The NVIDIA Titan V Preview - Titanomachy: War of the Titans
by Ryan Smith & Nate Oh on December 20, 2017 11:30 AM ESTGaming Performance
Sure, compute is useful. But be honest: you came here for the 4K gaming benchmarks, right?
Already after Battlefield 1 (DX11) and Ashes (DX12), we can see that Titan V is not a monster gaming card, though it still is faster than Titan Xp. This is not unexpected, as Titan V's focus is quite far away from gaming as opposed to the focus of the previous Titan cards.
Despite being generally ahead of Titan Xp, it's clear Titan V is suffering from lack of gaming optimization. And for that matter, the launch drivers definitely have bugs in them as far as gaming is concerned. Titan V on Deus Ex resulted in small black box artifacts during the benchmark; Ghost Recon Wildlands experienced sporadic but persistant hitching, and Ashes occasionally suffered from fullscreen flickering.
And despite the impressive 3-digit FPS in the Vulkan-powered DOOM, the card actually falls behind Titan Xp in 99th percentile framerates. For such high average framerates, even a 67fps 99th percentile can reduce perceived smoothness. Meanwhile, running Titan V under DX12 for Deus Ex and Total War: Warhammer resulted in less performance. But with immature gaming drivers, it is too early to say if these are representative of low-level API performance on Volta itself.
Overall, the Titan V averages out to around 15% faster than the Titan Xp, excluding 99th percentiles, but with the aforementioned caveats. Titan V's high average FPS in DOOM and Deus Ex are somewhat marred by stagnant 99th percentiles and minor but noticable artifacting, respectively.
So as a pure gaming card, our preview results indicate that this would not the best gaming purchase at $3000. Typically, a $1800 premium for around 10 - 20% faster gaming over the Titan Xp wouldn't be enticing, but it seems there are always some who insist.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
112 Comments
View All Comments
CiccioB - Monday, January 1, 2018 - link
New bigger costier architectures with lower performance = fail ReplytuxRoller - Monday, January 1, 2018 - link
Ah, troll. ReplyCiccioB - Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - link
Useless cardVega = #poorvolta Reply
StrangerGuy - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link
AMD can pay me half their marketing budget and I will still do better than them...by doing exactly nothing. Their marketing is worse than being in a state of non-existence. Replymode_13h - Wednesday, December 27, 2017 - link
It's true. All they had to do was pay some grad students to optimize HPC and deep learning software for their GPUs. They could've done that for the price of only a couple marketing persons' salaries. ReplyCiccioB - Monday, January 1, 2018 - link
That would not be a surprise.AMD strategy on SW support has always been leaving others (usually not professionist) do the job at their own cost. Results is that AMD HW has never had a decent SW support other than for gaming (and that's only because Sony and MS spend money for improving gaming performances for their consoles). Reply
tipoo - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
Sarcasm? There's no Vega built up to this scale. Replymode_13h - Wednesday, December 27, 2017 - link
It *is* pretty big and burns about as much power. Yet, it's nowhere near as fast at deep learning. Even with its lower purchase price, it's still not operationally cost-competitive with GV100.If you look at its feature set, it was really aimed at HPC and deep learning. In the face of Volta's tensor cores, it kinda fell flat, on the latter front. Reply
Keermalec - Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - link
What about mining benchmarks? Replytipoo - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
Would be in line with the CUDA improvements. I.e, two 1080s would be much better at mining. Most of the uplift is in tensor performance, which no algo uses. Reply