NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX Titan Review, Part 2: Titan's Performance Unveiled
by Ryan Smith & Rahul Garg on February 21, 2013 9:00 AM ESTEarlier this week NVIDIA announced their new top-end single-GPU consumer card, the GeForce GTX Titan. Built on NVIDIA’s GK110 and named after the same supercomputer that GK110 first powered, the GTX Titan is in many ways the apex of the Kepler family of GPUs first introduced nearly one year ago. With anywhere between 25% and 50% more resources than NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 680, Titan is intended to be the ultimate single-GPU card for this generation.
Meanwhile with the launch of Titan NVIDIA has repositioned their traditional video card lineup to change who the ultimate video card will be chasing. With a price of $999 Titan is decidedly out of the price/performance race; Titan will be a luxury product, geared towards a mix of low-end compute customers and ultra-enthusiasts who can justify buying a luxury product to get their hands on a GK110 video card. So in many ways this is a different kind of launch than any other high performance consumer card that has come before it.
So where does that leave us? On Tuesday we could talk about Titan’s specifications, construction, architecture, and features. But the all-important performance data would be withheld another two days until today. So with Thursday finally upon us, let’s finish our look at Titan with our collected performance data and our analysis.
Titan: A Performance Summary
| GTX Titan | GTX 690 | GTX 680 | GTX 580 | |
| Stream Processors | 2688 | 2 x 1536 | 1536 | 512 |
| Texture Units | 224 | 2 x 128 | 128 | 64 |
| ROPs | 48 | 2 x 32 | 32 | 48 |
| Core Clock | 837MHz | 915MHz | 1006MHz | 772MHz |
| Shader Clock | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1544MHz |
| Boost Clock | 876Mhz | 1019MHz | 1058MHz | N/A |
| Memory Clock | 6.008GHz GDDR5 | 6.008GHz GDDR5 | 6.008GHz GDDR5 | 4.008GHz GDDR5 |
| Memory Bus Width | 384-bit | 2 x 256-bit | 256-bit | 384-bit |
| VRAM | 6GB | 2 x 2GB | 2GB | 1.5GB |
| FP64 | 1/3 FP32 | 1/24 FP32 | 1/24 FP32 | 1/8 FP32 |
| TDP | 250W | 300W | 195W | 244W |
| Transistor Count | 7.1B | 2 x 3.5B | 3.5B | 3B |
| Manufacturing Process | TSMC 28nm | TSMC 28nm | TSMC 28nm | TSMC 40nm |
| Launch Price | $999 | $999 | $499 | $499 |
On paper, compared to GTX 680, Titan offers anywhere between a 25% and 50% increase in resource. At the starting end, Titan comes with 25% more ROP throughput, a combination of Titan’s 50% increase in ROP count and simultaneous decrease in clockspeeds relative to GTX 680. Shading and texturing performance meanwhile benefits even more from the expansion of the number of SMXes, from 8 to 14. And finally, Titan has a full 50% more memory bandwidth than GTX 680.
Setting aside the unique scenario of compute for a moment, this means that Titan will be between 25% and 50% faster than GTX 680 in GPU limited situations, depending on the game/application and its mix of resource usage. For an industry and userbase still trying to come to terms with the loss of nearly annual half-node jumps, this kind of performance jump on the same node is quite remarkable. At the same time it also sets expectations for how future products may unfold; one way to compensate for the loss of the rapid cadence in manufacturing nodes is to spread out the gains from a new node over multiple years, and this is essentially what we’ve seen with the Kepler family by launching GK104, and a year later GK110.
