By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - GeForce Titan GPU with GK110 Core Thread

disolitude on 31 January 2013
BlueFalcon said:
disolitude said:
lol, looking at those Crysis 3 benchmarks...if someone was to go 120 hz tripple monitor in surround, and to utilize 120 frames per second on all 3 monitors...you'd need to go Quad SLI with a GPU like this and hope they scale...

So 500 per monitor X 3 + 900 per GPU X 4 + 1500 for rest of the computer...future is going to be expensive.

I hope the final game looks like this at least:

http://www.abload.de/img/c32yhu9xeyxdi.png

http://www.abload.de/img/crysis3mpopenbeta2013znxzi.png

http://www.abload.de/img/crysis3screenshotcitynvyka.png

http://www.abload.de/img/ihh9xhk3bxctrgpz2d.png

http://www.abload.de/img/it1s5qzxpr8gi9zbl2.png

http://www.abload.de/img/i9hlfmwo4nssjmebwm.png

Crysis 3 running on Intel I5-2500k Quad core @ 3.3GHz, 8 GB RAM, Nvidia GTX 680 overclocked.

http://www.game-debate.com/news/?news=3579&game=Crysis%203&title=Crysis%203%20Nvidia%20GTX%20680%20and%20Intel%20HD%204000%20Onboard%20Graphics%20Benchmarks

SMAA seems to have both the best image quality and performance trade-off. 

Yeah that does appear to be the best trade off. Essentially an overclocked 3930k+ tripple 680/7970 should give a smooth tripple monitor experience (60 hz). For anyone wanting 120 fps for a 120 hz monitors...dual 680s for single screen and quad 680s  + medium settings looks like the only hope. 

I am one of the few people that will take high frame rate over graphics detail any day. I also hope that the game is good to begin with. I thought Crysis 2 sucked in terms of level design and AI pretty hardcore. 



Around the Network
ethomaz on 31 January 2013

MONSTERRRRRRRRRRRR!!!



ethomaz on 31 January 2013

If anybody here thinks this score is low... well the GeForce GTX 690 has a score of around X6000 marks in the same benchmark.

MONSTERRRRRRRRRRR!!!



disolitude on 31 January 2013
ethomaz said:

MONSTERRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

Why is the GTX part blurred out? Could be an SLI'd 680 or overclocked 690...we can't know for sure now.



Hynad on 31 January 2013
CGI-Quality said:
disolitude said:
Turkish said:
disolitude said:

Out of curiosity what game can't you run with a current crop of cards that causes you to be giddy over this card? 8800 GTX was the first card to properly run Crysis on max (in SLI) but today, 670 or 7950 are good enough to max out most games, as long as you go easy on AA. 

Watch_Dogs will probably be the next Crysis.

Possibly...but I think Crytek has learned their lesson and knows how to optimize(and cut corners) to make things work great on lower specs.

I'd love to see a game that rapes the current PC specs and makes everyone get liquid ice to cool their overclocked GPUs. 

Please don't say that! I'm trying to avoid both OC'ing and liquid cooling in my infant builds. :P

That's also the approach I take when I build my PCs. I feel more at peace knowing my PC parts run the way they were engineered to.



Around the Network
ethomaz on 31 January 2013

disolitude said:

Why is the GTX part blurred out? Could be an SLI'd 680 or overclocked 690...we can't know for sure now.

The name is under NDA... nobody knows yet... 780? 790? 695?

Here the link: http://www.techpowerup.com/179605/First-NVIDIA-GeForce-Titan-780-Performance-Numbers-Revealed.html

Edit - And SLI GTX 680 can't reach X7000 in 3DMark.



BlueFalcon on 31 January 2013
ethomaz said:
The name is under NDA... nobody knows yet... 780? 790? 695?

Here the link: http://www.techpowerup.com/179605/First-NVIDIA-GeForce-Titan-780-Performance-Numbers-Revealed.html

Edit - And SLI GTX 680 can't reach X7000 in 3DMark.


Let's think for a second. An 1137mhz on the core with additional GPU boost GTX680 gets 3,722 points. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-680-super-overclock-windforce-5x_6.html#sect1

7107 points means 91% faster than an 1137mhz GTX680, which means  you'd need 91% more resources than a GTX680 on 1 chip unless the 3DMark11's scores are all whacked. GTX680 at 1137mhz uses 190W of power. Let me know how you can add 91% more CUDA cores, TMUs, ROPs, and memory bandwidth on the same 28nm node.

Looks too good to be true.



ethomaz on 31 January 2013
BlueFalcon said:
ethomaz said:
The name is under NDA... nobody knows yet... 780? 790? 695?

Here the link: http://www.techpowerup.com/179605/First-NVIDIA-GeForce-Titan-780-Performance-Numbers-Revealed.html

Edit - And SLI GTX 680 can't reach X7000 in 3DMark.


Let's think for a second. An 1137mhz on the core with additional GPU boost GTX680 gets 3,722 points. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-680-super-overclock-windforce-5x_6.html#sect1

7107 points means 91% faster than an 1137mhz GTX680, which means  you'd need 91% more resources than a GTX680 on 1 chip unless the 3DMark11's scores are all whacked. GTX680 at 1137mhz uses 190W of power. Let me know how you can add 91% more CUDA cores, TMUs, ROPs, and memory bandwidth on the same 28nm node.

Looks too good to be true.

Hummmm...

The Geforce Titan have 2880 shaders processors instead the 1536 found in the GTX 680... that's near 90% more CUDA cores.



Soleron on 31 January 2013

I'm gonna drive round and slap the next person to say 'CUDA cores'.



ethomaz on 31 January 2013

Guys I made a mistake... the GeForce Titan will have 16 SMX and not 15 SMX... so 3,072 Shaders Processors (or CUDA cores... sorry @Soleron).

It's 2x the numbers found in the GTX 680.