Geforce Titan - GK110 will be a consumer part

[aussie-revhead]

Mate I'm happy with those clocks, hurry and release them already ....

lol@napalm - force it to overclock .... I like it

[Tha Last Meal]

damn damn damn

[UrbanSmooth]

Please, allow me to disect:

I had two 120Hz multi-monitor sets, and am now back on two 30" panels. The surround does provide a fun "arcade" like feel to gaming but:
1. Main issue is you can't really take in three panels all at once, so you end up watching a smaller panel in the middle 90% of the time and the sides are just in your peripheral vision.

This is the point, really. To be 'immersed' in the game, thus, your peripheral vision must be filled. Don't be too shy to look around and take in the scenery, though.

2. Performance hit is huge, although that probably is a non issue for Titan Sli crowd.

Just "weigh your vertices right." Adjust in-game settings so that you are running adequate frames per second. This is a non-issue with the correct hardware; two to three GTX 670s, for instance, will get the job done.

3. A lot of games don't support it.

Most current-day 'blockbuster' games do support Nvidia Surround/Eyefinity aka Surround Gaming. If you're still having issues, there's always Widescreen Fixer by Dopefish.

4. TN panels not as good for viewing angles, color.

TN panels have the quickest response time, which is what you want as a gamer. Better response time = less ghosting/screen lag. Viewing angles and colors are just fine if you're sitting in front of the monitors, which you will be doing if you're gaming.

5. Can't run panels in portrait for 3d, so best you can do is three 27" in landscape for height. 30" fills field of vision better.

I will say that 16:10 ratio (1200p/1600p) fills your field of vision better than 16:9 ratio (1080p/1440p) surround gaming.

Anyway, I consider both to have their pros and cons and pretty comparable on level of desirability. 3D Vision Surround is probably as good as it gets for gaming, but downsides above took me back to one 30".

My focus is more on the 2D side of surround gaming, 3D surround gaming still has a ways to go, as it is rather tough to find a proper hardware setup that can run 120+ frames per second across three high-res displays.

[cx-ray]

1300-1400 easy on liquid.. and if it refuses theres a couple a mods that could take it to 1500 by force

I learned a few lessons in GPU overclocking in the past. In my experience a good OC causes them die over time when used frequently. They might last a few months to almost a year...but then the odd artifact begins to pop up, system becomes less stable, and eventually your card is basically dead. I'm not an electronics expert. From what I could tell though, my cards mostly died because the VRAM deteriorated.

Now, I'm just content with a modest OC for 24/7 and let multiple cards give me the performance I want.

[UrbanSmooth]

I learned a few lessons in GPU overclocking in the past. In my experience a good OC causes them die over time when used frequently. They might last a few months to almost a year...but then the odd artifact begins to pop up, system becomes less stable, and eventually your card is basically dead. I'm not an electronics expert. From what I could tell though, my cards mostly died because the VRAM deteriorated.

Now, I'm just content with a modest OC for 24/7 and let multiple cards give me the performance I want.

Something that I've always wondered. Are the extra 5-10% frames per second increase really worth overclocking the GPU? Worth the extra power draw? Worth the extra heat? Worth the extra decay on the card itself?

If I'm already getting 40-50 frames per second, and I actually get a 10% performance increase via an overclock, is it really worth 4-5 extra frames per second?

[mbreslin]

Depends entirely on the games you play. If a good OC consistently give you +5 fps to your MINIMUM fps, it can make a big difference during crazy fire fights in shooters.

[UrbanSmooth]

Depends entirely on the games you play. If a good OC consistently give you +5 fps to your MINIMUM fps, it can make a big difference during crazy fire fights in shooters.

I say, ole boy, if you're depending on +5 minimum fps boost on the low end, it's due time to upgrade!

[mbreslin]

I say, ole boy, if you're depending on +5 minimum fps boost on the low end, it's due time to upgrade!

Maybe, but it can also be a way of extending your hardware. Modesto OC for 24/7 and then as the games demand more start trying to get most you can.

I have 2 of those sunbeams and I can't wait to rebuild so I can switch to lamptrons. I think the sunbeams are horribly ugly and I'm sick of them.

[cx-ray]

If I'm already getting 40-50 frames per second, and I actually get a 10% performance increase via an overclock, is it really worth 4-5 extra frames per second?