In any case, while Titan can improve gaming performance by up to 50%, NVIDIA has decided to release Titan as a luxury product with a price roughly 120% higher than the GTX 680. This means that Titan will not be positioned to push the price of NVIDIA’s current cards down, and in fact it’s priced right off the currently hyper-competitive price-performance curve that the GTX 680/670 and Radeon HD 7970GE/7970 currently occupy.
| February 2013 GPU Pricing Comparison | |||||
| AMD | Price | NVIDIA | |||
| $1000 | GeForce Titan/GTX 690 | ||||
| (Unofficial) Radeon HD 7990 | $900 | ||||
| Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition | $450 | GeForce GTX 680 | |||
| Radeon HD 7970 | $390 | ||||
| $350 | GeForce GTX 670 | ||||
| Radeon HD 7950 | $300 | ||||
This setup isn’t unprecedented – the GTX 690 more or less created this precedent last May – but it means Titan is a very straightforward case of paying 120% more for 50% more performance; the last 10% always costs more. What this means is that the vast majority of gamers will simply be shut out from Titan at this price, but for those who can afford Titan’s $999 price tag NVIDIA believes they have put together a powerful card and a convincing case to pay for luxury.
So what can potential Titan buyers look forward to on the performance front? As always we’ll do a complete breakdown of performance in the following pages, but we wanted to open up this article with a quick summary of performance. So with that said, let’s take a look at some numbers.
| GeForce GTX Titan Performance Summary (2560x1440) | ||||||
| vs. GTX 680 | vs. GTX 690 | vs. R7970GE | vs. R7990 | |||
| Average | +47% | -15% | 34% | -19% | ||
| Dirt: Showdown | 47% | -5% | 3% | -38% | ||
| Total War: Shogun 2 | 50% | -15% | 62% | 1% | ||
| Hitman: Absolution | 34% | -15% | 18% | -15% | ||
| Sleeping Dogs | 49% | -15% | 17% | -30% | ||
| Crysis | 54% | -13% | 21% | -25% | ||
| Far Cry 3 | 35% | -23% | 37% | -15% | ||
| Battlefield 3 | 48% | -18% | 52% | -11% | ||
| Civilization V | 59% | -9% | 60% | 0 | ||
Looking first at NVIDIA’s product line, Titan is anywhere between 33% and 54% faster than the GTX 680. In fact with the exception of Hitman: Absolution, a somewhat CPU-bound benchmark, Titan’s performance relative to the GTX 680 is actually very consistent at a narrow 45%-55% range. Titan and GTX 680 are of course based on the same fundamental Kepler architecture, so there haven’t been any fundamental architecture changes between the two; Titan is exactly what you’d expect out of a bigger Kepler GPU. At the same time this is made all the more interesting due to the fact that Titan’s real-world performance advantage of 45%-55% is so close to its peak theoretical performance advantage of 50%, indicating that Titan doesn’t lose much (if anything) in efficiency when scaled up, and that the games we’re testing today favor memory bandwidth and shader/texturing performance over ROP throughput.
Moving on, while Titan offers a very consistent performance advantage over the architecturally similar GTX 680, it’s quite a different story when compared to AMD’s fastest single-GPU product, the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition. As we’ve seen time and time again this generation, the difference in performance between AMD and NVIDIA GPUs not only varies with the test and settings, but dramatically so. As a result Titan is anywhere between being merely equal to the 7970GE to being nearly a generation ahead of it.
At the low-end of the scale we have DiRT: Showdown, where Titan’s lead is less than 3%. At the other end is Total War: Shogun 2, where Titan is a good 62% faster than the 7970GE. The average gain over the 7970GE is almost right in the middle at 34%, reflecting a mix of games where the two are close, the two are far, and the two are anywhere in between. With recent driver advancements having helped the 7970GE pull ahead of the GTX 680, NVIDIA had to work harder to take back their lead and to do so in an concrete manner.
Titan’s final competition are the dual-GPU cards of this generation, the GK104 based GTX 690, and the officially unofficial Tahiti based HD 7990 cards, which vary in specs but generally have just shy of the performance of a pair of 7970s. As we’ve seen in past generations, when it comes to raw performance one big GPU is no match for two smaller GPUs, and the same is true with Titan. For frames per second and nothing else, Titan cannot compete with those cards. But as we’ll see there are still some very good reasons for Titan’s existence, and areas Titan excels at that even two lesser GPUs cannot match.
