Nvidia Titan RTX Review: Gaming, Training, Inferencing, Pro Viz, Oh My!
Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
Performance Results: Gaming at 3840 x 2160
If you aspire to game at 4K and don’t want to choose between smooth frame rates and maxed-out graphics quality, GeForce RTX 2080 Ti and Titan RTX provide a similar experience. Obviously, Titan RTX is faster. But its win is mostly academic—few gamers could justify spending twice as much money for a geometric mean of average frame rates that’s six percent higher than GeForce RTX 2080 Ti and 4% higher than the third-party model we tested.
With that said, anyone who simply must have the best of the best for gaming, regardless of price (some call this having more money than sense), won’t be able to resist.
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation (DX12)
Battlefield V (DX12)
Destiny 2 (DX11)
Far Cry 5 (DX11)
Forza Motorsport 7 (DX12)
Grand Theft Auto V (DX11)
Metro: Last Light Redux (DX11)
Rise of the Tomb Raider (DX12)
Tom Clancy’s The Division (DX12)
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon (DX11)
The Witcher 3 (DX11)
Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus (Vulkan)
MORE: Best Graphics Cards
MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table
MORE: All Graphics Content
Current page: Performance Results: Gaming at 3840 x 2160
Prev Page Performance Results: Gaming at 2560 x 1440 Next Page Power ConsumptionStay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
30-year-old Pentium FDIV bug tracked down in the silicon — Ken Shirriff takes the microscope to Intel's first-ever recall
Cyberpunk 2077 update 2.2 claims to improve Arrow Lake performance by up to 33%, theoretically matching the Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Empyrean Technology gives control to CEC after U.S. blacklisting — China’s top developer of chip design systems hands reins to state-owned firm
-
AgentLozen This is a horrible video card for gaming at this price point but when you paint this card in the light of workstation graphics, the price starts to become more understandable.Reply
Nvidia should have given this a Quadro designation so that there is no confusion what this thing is meant for. -
bloodroses 21719532 said:This is a horrible video card for gaming at this price point but when you paint this card in the light of workstation graphics, the price starts to become more understandable.
Nvidia should have given this a Quadro designation so that there is no confusion what this thing is meant for.
True, but the 'Titan' designation was more so designated for super computing, not gaming. They just happen to game well. Quadro is designed for CAD uses, with ECC VRAM and driver support being the big difference over a Titan. There is quite a bit of crossover that does happen each generation though, to where you can sometimes 'hack' a Quadro driver onto a Titan
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/a2vxb9/differences_between_the_titan_rtx_and_quadro_rtx/ -
madks Is it possible to put more training benchmarks? Especially for Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN). There are many forecasting models for weather, stock market etc. And they usually fit in less than 4GB of vram.Reply
Inference is less important, because a model could be deployed on a machine without a GPU or even an embedded device. -
mdd1963 21720515 said:Just buy it!!!
Would not buy it at half of it's cost either, so...
:)
The Tom's summary sounds like Nviidia payed for their trip to Bangkok and gave them 4 cards to review....plus gave $4k 'expense money' :)
-
alextheblue So the Titan RTX has roughly half the FP64 performance of the Vega VII. The same Vega VII that Tom's had a news article (that was NEVER CORRECTED) that bashed it for "shipping without double precision" and then later erroneously listed the FP64 rate at half the actual rate? Nice to know.Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-radeon-vii-double-precision-disabled,38437.html
There's a link to the bad news article, for posterity.