GeForce GTX TITAN-X 3DMark Benchmarks Surface

Also driving PSU nearly maxed or even worse, above specs, is less healthy than running it at 70-80%. Obvious, I know

Nvidia will aim for 250W.
If it turns out that at GTX980 clocks Titan uses 270W, which is quite possible (GTX980; 180W x 1.5), they'll just lower the freq. by 50Hz to stay in 250W range. Thats how they roll

I don't see near-future Maxwell based GeForce beating it.
And if it does it will be purely due to taking TDP gloves off, but then Titan can be oc-ed too.

 

Titan X It is more than 250watts according to an article bench online.

About 230/380=60% will be about gaming gtx980 for me, almost bang on what is optimal.
58/380=15% the idle b4 it goes to sleep
325/380=86% but it will never do this unless I run the GPU and CPU at 100% with small calculations. Which I do for a few minutes every 2 years, with no fear at all.

 

well I've been wrong be4

once or twice :nerd:

 

So is Maxwell still gimped for folding or am I going to have to switch to AMD when the 390X comes out?

 

Meh..... For what they are asking for this card my 295x2 kills it. Us you could argue power efficiency and attempt to make the titan sound like a bed of roses but if you're a high end gamer and it's your passion then 98% or more truly aren't concerned about that.

 

Not today :wanker:
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_x_launches.html

 

Official TDP is not the same as power used or the real BIOS TDP. I was not saying you were wrong in that post, I assumed TDP was 250 as well, I was saying it uses more according to the test online. (like the 165 advertised TDP (180W real TDP) for GTX 980).

My Galax GTX 980 is fun, ;oP, was nervous about noise from the fan, but it is silent. I have a sound resistant case but it is on my desktop, and silent enough still. (just putting this in as that was what I was searching for last week, "is Galax GTX 980 V2 noisy") might help someone.

 

Issue here is apparent...
There is no performance space between 970 and 980, therefore no need for 970Ti. Other than that TitanX should cost about same as r9-390x will, since it is actually not Titan.
nVidia pulled this time around trick on people. They took chip which should have been named 970Ti and cut down to 970, instead you got it as 980/970.
Now chip which should have been 980Ti and cut down to 980 is Titan X + 980 Ti.
Same silicon, higher naming, higher prices. People fell for it.

When I look at chip and its price, I consider transistor count, die size to estimate what manufacturing costs and where it should be in comparison to already released GPUs, then add 20% as new product premium and you are there. (this goes for full chip, not cut down, there premium should be at most 10%)

980 is 5.2B transistor chip, its price should be between 4.3B r9-280x and 6.2B r9-290x as both are full chips, but closer to r9-290x since its area is very close to that (lower transistor density, likely reason for good OC). GTX 970 as cut down chip priced as r9-290x is OK due to "new product premium".

For me, Titan X (GM200-full) launch price should be $850-900 (but everyone knows that nVidia has fixed price for Titan brand till day they no longer sell).