http://www.tomshardware.com/news/GeF...690,20797.html
Anyone waiting to go out and pick one up?
We're getting close it looks like. Time to buy up all the GTX 6XX's going on ebay when the gamers update. =P~
Printable View
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/GeF...690,20797.html
Anyone waiting to go out and pick one up?
We're getting close it looks like. Time to buy up all the GTX 6XX's going on ebay when the gamers update. =P~
I had actually started a thread about this here: http://www.setiusa.us/showthread.php...oming-Afterall
But i like your title better now that the release date is much closer. :)
So the new info i've got is that this card was listed for pre-order on a Danish hardware website and Nvidia allowed Asus to put their stickers on this one :p Converting their currency to USD equates to ~$1200, however European taxes are far higher than here. I still expect the card to retail for $899.
Expected release date is Feb. 24th-26th
The GPU supposedly has two DVI, one HDMI and one Displayport video outputs.
Quad-SLI will be supported.
8+2 VRMs for powerphases. VRAM is expected to be found on both the front and back of the PCB since it takes 24 2Gb chips to come up with 6GB, and will have a backplate.
Also it will have 1 8-pin + 1 6-pin power connecters, as i mentioned in the other thread.
The PCB appears to only have 1 plug for a fan, so expect the standard single blower which is found on most reference GPUs.
Performance, clocks and the number of cores are still unverified, but it should easily outperform a K20X in FP32. No word on FP64 yet.
In other news, it has been verified AMD is NOT launching the 8000 series anytime soon, perhaps not until Q4 as i mentioned in the other thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Hallock - AMD Radeon Marketing Manager
Any chance for a dual chip version? Like a 590 or 690?
I'd have to say no, since the single GPU already has to use the back of the card to find space for VRAM. The only way they could make a dual-GPU card would be:Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie67
a) Extend the PCB to 16-17" in length
b) Tie 2 separate PCBs together like they did with the GTX 295 (the more realistic option, though it also hasn't been done since the GTX 295)
Again, OEMs are forbidden by Nvidia to alter this GPU's design in any way, meaning if there ever is a Titan x2, Nvidia will have to make it, unlike AMD who just threw their hands in the air and let anyone make anything they wanted when it came to a HD7970 x2 (7990).
As it happens, AMD may still release a 7990 of their own eventually.
Finally a realistic benchmark:
Attachment 1257
*Seems* to be the most realistic benchmarks to surface so far. Still no guarantee it's true.
Possible actual specs have maybe possibly surfaced possibly. Problem i have is everything from the 512bit DDR5 to the base and boost clocks mimic the 690, but it is listed for sale as such.
http://www.austin.net.au/catalog/pro...bit-ddr5-base/Quote:
ASUS GTX TITAN PCI-E 3.0 6GB 512-bit DDR5, Base:915 boost:1019 / 6008 MHz, DVI-I x 2, DVI-D x 1, Mini DP x 1, Fan
I can't follow what you are saying. The base and boost clocks are the same. And is listed as such. Okay. What is the problem then? They should be different or something? I am missing something obvious, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
The link isn't working for me. Maybe you have to have an account?Quote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
Just seems to be too much of a coincidence. Not impossible, but i don't recall it ever happening before. It's possible i'm overly paranoid :pQuote:
Originally Posted by zombie67
They probably had to take it down like the other 2 sites that listed it early. Here's what the listing looked like: http://www.legitreviews.com/news/15115/Quote:
The link isn't working for me. Maybe you have to have an account?
Ah. Got it. Yeah, I can't believe the clocks are exactly the same.
:o My clock is much better. :D
Attachment 1258
This benchmark seems to be correct: http://www.setiusa.us/attachment.php...7&d=1360539612
As suspected, the 512bit interface seems to be incorrect.
Expect reviews on the 19th and realistic availability around the 24thQuote:
Finally, we have some solid information about the upcoming flagship model from NVIDIA. Our sources confirm that the almighty Titan is set to be launched on February 18th in very limited quantities.
Forget about the 512-bit interface though. The GTX Titan will be based on GK110 GPU with 2688 CUDA cores. There will be 224 texture mapping and 48 raster operating units. The reference board will almost without a doubt be equipped with 6GB of GDDR5 memory across 384-bit interface.
First leaks suggested that the core will be clocked at 732 MHz. DonanimHaber has reported reliable, reliable as can be at this stage, information about the texture fill rate, which apparently comes in at 288 GT/s. That’s faster than the GTX 690′s 234 GT/s. Furthermore, the site is reporting that the GTX Titan would have computing power of 4.5 TFLOPS. If the provided numbers are correct we are in the range of 800-900 MHz core clock.
