zarx said:

hehe. Wait until NV pays Crytek $2 million to add invisible tessellated sky and oceans in Crysis 3. We'll need 1 dedicated Titan for Tessellation alone. :)

I wasn't aware Maxwell wouldn't have dual-GPU cards. Why wouldn't they? My  most anticipated thing are next generation games, not next generation GPUs to max out console ports with slightly higher rez textures/sprinkled DX11 effects. I am sure Rockstar's horrendous PC optimization/porting of GTA V will bring a GTX780Ti to its knees, but I'd be more excited to upgrade if games like Star Wars 1313, Watch Dogs, etc. were launching soon. Sounds like they are ways off though (Q4 2013?). The timing of this $900 Titan card is odd when not a single next generation game is on the horizon for the PC in the next 6 months  besides Crysis 3. My point is why buy Titan for $900 to play 2013 console ports, when we should start to see some next gen games in 2014 and by then Maxwell is around the corner?

The average power draw of an HD6870 is 119W not 70W, with a peak of 128W in Crysis 2 (http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_670_FTW_Signature_2/25.html).

HD7870 uses 16W less on average and is 59% faster. HD7950 uses 7W more on average and is 71% faster:

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-vtx3d-hd-7870-black-tahiti-le/4/

I doubt there will be a 70W GPU with HD7870 level of performance in 2013 manufactured on 28nm node. You'll probably need to wait until the move to 20nm for that.

Watch Dogs is this year at least, and Metro: LL should still be this year as well, then there is Battlefeild 4 I guess for Q4. Fortnight could be interesting with UE4.

I am saying right now developers are making games for PS4/720's Q4 2013 launch. Chances are those titles will be DX11 with much more advanced graphics. If we get some of those games as ports to the PC, they will be significantly more taxing on PC hardware than games like Sleeping Dogs, Hitman Absolution, Borderlands 2, Assassin's Creed 3, etc. But those next gen games aren't launching until Q4 2013 because PS4/720 aren't launching until then. Also, Outlast seems to have a TBA 2013 launch date. Doesn't look like that's coming out soon either and it doesn't look like it has next generation (i.e., GPU demanding) graphics either that require a $900 GPU to play it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Outlaws+PC+game&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=o3kFUdH7D6jxyAHZk4GYDA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1920&bih=946#q=Outlast+PC+game&hl=en&tbo=d&tbm=isch&source=lnt&tbs=isz:l&sa=X&ei=qHkFUbnvOITvygHN4YC4Bw&ved=0CCEQpwUoAQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.aWc&fp=a9e31a5fd88b9fc7&biw=1920&bih=946&imgrc=8Ejs6AWkThtWHM%3A%3BKAGX6FKPiGBkBM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fredrumroulette.files.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F10%252Foutlast.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fredrumroulette.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F10%252F17%252Fred-barrels-introduces-outlast%252F%3B1920%3B1080

The main reason I see for someone buying a Titan is if they want 120 fps gaming on a single monitor, or if they are playing games on 3+ monitors. The problem is it's not faster than a GTX690, which means it won't be faster than $660 GTX670 SLI but might cost $240 more? 

Watch Dogs is prob not launching until Q4 2013 because it's likely a PS4/720  launch window title. BF4 as you said Q4 2013. Metro LL seems to be in limbo as THQ is bankrupt. Who knows if it will be released and when. Fortnight looks interesting but it's an indie title. I doubt people are going to be spending $900 for that game. 

the next total war game should be out soonish; but i agree next gen is not really a requiremnt, im pushing 5760 by 1200 and a single super beefy gpu would rock (right now i have a 7970 OC to 1250 with ram at 1600)  while i see the value in this card 700-900 is too much for it, ill wait for two gens unless i see something that stops mine and is in the 400-550 range 

History has shown that every time NV released an uber-powerful GPU that was ahead of the level of graphics in games and such a card carried a huge price premium, every single one of those times the GPU was not worth the $ and depreciated in value like a rock.  6800 Ultra Extreme, 7800GTX 512MB, 8800Ultra and GTX280's launch prices all fit this scenario. By the time games came out that actually needed such GPU power, NV/AMD launched cards way faster cards or delivered a similar level of performance for nearly half the price. The Titan looks like a repeat of this exact situation again. People tend to say there is no way to time GPU upgrades, but there is if you've followed the GPU industry long enough to see how these cycles work. Usually when next generation consoles launch, it takes about a year for better next gen games to come and then there is an exponential increase in graphics/GPU demanding games in the first 3-4 years of new consoles. After that, consolification of ports to PC begins and graphical stagnation sets in. This exact scenario happened when PS360 launched. 

All I am doing is looking at the line-up of PC games in 2013 and sorry to say but there are nearly no GPU demanding games, besides maybe 2-3 (Crysis 3, Metro LL and maybe some other game like Star Wars 1313 / Watch Dogs in Q4 2013). This is very reminiscent of what happened right before PS360 launched on the PC. Cards like 7800GTX/7900GTX and X1900XTX came out around the launch of PS360, with 7800GTX 512MB commanding a huge premium. All of those cards were completely worthless for next generation games after PS360 launched. So you paid a bragging rights premium but in the end it didn't mean anything because those cards were way too fast for 2005-2006 PC games based on old game engines and too slow for next gen DX10 games.

I have followed the GPU industry for more than a decade and I usually can tell if a GPU is overpriced given its launch timing given state of PC games when it launches and the respective console cycles that run in parallel. Given that the Titan is launching at the tail-end of the PS360 generation, and 2013 does not look like a breakthrough year in PC gaming graphics based on announced PC games in 2013, and given Titan's $900 price, it's overpriced.