I think you should rely on a given GPU for a good base (stock) performance. Anything more that you can gain with a modest OC is a nice bonus. Don't however count on an OC to make a lower-end model perform as good as a higher-end one, or gain FPS that you desperately need for your game to be playable. Those last 5-10% aren't going to matter much and certainly not worth blowing up your hardware for. Better just brute force it with 2 or 3-Way SLI.

...but hey I just noticed your sig. You're already running SLI so you know this

[STEvil]

If you guys are killing your video cards without hardware mods you're probably neglecting something or doing something wrong. Only video cards i've had die were due to pushing beyond extreme limits..

[UrbanSmooth]

I have 2 of those sunbeams and I can't wait to rebuild so I can switch to lamptrons. I think the sunbeams are horribly ugly and I'm sick of them.

Talking about the fan controller from my build?

...but hey I just noticed your sig. You're already running SLI so you know this

Aye.

[mbreslin]

Talking about the fan controller from my build?

Indeed.

[cx-ray]

If you guys are killing your video cards without hardware mods you're probably neglecting something or doing something wrong. Only video cards i've had die were due to pushing beyond extreme limits..

I broke an 8800 GTX and two GTX 280 cards. After that I stopped overclocking to the max. Instead, I found the max usable OC, then backed off 1 or 2 steps. Since then, two GTX 480, two GTX 580, and three GTX 680 haven't endured damage. All cards were water cooled.

You can damage your video card just like you can damage your RAM and CPU on your mobo. I guess it still could be bad luck or coincedence. I prefer not to find out again by trying to get that last few percent that isn't noticeable during gaming anyway.

[Mungri]

Regarding the overclocking conversation (quoting doesn't work on my phone browser), my custom cooled 670s were running great and cool at under 70 degrees on stock cooling. Their default pre overclocks were 1215 Mhz, and they went a little further to 1240 Mhz.

The ram on these cards which appeared to have awesome headroom went all the way up to 7200 MHz, and even 7400 on the second 670 I had, so looking at other peoples overclocks I guessed that 7200 was fine.

I'm very certain that the GPU clock was fine. Temps were very low on these cards and I doubt anything could go wrong with the GPU at <70 degrees. I'm convinced that the Vram was simply not meant to have been pushed that high, at least not on cards that had bare vram chips with no passive cooling. So a simple warning with GK104, and also GK110 which uses the same ram clock is do not OC the ram. Just because its stable and has no errors doesn't make it safe.

Also regarding max OC potential, when you see a company like Asus, MSI and Galaxy releasing very highly pre overclocked cards, what they are doing is handpicking those GPUs for these cards. Once they are in production, you will have far less chance of getting a reference or mildly overclocked design from them capable of the best OCs you see on the internet (e.g. 1300+ Mhz on the GK104). Someone also said earlier 'why bother buying pre overclocked when you can overclock yourself? Because with these AIBs, all their best chips are being put on their factory OCed cards.

Just because you buy any GK104, doesn't mean that putting it under water will give you 1300-1400 Mhz, especially not if your chip cant reach 1250 Mhz on stock volts at <70 degrees. GPU overclocking is not comparable to CPU, its all about playing a silicon lottery. So basically what I'm saying here is, don't look at these early Titan reviews and assume 'wow, 1179 Mhz in the review, if I buy a titan it will also OC to that much, and even over 1200 Mhz on water'. This is very rarely the case with GPUs, and only happens if you get lucky with a good ocing GPU on your card.

Also regarding someone that said 'Titan is not for everyone, so the price is fine'. Ir its not meant to be for tone then why release it as a gaming graphics card? Its well understood that both GK104 and GK110 are being heavily overpriced because Nvidia do not consider AMDs HD 7000 range to be competitive enough. Also there are already a lot of games currently that only run at 30-35 FPS maxed out on a single GTX 680 at 1080p, it sucks for people that don't want to use multiple graphics cards that the Titan is priced so highly.

[STEvil]

Bare chips (regarding ram) are often better off than chips with a layer of thermal tape or pad on them. The stuff is horrible and the design of the heatsinks often leads to a lack of uniformity in cooling capabilities even if you removed the tape/pad.

Your ram probably died or degraded due to poor long-term testing from the manufacturer.

As to "hand picking" chips for high end cards, do you really think they put that much work into them when their assembly methods and QC is as bad as it is?

