti allows 4-way SLI, which would be pointless given what I just said.

    A lot of people are naïve when then look at charts comparing graphics cards all tested on 1920x1080 with low antialiasing and think that the 660Ti being less than 50% away from the higher-end cards makes the other cards a stupid buy. You're paying for the ability to play with higher settings on higher resolutions that no amount of mid-range cards stacked in SLI or crossfire would be able to run because of vram limitations.

    I understand your situation, you play on 1920x1080 and you don't care for antialiasing or higher resolutions. That's great, but some consumers want to play on higher resolutions and with high antialiasing settings. Thus, the GTX Titans makes sense for them. You're about as ignorant as a console gamer saying that PC gaming is illogical due to the price.



    Look again. I specifically stated a pair of gtx 670's or 660's for multi monitor gaming.

    As for "my situation", I have one system with 3 gtx 680's and one with a quadro 6000 / Tesla C2075.

    I game on a 3 monitor setup. This isn't personal or me trying to make myself feel better about owning an inferior card. I can afford any card I want.

    I'm mad at Nvidia because all the spec improvements they advertise don't make a meaningful difference. Certainly not enough to justify the cost. My main point is that even if it did, there isn't even one game that can't be played comfortably on ultra with far less expensive hardware. This isn't a leap forward in any way. It just isn't. You could bring out a card that was 50 times more powerful and we would still not be any better off.

    Once you get to a certain level, chasing frame rates the eye can't see is stupid. The Titan being inferior to a gtx 690 unless you buy 3 is taking us all for fools. I'm not making anything up. For once the benchmarks from every reviewer seem to agree. It's unanimous. Well, unless you spent money you couldn't afford on a Titan and need to find something to make you feel better.

    Im specifically angry with Nvidia right now, in the interest of full disclosure. I bought a Tesla to help with realtime simulations In Maya after reading a case study on the nvidia website and then was told that the tesla cards are not compatible with Maya, or any of the other most common 3d apps. The case study they used to sell it was using a custom plugin that isn't available to the public which they forgot to mention anywhere in the case study.

    It's always software that lets these things down. It's lazy. When Sony released the playstation, they ensured it was supported with a library of games. Releasing a gpu that is intended only for a small audience means that creating software for it is not financially viable. Would it have hurt to have one game that could use all that power? A Ferrari that never leaves the 30mph zone is for people with small winkies.

    Instead, people that buy it are left with the promise of a brighter day. My prediction is that by the time anyone releases a game that shows us what it can do, a newer generation of cards will be released and you'll see that kind of performance on the replacement for the gtx 670/660. Probably in time for the Titan 2 and the cycle continues. Fool me once....
  16. In the end though you just have to decide how long you want to wait? You could keep saying i'll just wait for the next series maybe it will be better but in the end you'll just continue to wait. I say that if the card you have now is enough to play or work with comfortably then keep it. If it doesn't do what you need or want it to then replace it. Screw waiting we aren't getting any younger :).
  17. Titan all the way! Almost as powerful as the 690's two GPUs put together!
    Plus, the 690 sucks for SLI, with titan, you can do SLI in the future if you plan on 4K resolutions.
Ask a new question

Read More

dual gpu Graphics Cards Titan Nvidia Gtx Graphics