Another way to look at it, GTX690 delivered faster performance last year. Therefore, NV is just giving a $100 discount on slower performance than a GTX690 almost 12 months later. That's not how the GPU industry normally works in terms of price/performance technology curve. Normally we get faster performance at a similar price level or similar level of performance at a much lower price. The Titan does not fit either of these cases, which actually means it fits a similar scenario of 6800UE, 7800GTX 512MB, 8800U and GTX280.

NV is basically tacking on a $400 early adopter price premium on this card for bragging rights. And anyone who wanted this level of performance would have bought a GTX690 a long time ago anyway. This card's price vs. transition to 20nm node in 2014 and the state of PC games in 2013, the Titan's timing is way off, landing itself into overpriced territory imo. You can disagree but I am almost certain by Q2 2014 there will be a $500 GPU that is faster or nearly as fast as the Titan, just in time for some next gen PC games based off PS4/720 DX11 ports. Therefore, the futureproofing argument for the Titan won't work either.

For existing HD7970 CFX/GTX680 SLI users, you'd need to spend $1800 for a true upgrade then to 2 Titans, which is a crazy amount of $ for most gamers. Someone else who games on multi-monitors probably already has dual-GPUs; which means upgrading to 1 of these is a side-grade at best. Gamers that need the Titan's GPU power but don't run dual-GPUs already likely can't afford $900 GPUs.  So again this card is not aimed at them either. 

As far as Crysis 3 goes, based on preliminary benchmarks, the game crushes a GTX690:

My prediction: the Titan will be too fast for most 2013 PC games but yet won't be anywhere near as fast for next generation games. I am also curious to see if NV will continue with its anti-enthusiast policy of locking in voltage control on Kepler GTX700 cards. Given that it appears partners won't even be allowed to alter stickers on this card, my guess is this card will be voltage locked, which would be a huge disappointment for a $900 card aimed at enthusiasts. 

Metro will be published by Deep Silver now and they haven't mentioned any delay. The game is already done (just polishing now) and it's planned release was still a few months off anyway so they have time to sort out distrabution for the game before then. Fortnight is made by a team at Epic games so it's not like it's just another indie title. There are also titles like Project CARS, RESET and a few other interesting title that promise to stress a few GPUs tho maybe not a Titan lol.

I doubt anyone is going to buy a $900 card just for gaming ether way and if they do I would wager it's a long term investment so they would be looking at the next 2-3 years of releases at the very least, which should be when the really next gen pushing games are released. And if you have the money to blow on that kind of GPU they can afford enough screen resolution to make the card sweat anyway.

Crytek and NV have about 3 weeks to fix the performance then. GTX680s @ 1235mhz with 97-98% GPU utilization in SLI can't average 60 fps. There are many fps drops with SMAA High (4x) to 40 fps, which makes the game 'unplayable' in multi-player on GTX680s with SMAA High:

This is almost exactly the same as in the previous testing I linked for you where GTX690 barely squeezed above 40 fps average at 1920x1080 with 4xAA. 

TXAA looks like a blurry mess in this game on textures and works worse at removing jaggies: http://i.imgur.com/NZnvf4o.jpg

SMAA High (4x) looks much better but has a large performance hit: http://i.imgur.com/Lgk0LE9.jpg

Looks like GTX690 will only pull 45-50 fps avg in this game at 1080P with SMAA, that's overclocked to the max. 85% of GTX690's performance is well under GTX680 SLI @ 1235mhz. You can keep disagreeing but a Titan at $900 that won't even max out Crysis 3 is too expensive for what you get because it's in that awkward launch timing phase of being too fast for old games / console ports and not fast enough for next gen games like Crysis 3. For someone who already has a GTX690/GTX680 SLI, the only way to upgrade is to get 2 Titans for $1,800. 

Of course you can get the game to hit 100 fps if you lower settings. I was talking about Crysis 3 crushing GTX690 with all the settings maxed out. For example, if you want to use MSAA Medium (4xMSAA), the performance hit is insane. The game also has an MSAA High setting (8xMSAA). 

The latest NV drivers already include a 65% increase in GTX690 SLI scaling performance (http://techreport.com/news/24276/nvidia-outs-performance-boosting-drivers-for-crysis-3). But take a look what happens to a single GTX680 once you enable MSAA Medium (4x):

Crysis 3 is designed to be untouchable technically for three years (until their next marquee title) according to Crytek so it's not really surprising that max settings will hobble the top cards of today. People complained that Crysis 2 didn't push the boundaries of what was was possible like the first Crysis. So they set out with C3 to "melt PCs" in their words, so it's no surprise that they have gone back to pushing the max settings to 11 and ignoring quality/performance trade offs that were made with C2.

Looks like their alpha filtering could do with some work tho. Also true MSAA on a deferred rendering engine is kinda crazy. And there is still some optimisation on the game and driver side before release.

@BlueFalcon

Well the problem is that GPU vendors have hit the efficiency per transistor limit, i.e. what can be done with a GPU's design, so that we'll only get 5% here and 5% there from now on with small improvements rather than huge leaps.

This is combined with the problem that the industry has been and will be stuck on 28nm for a while, because process development is too expensive to fit a half-node every year cadence like 110->90->80->65->55->40 was.

It's incredible that five years after a $90 HD4850 we're only just now seeing equivalent value.