[QUOTE=Brt5470;39645737]Also we don't actually know the retail price. Nvidia is simply stating that's the recommended price. Manu's can set it to whatever they want if I recall correctly.
Besides this is for people who got pissed off that the GK104 had no GPGPU performance.[/QUOTE]
Are there people who really need that? In a [I]gaming[/I] graphics card? Seems a bit silly no?
[QUOTE=The Baconator;39658345]Are there people who really need that? In a [I]gaming[/I] graphics card? Seems a bit silly no?[/QUOTE]
Well, there are people who use one card for both gaming and other purposes. Obviously it wouldn't be used in a business setting.
[QUOTE=meppers;39645585]wow a thousand dollar GPU just to play console ports[/QUOTE]
Sadly, this is more true then I want it to be.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;39655300]Because Nvidia got a lot of hate for gimping keplers GPGPU performance.
And I think part of this is to keep Nvidia in the spotlight until they can get the "tock" series of keplers out by the next quarter or two. So they give people a better single GPU in the mean time.[/QUOTE] So this is useful for what, particle sims?
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;39659833]So this is useful for what, particle sims?[/QUOTE]
GPU accellerated 3d rendering would be faster on this than other geforce cards.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;39658345]Are there people who really need that? In a [I]gaming[/I] graphics card? Seems a bit silly no?[/QUOTE]
You'd be surprised the shitstorm Nvidia got by cutting lots of the GPGPU performance from the kepler cards.
[QUOTE=alien_guy;39660047]GPU accellerated 3d rendering would be faster on this than other geforce cards.[/QUOTE]Ok, so would it improve viewport 2.0 performance in Maya.
[QUOTE=Live2becool;39659591]Sadly, this is more true then I want it to be.[/QUOTE]
well not really it's only because of the compute crap majority of GeForce buyers don't care about
[QUOTE=ycap5;39651927][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/tTqSURf.png[/IMG]
Yeah those are great specs Nvidia I'll tell you hwat.[/QUOTE]
... click "//LEARN MORE"
Also for the peep saying GTA IV runs poorly on the 670. Lies. I get about 40fps on max.
Also for the peeps saying not to mix AMD cpu's with Nvidia gpu's. My build works great.
fx8150@4ghz. 16gb 1833mhz. gtx 670 4gb.
The 670 isn't a miracle card, but it does quite well for most instances.
as for the titan. I'd love to have one! But I'd sooner just sli with another 670 than drop a grand for that.
That has power, holy shit on a stuck.
want.
If the GTX titan has a Tesla GPU does this mean it can do fluid simulations better than a GTX 690?
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;39667773]If the GTX titan has a Tesla GPU does this mean it can do fluid simulations better than a GTX 690?[/QUOTE]
I can't remember quite how much the GTX 680 sucked when it came to computation, but I think thee 7970 outpaced by factor 2 or something along those lines. I'd imagine the Titan would be competitive with the GTX 690 when it comes to computation.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;39667773]If the GTX titan has a Tesla GPU does this mean it can do fluid simulations better than a GTX 690?[/QUOTE]
Yeah.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39667838]I can't remember quite how much the GTX 680 sucked when it came to computation, but I think thee 7970 outpaced by factor 2 or something along those lines. I'd imagine the Titan would be competitive with the GTX 690 when it comes to computation.[/QUOTE]
To put it in perspective a 680 barely was better than a CPU in some cases if I remember correctly. BitCoin mining was hilarious on it, same with folding. A GTX580 blows it out of the water.
[editline]21st February 2013[/editline]
Benchmarks are live now
[url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_SLI/[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.