They dont bother to bin the chips, they just give them a quick tolerance test, but it doesnt really matter when you cant build or attach the heatsink properly. The fact that they pass the quick tolerance test is about the only reason they tend to do better. Typically (not always) chips that wouldnt have passed the test (a hot/leakage test seems to be the norm) performs better under cold due to internal leakage characteristics.


Honestly the margins are getting rather thin..

[Mungri]

Lots of people on this forum are posting results in the Nvidia section with their 1300 Mhz out of the box clocks on the Gigabyte / KFA2 SOCs, and with MSI lightnings, so I'm very certain that these two models at least are using hand picked chips.

Also what you said about the ram chips not having been tested could also be true, the bare chip design on KFA2 EX OC also had two fans blowing through the heatsink onto the ram chips as well, but its the first time I've ever seen Vram that clocks this high, so maybe running these Hynix chips at 7200 Mhz is probably not safe.

I never had any issue with overclocking my MSI cards for the last two generations, or any of the cards I had before those. And then I try out a new brand and they die. The RMA service was good though with the free upgrade they gave me

[NEOAethyr]

Factory might bin the chips into 2-3 grades.
But I think it's mostly in the boards.
The higher quality the signals and power, the better it'll clock on stock voltages, and therefor clock higher max voltages.
The 680 lightning has more headroom then 1300, it can pretty much do that on stock voltage.

I know you don't have to bin your ram chips to get a good clock.
But to get stellar clocks you need luck of the draw and the rest is up to the quality of your build.
It all starts with quality components...

It's not just the amount of wattage a card can theoretically handle, it's also about the quality of that power.
If the power is bad it's only gonna clock so high anyways.

That's my opinion.

As for the titan it's self.
Awesome, except the 14 smx thing that bums me out but maybe/hopefully ? ^^ it can be unlocked and with good success on premium boards...
Price of a $1000 usd?, that's a little high, I wonder if the lightnings will cost $1200... sad, but I can deal with that.
Still, no way I can afford sli'ing that.
You can buy desktop replacement laptop for that...

Edit:
Oh yeah, does anyone know if the added fp64 performance will help any games in any way at all?

[Mungri]

@ Urbansmoorh, #834

Looking at benchmarks for the latest AAA games, a single GTX 680 already barely manages to maintain 30-35 FPS with maxed settings and AA.

Personally for me, I see lag and stuttering anywhere below 45 FPS. I've tested this with forcing FPS to a constant with video capture software, and ideally I do want to maintain as close to 60 FPS as possible. Its does take the mick that a single 670 / 680 is already struggling to even maintain 40 FPS, and if overclocking brings me closer to that, then its being done.

Also I like my 4-8x super sample AA an awful lot, and yes I can clearly notice the difference over MSAA which has always been crap to me. I think that cards good enough to handle this should be a mainstream option, and they are somewhat with 300 GBP GTX 670s and 7970s, but for the latest games you would still need a pair.

Now if someone wants to run higher resolution / triple monitors / 120 hz / 3D vision, the amount of graphics power they need goes even higher.

[Kallenator]

@ Urbansmoorh, #834

Looking at benchmarks for the latest AAA games, a single GTX 680 already barely manages to maintain 30-35 FPS with maxed settings and AA.

Personally for me, I see lag and stuttering anywhere below 45 FPS. I've tested this with forcing FPS to a constant with video capture software, and ideally I do want to maintain as close to 60 FPS as possible. Its does take the mick that a single 670 / 680 is already struggling to even maintain 40 FPS, and if overclocking brings me closer to that, then its being done.

Also I like my 4-8x super sample AA an awful lot, and yes I can clearly notice the difference over MSAA which has always been crap to me. I think that cards good enough to handle this should be a mainstream option, and they are somewhat with 300 GBP GTX 670s and 7970s, but for the latest games you would still need a pair.

Now if someone wants to run higher resolution / triple monitors / 120 hz / 3D vision, the amount of graphics power they need goes even higher.

What you say is reasonable, I have good hunch that Oculus Rift will become very popular. And that needs 60fps to not brake the VR immersion. (According to themselves, independent developers and other testers.)
I actually think that Oculus Rift might kill of our desire for larger, faster and higher resolution displays aimed at most kinds of gaming as well.

