Skip to main content

OpenCL And CUDA Are Go: GeForce GTX Titan, Tested In Pro Apps

GeForce GTX Titan: Fast, But Not A Workstation Card

Is The GeForce GTX Titan Good For As A Workstation Card?

Good question. There's no doubt that the GeForce GTX Titan is a great gaming card, but its price is just too high for the performance it offers in professional applications, added on to the fact that its drivers simply aren't certified for most of the software we tested.

There is a handful of CUDA-optimized titles where the Titan does really well. Blender, 3ds Max, and Octane all show Nvidia's single-GPU flagship with a commanding lead over the GeForce GTX 680 and prior-gen 580. Bottom line: if you're thinking about using a Titan for rendering, check the application you're using first.

This card's OpenGL performance is a mixed bag. It posts solid numbers in most 3D workloads, though not by enough to justify a $1,000 price tag compared to the other gaming-oriented boards we tested. We're certainly curious to see how the Titan fares when we insert its results to the upcoming workstation graphics card round-up. However, we wouldn't recommend it (and we don't think Nvidia would either) for everyday work in a design studio. Quadro and FirePro boards are the right tools for that job, primarily due to their properly optimized and certified drivers.

When the Titan launched, Nvidia directed us to a switch in the card's driver to enable full FP64 performance, and we demonstrated the benefit that can have in certain scientific workloads using SiSoftware Sandra. But even then, the company suggested that the feature is most useful to developers, and probably won't see much action in a production environment.

So, what are we left to conclude, then?

The GeForce GTX Titan that Gigabyte sent over is a sweet card able to beat the gaming-optimized GeForce GTX 680 in most professional tasks using its GK110 graphics processor. But we don't see many folks spending $1,000 on a desktop product when the true business-oriented boards are the ones that include the right drivers and compatibility guarantees.

Gigabyte puts together a nice package that might make you happier about dropping a grand for the fastest single-GPU desktop card, but we maintain that you're only going to want to if you, one, have that much money to spend and, two, have a mini-ITX-based or multi-GPU gaming system. Otherwise, there are several other options that'd yield better value.

  • k1114
    Why are there not workstation cards in the graphs?
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Thanks for all the juicy new benchmarks!

    BTW, I'm hoping the OpenCL benchmarks all make it to the GPU Charts. I'd like to know how the HD 7870 stacks up, at least. Being a new owner of one, I'm pleased at the showing made by the other Radeons. I had expected Titan to better on OpenCL, based on all the hype.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    k1114Why are there not workstation cards in the graphs?Because it would be pointless. They use the same GPUs, but clocked lower and with ECC memory.

    The whole point of Titan was to make a consumer card based on the Tesla GPU. I don't think AMD has a separate GPU for their workstation or "SKY" cards.
    Reply
  • crakocaine
    Theres something weird with your ratGPU gpu rendering openCL test results. you say lower is better in seconds but yet the numbers are arranged to make it look like more seconds is better.
    Reply
  • mayankleoboy1
    Too much data here for a proper conclusion. Here is what i conclude :

    In Pro applications :

    1. 7970 is generally quite bad.
    2. Titan has mixed performance.
    3. Drivers make or break a card.

    In more consumer friendly 'general' apps :

    1. 7970 dominates. Completely.
    2. 680 is piss poor (as expected)
    3. 580 may or may not compete.
    4. Titan is not worth having.

    AMD needs to tie up moar with Pro app developers. Thats the market which is ever expanding, and will bring huge revenue.

    Would have been interesting to see how the FirePro version of 7970 performs compared to the HD7970.
    Reply
  • Yuka
    bit_userBecause it would be pointless. They use the same GPUs, but clocked lower and with ECC memory.The whole point of Titan was to make a consumer card based on the Tesla GPU. I don't think AMD has a separate GPU for their workstation or "SKY" cards.
    It isn't pointless, since it helps put into perspective where this non-pro video card stands in the professional world. It's like making a lot of gaming benchmarks out of professional cards with no non-pro cards. You need perspective.

    Other than that, is was an interesting read.

    Cheers!
    Reply
  • slomo4sho
    I would honestly have liked to see a GTX 690 and 7990(or 7970 x-fire) in the mix to see how titan performs at relatively equal price points.
    Reply
  • tiret
    I find the rendered scenes more interesting than the graphs.
    Reply
  • SuperGamerBoy
    I would likd to see the Ares II in action :D
    Reply
  • 260511
    mayankleoboy1Too much data here for a proper conclusion. Here is what i conclude :In Pro applications : 1. 7970 is generally quite bad. 2. Titan has mixed performance.3. Drivers make or break a card. In more consumer friendly 'general' apps :1. 7970 dominates. Completely.2. 680 is piss poor (as expected)3. 580 may or may not compete.4. Titan is not worth having.AMD needs to tie up moar with Pro app developers. Thats the market which is ever expanding, and will bring huge revenue.Would have been interesting to see how the FirePro version of 7970 performs compared to the HD7970.
    Show me one benchmark where AMD actually does well? the amount of fanboyism in your comment is unsettling, go back to your cave, Troll.
    Reply