The card will definitely look better than the GTX 690, although the design will mirror it’s dual-gpu brother. The GeForce GTX Titan will be covered with the magnesium alloy, while the whole card will be metallic silver. There will only be a reference design, so no custom models. Additionally, in the first batch there may only be ASUS and EVGA cards available.
So do you think I could get a couple to try out? Drooooolllll.................=P~
Welp, nevermind then. :mad: Keep buying AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSoN
What the heck? Why on earth does the marketplace let them get away with this crap? Crippled to the tune of 1/24th its true power???????????:confused: Arrrrrgggghhhhh.:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
Help me out. Can we get the equivalent numbers, or ratios, or whatever for the 580 and 680? I have no frame of reference here.Quote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
Also, at 1/24, how does that compare to (say) a 7970 at DP performance?
Finally, what projects require DP, or are significantly sped up with DP? Yes, MW does. GPUGRID uses almost no DP. Others?
While you're right that DP isn't used for many projects, that was really the only selling point the Titan had for me - finally having an Nvidia GPU that didn't suck at double precision. Otherwise the $900 price tag for this thing is unfounded. Here's why:Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie67
Nvidia GTX Titan:
SP: 4.5 TFLOPS
DP: 196 GFLOPS
Price: $899
SP/$: $0.20 per SP GFLOPS
DP/$: $4.59 per DP GFLOPS
AMD HD 7970 GE:
SP: 4.096 TFLOPS
DP: 1024 GFLOPS
Price: $450
SP/$: $0.11 per SP GFLOPS
DP/$: $0.44 per DP GFLOPS
Without the DP, the novelty of the Titan wore off for me and i'm left with nothing but logic, which dictates there's no reason whatsoever so pay 2x the price of a 7970 GHz Edition for a GPU that only gets 400 more GFLOPS SP and less than 1/5 the DP. What are we actually paying for? Meh...
FWIW, the DP of the Titan *would* have been 1.5 TFLOPS if it wasn't crippled, blowing away the AMD 7970 GE.
Edit: As far as the 580 goes, it gets 197.6 GFLOPS DP - yes, even faster than the Titan and faster than the 680 which only has 128.8 GFLOPS DP, and the 580 costs less. You'll also get better SP compute results from the 580 than the 680.
Thanks! That is exactly what I was looking for. Very clear now.
So the 580 is the only CUDA card worth buying. The logic behind nVidia's marketing practices leaves me wondering how they managed to stay in business this long.
They aren't too worried about the crunchin' market, I'm sure. Either gamers (for things like the 680 or Titan) or of course "professionals" using their uber expensive, non- crippled "pro" teslas. Very, very lame for what we like to do with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire$torm
I think the 570 is a good sweet spot card; the 580 is good, and of course the big dog double 590...but those are the last of the good Nvidia cards for crunching. Of course that's looking at it from a $/performance perspective like JPM was saying. And I don't see how to justify any other perspective on it! :)) ;)
JPM: Maybe there is one more angle to look at, power consumption per GFLOPS?Quote:
Edit: As far as the 580 goes, it gets 197.6 GFLOPS DP - yes, even faster than the Titan and faster than the 680 which only has 128.8 GFLOPS DP, and the 580 costs less. You'll also get better SP compute results from the 580 than the 680.
I was reading this thread, and I wonder how titan compares to the previous generations?
Quote:
The CC describes the GPU's abilities, and the researchers use this to determine the GPU type. The top CC2.0 GPU's (Geforce GTX 590, 580, 570, 480, 560 Ti (448), 470, 465) are less power efficient than the top CC3.0 GPU's (GTX690, GTX680, GTX670, GTX660Ti, GTX660, GTX650Ti, GTX650) making the CC3.0 cards preferable. The GTX570 and GTX580 are roughly as powerful as the GTX660Ti, GTX670 and GTX680, but being less power efficient and an older generation they are slightly down the recommended list.
Yes that can come into play which makes saying things like "the GTX 580 is a faster (or equivalent) cruncher in all projects at all times" a bit silly. However that will be true 90% of the time, if only 10% of the projects have actually bothered coding using CUDA to take advantage of higher CC ratings. Most have not. Many are actually coding in OpenCL which doesn't rely on CC ratings so much, but more upon which driver version you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie67
If it means anything, the Titan will have a CC of 3.5, though you can be pretty sure no one will create an application requiring it. The only differences are that 3.5 includes something called Dynamic Parallelism and Funnel Shift, both which no other CC version has, and the "Maximum number of 32-bit registers per thread" is increased to 255 (CC 2.0 through 3.0 is 63. CC 1.0 to 1.3 is 127). How useful these 3 things would be to us, i don't know, but they are the only 3 differences from 3.0.