And thanks for hating on MSAA, that AA algorithm is so bad that it should be thrown. In BF3 for exmaple the MSAA built in will smudge the image so much that it impedes your ability to view enemy infantry from afar. While lovering your FPS by a good hand full.
Luckily some people agree with this, so we get awesome things like SMAA injectors, that don't have a noticeable performance impact while delivering ok AA.
http://mrhaandi.blogspot.no/p/injectsmaa.html

I don't have a computer able to push too much SSAA in most games at 1200p, but I remember trying it for fun in the Dear Esther game and it looked amazing, not a single jaggie to be seen.

[Zloyd]

Guys who are going out of their way to get a single Titan should consider 680 lightning sli imo. Titan sli is for those who already have 2500x rez or multi monitor AND still have a lot of spare cash :P

[safan80]

Bare chips (regarding ram) are often better off than chips with a layer of thermal tape or pad on them. The stuff is horrible and the design of the heatsinks often leads to a lack of uniformity in cooling capabilities even if you removed the tape/pad.

Your ram probably died or degraded due to poor long-term testing from the manufacturer.

As to "hand picking" chips for high end cards, do you really think they put that much work into them when their assembly methods and QC is as bad as it is?

They dont bother to bin the chips, they just give them a quick tolerance test, but it doesnt really matter when you cant build or attach the heatsink properly. The fact that they pass the quick tolerance test is about the only reason they tend to do better. Typically (not always) chips that wouldnt have passed the test (a hot/leakage test seems to be the norm) performs better under cold due to internal leakage characteristics.


Honestly the margins are getting rather thin..

This is why I buy high end video cards and use a full cover water block on them.

[Rollo]

I broke an 8800 GTX and two GTX 280 cards. After that I stopped overclocking to the max. Instead, I found the max usable OC, then backed off 1 or 2 steps. Since then, two GTX 480, two GTX 580, and three GTX 680 haven't endured damage. All cards were water cooled.

You can damage your video card just like you can damage your RAM and CPU on your mobo. I guess it still could be bad luck or coincedence. I prefer not to find out again by trying to get that last few percent that isn't noticeable during gaming anyway.

There was a section of the press conference on overvolting where they talked about overvolting and the point at which the silicon's usable life is diminished.

I didn't pay a lot of attention because I don't OC video cards, would rather spend the money for another card and get a big warrantied boost than torturing a much smaller boost out of one card. Let's face it, a lot of games scale 80-90% and you just can't get that OCing.

Not currently planning to buy one of these Titans, would not be a step forward to buy one over my 680SLi, and the difference two would provide isn't worth $2000 to me.

However;were I to buy one, the last thing I would do is overvolt it. Would make me a sad camper to have my $1000 last 6 months.

[Kallenator]

There was a section of the press conference on overvolting where they talked about overvolting and the point at which the silicon's usable life is diminished.

However;were I to buy one, the last thing I would do is overvolt it. Would make me a sad camper to have my $1000 last 6 months.

You might not be interested, but many of us in here sure are. Is this available online?

Intel has always put max Vcore in their white paper when releasing CPU's, going much beyond this voltage-level usually does not gain you much, so its fine for high-end aircooling and entry-level watercooling.
I guess we can expect similar from the Vrel Nvidia has set.

My doubts are fairly strong on the users ability to overvolt the card with the original software to such extent that it will not last longer than a mere 6 months. Realistically most enthusiasts are going to replace that card because of performance before life expectancy becomes a problem.
My hunch is that Nvidia and other manufacturers will keep the guarantee even if you have overvolted up to Vrel, but maybe not beyond?

[Mungri]

6 months and overvolting ... lol. Here my first 670 died in 3-4 months on stock voltage and 1240 / 7200 clocks. I unlocked the voltage on its replacement because I got a worse clocker (1.2125v), same clocks 1240 / 7200, and dead again in 3-4 months . I won't be unlocking the voltage again though, not worth it for only small gains.

Never had that happen before on past cards, but I'll blame having a dodgy batch or vram chips, I don't think the GPU was at fault. Hand me a card with Vram that goes from 6000 to 7200 Mhz with no artifacts or crashes and expect me not to run that? That's just crazy talk .

I would also like to see any such article on over clocking and life expectancy.

[kromosto]

@bhavv if this is not just you and more common in last nvidia gen then my hunch about 6xx series got a fault and because of this nvidia bringed the greenlight thing.