The 600 series is definitely more power-efficient than the 500 series. No doubt. But to measure GFLOPS/Watt between them is extremely difficult. Mainly because the 600 series all claim higher GFLOPS than their 500 series counterparts, but real world compute-testing shows the 600 series to actually be slower in some cases. Even with something as simple as sorting, the GTX 580 can be ~28% faster than a 680. As for personal experience, i replaced a plain GTX 460 with an overclocked EVGA GTX 660 a few months ago. The 460 had a core clock of 675 MHz and the 660 had a core clock of 1123 MHz, but was only 13% faster, when it should've been more than double according to the GFLOPS specs. Even though it was still a tad faster and even though it used less power, i gave it to my wife so should could play games with it and put my 460 back in and once again swore off buying Nvidia only to be a victim of their intentional scams :) Essentially, if you check the GLOPS ratings on wiki for the 600 series, to compare it properly to every other Nvidia GPU, divide it exactly in half.
The GTX 680 claims it can do 3090.4 GFLOPS. Pretend it says exactly half that (1545.2) and then you can compare it to the other GPUs (making the GTX 580 ~36 GFLOPS faster than the 680). The reason for this is the architecture change in Kepler which pretty much reduced the powerful cores to an imitation of AMD's weak stream processors. There's more of them, but they're smaller, simpler and slower. Of course if anyone ever codes specifically for the 600 series, meaning the exact same app wouldn't work on any previous gen., then we may see better results than half.
If you're looking at saving on your power bill, then yes the 600 series is better than the 500 series, however you'll have to keep the 600 series cards for years and years to save as much on your power bill as the difference in price for the cards.
Considering GFLOPS/Watt:
AMD 7970: 15.155
GTX 680: 15.85
GTX Titan: 18.816
Nvidia does win the GFLOPS/W contest :p
http://media.bestofmicro.com/5/G/348...%20Luxmark.png FP64 is taken into account here.
Ummm. Am I misreading this? I thought in a GFLOPS/Watt rating, the higher numbers are better. So the Titan is the best of the three listed cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
Now this may be completely wrong, but let's take a stab at costing this.
With a difference of about 55 Watts in the TDP rating between the 7970 (195) and the GTX 680 (250), doesn't that equate to roughly 40Kw of power consumption monthly? (55*720hours in a 30 day month) Just taking a stab at a 12 cents/KwH price for electricity, that's about $17.00 monthly to run the 7970. And $5 a month more to run the 680. Wasn't the TDP of the Titan supposed to be about 235? Which makes it about $3.50 a month more expensive to run than the 7970.
Bah! You're right. Brain fart :p Nvidia does win the GFLOPS per watt race. #-oQuote:
Originally Posted by Mumps
Also the TDP is expected to be closer to 250W for the Titan. The 235W rating was based on what the K20X draws, but it's only clocked at 732MHz while the base Titan clock would be 875MHz, with the Asus possibly being released at 915MHz which might push TDP to ~260W
Okay, so nothing compelling in the power consumption department either. Thanks!
True, but then again, shouldn' nVidia be adjusting their OpenCL compiler so that if the hardware is 3.5, that it would use all the 3.5 features? Since OpenCL is extremely similar to CUDA (especially compared to CAL) you would think that any changes nVidia does for their CUDA compiler optimization could also be put into their OpenCL optimizer.Quote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
That is an option, but it would still have to be coded for specifically. Some projects do write separate OpenCL Nvidia and OpenCL AMD apps, but not all. Those that do have the option of being that hardware specific, which of course prevents the same OpenCL app from working on AMD or vise versa. Would also prevent the same app from working on an Nvidia GPU with only CC 3.0 or lower. Similar to the SSE instructions from Intel, if you code for SSE 2, but your CPU and compiler supports SSE 4.2, you still only get SSE 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slicker
Regarding the Titan though, there is a glimmer of hope afterall. New "official" specs have been released showing the Titan getting 1.3 TFLOPS FP64, however it seems the release price has climbed to $999. While 1.3 TFLOPS DP would be nice, for that price you can get a 7990 (7970 x2) and get pretty close to 2 TFLOPS. I don't understand why they're only claiming 1.3 when it should be 1.5 since this architecture has DP working at 1/3 SP which is rated at 4.5 TFLOPS. The Titan is also 10.5 inches long which is 0.5 inches shorter than the 690.
TDP is confirmed at 250W which is ~50W less than a 690. The 384-bit 6GB VRAM is clocked at 6008MHz. Base clock is 837MHz with boost at 876MHz. The Boost clock is now based on GPU temp (GPU Boost 2.0), rather than the power range of the core as it is on the 600 series. OverVoltage will also be hardware supported, but the companies that put their stickers on it (Asus, EVGA, etc) have the option of preventing you from using it if they feel like it. You can adjust the target temp of the GPU Boost (default is 80C). Increasing it will raise the Boost frequency.
The NDA on performance results will be lifted thursday.
I assume that means Non-Disclosure Agreement. I thought I would spell that out for those of us who are TLA challenged.Quote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
Correct :)Quote:
Originally Posted by trigggl
Us geeks love our Three-Letter Acronyms ;)Quote:
I thought I would spell that out for those of us who are TLA challenged.
AHA! Reason found. Though 1.3 TFLOPS still beats a 7970, i have to still say boo @ Nvidia for this new gimmick of theirs. By default FP64 is set to run at standard Kepler speeds (1/24 FP32). You have to go into Nvidia's configuration menu and enable FP64 yourself. But! When you do, it disables the Boost clock and makes it likely the base clock will drop from 837MHz to 725MHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnandTech
I really like AnandTech reviews. But I don't read a lot of reviews, across many different review sites. How does AnandTech compare? What is the general consensus?
But that last post confuses me (easily done).
JPM says: By default FP64 is set to run at standard Kepler speeds (1/24 FP32). You have to go into Nvidia's configuration menu and enable FP64 yourself.
Okay, but when you enable it, what is the result? 8/24 FP32?
AnandTech says: The key enabler for this is that Titan, unlike any consumer GeForce card before it, will feature full FP64 performance, allowing GK110’s FP64 potency to shine through.
What is full performance? Does that mean it will match the Tesla K20 or K20X at DP? So then, what is the point of Tesla, if this performance can just be turned on at will?
I think it means any form of clock boosting, i.e. Turbo mode, will be disabled or locked at some much reduced clock speed. So nVidia is still hamstringing the Titan but doing it in a different way. Sorta making the Titan a teaser to the high-end Tesla/Quatro lines.
No, FP32 will still run at 4.5 TFLOPS (~3.9 TFLOPS @ 725 MHz). The SP and DP cores are separate (though both groups are within the same SMX, which is basically Nvidia's term for a cluster of cores. Each of the 14 SMXs consist of 192 FP32 cores and 64 FP64 cores) and both can run at the same time, which is why clocks are reduced because of the increased TDP and heat output.Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie67
It's very similar to the K20X, but the K20X supports ECC while the Titan doesn't. Also the Titan won't support direct memory access to other 3rd party PCIe devices often found in servers/supercomputers among other things not relevant to desktops or most workstations, like HyperQ which allows multi-core CPUs to simultaneously utilize the CUDA cores on a single K20X. Also there's no programming tech support.Quote:
AnandTech says: The key enabler for this is that Titan, unlike any consumer GeForce card before it, will feature full FP64 performance, allowing GK110’s FP64 potency to shine through.
What is full performance? Does that mean it will match the Tesla K20 or K20X at DP? So then, what is the point of Tesla, if this performance can just be turned on at will?
Quote:
Okay, but when you enable it, what is the result? 8/24 FP32?
Er, that's not what I was asking. Or at least what I thought I was asking. Let me try again. When you enable it, what happens? If not-enabled, DP is 1/24 of FP32. If enabled DP is 1/3, so that is 8/24 of FP32, right? Now I've confused myself.Quote:
No, FP32 will still run at 4.5 TFLOPS (~3.9 TFLOPS @ 725 MHz).
Okay, let's try this a different way. With the Titan DP enabled, how will it compare to the 7970 at a DP project like milkyway (assuming they had a similar app for both)?
Assuming the MW app is coded equally efficiently for both Nvidia and AMD and that both apps require the completion of the exact same amount of work, the Titan would be ~30% faster than the 7970.Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie67
Attachment 1268
Not bad at all. It's about time Nvidia allowed DP.
Edit: Larger image: http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1992/comp1.png
Maybe I will buy one after all...if the cost comes down.
Wish they had included the 580 in that chart.
The 580 would've been within 1% above the DP-disabled Titan. Unless you want the Titan for bragging rights (which i do, personally :D ) you're better off getting another 7990 for the price/performance/slots used.Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie67
Looks like for the moment the only way to get a Titan is to buy a complete pre-built system ---> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasoneva...-where-to-buy/
Edit: Your gonna Love this.....
The Newegg overview video (Here) puts a true spin-doctor lie into the reason for the automatic downclocking when DP is enabled. Somewhere in the first 4~6 minutes of the video it is stated that downclocking helps to maintain compute accuracy in DP mode. (B.F.S.)
Received an E-mail this morning from EVGA regarding the new Titan. $999.00. Not available yet though.
http://www.evga.com/Products/Product...06G-P4-2790-KR
Hey F$ - that is some real funny stuff - I dare you to call them on it! :D :-bdQuote:
Originally Posted by Fire$torm