None of this of course accounts for compute. Simply put, Titan stands alone in the compute world. As the first consumer GK110 GPU based video card there’s nothing quite like it. We’ll see why that is in our look at compute performance, but as far as the competitive landscape is concerned there’s not a lot to discuss here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
337 Comments
View All Comments
chizow - Saturday, February 23, 2013 - link
I haven't use this rebuttal in a long time, I reserve it for only the most deserving, but you sir are retarded.Everything you've written above is anti-progress, you've set Moore's law and semiconductor progress back 30 years with your asinine rants. If idiots like you running the show, no one would own any electronic devices because we'd be paying $50,000 for toaster ovens.
CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - link
Yeah that's a great counter you idiot... as usual when reality barely glints a tiny bit through your lying tin foiled dunce cap, another sensationalistic pile of bunk is what you have.A great cover for a cornered doofus.
When you finally face your immense error, you'll get over it.
hammer256 - Thursday, February 21, 2013 - link
Not to sound like a broken record, but for us in scientific computing using CUDA, this is a godsend.The GTX 680 release was a big disappointment for compute, and I was worried that this is going to be the trend going forward with Nvidia: nerfed compute card for the consumers that focuses on graphics, and compute heavy professional cards for the HPC space.
I was worried that the days of cheap compute are gone. These days might still be numbered, but at least for this generation Titan is going to keep it going.
ronin22 - Thursday, February 21, 2013 - link
+1PCTC2 - Thursday, February 21, 2013 - link
For all of you complaining about the $999 price tag. It's like the GTX 690 (or even the 8800 Ultra, for those who remember it). It's a flagship luxury card for those who can afford it.But that's beside the real point. This is a K20 without the price premium (and some of the valuable Tesla features). But for researchers on a budget, using homegrown GPGPU compute code that doesn't validate to run only on Tesla cards, these are a godsend. I mean, some professional programs will benefit from having a Tesla over a GTX card, but these days, researchers are trying to reach into HPC space without the price premium of true HPC enterprise hardware. The GTX Titan is a good middle point. For the price of a Quadro K5000 and a single Tesla K20c card, they can purchase 4 GTX Titans and still have some money to spare. They don't need SLI. They just need the raw compute power these cards are capable of. So as entry GPU Compute workstation cards, these cards hit the mark for those wanting to enter GPU compute on a budget. As a graphics card for your gaming machine, average gamers need not apply.
ronin22 - Thursday, February 21, 2013 - link
"average gamers need not apply"If only people had read this before posting all this hate.
Again, gamers, this card is not for you. Please get the cr*p out of here.
CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - link
You have to understand, the review sites themselves have pushed the blind fps mentality now for years, not to mention insanely declared statistical percentages ripened with over-interpretation on the now contorted and controlled crybaby whiners. It's what they do every time, they feel it gives them the status of consumer advisor, Nader protege, fight the man activist, and knowledgeable enthusiast.Unfortunately that comes down the ignorant demands we see here, twisted with as many lies and conspiracies as are needed, to increase the personal faux outrage.
Dnwvf - Thursday, February 21, 2013 - link
In absolute terms, this is the best non-Tesla compute card on the market.However, looking at flops/$, you'd be better off buying 2 7970Ghz Radeons, which would run around $60 less and give you more total Flops. Look at the compute scores - Titan is generally not 2x a single 7970. And in some of the compute scores, the 7970 wins.
2 7970ghz (not even in crossfire mode, you don't need that for OpenCL), will beat the crap out of Titan and cost less. They couldn't run AOPR on the AMD cards..but everybody knows from bitcoin that Amd cards rule over nvidia for password hashing ( just google bitcoin bit_align_int to see why).
There's an article on Toms Hardware where they put a bunch of nvidia and amd cards through a bunch of compute benchmarks, and when amd isn't winning, the gtx 580 generally beats the 680...most likely due to its 512 bit bus. Titan is still a 384 bit bus...can't really compare on price because Phi costs an arm and a leg like Tesla, but you have to acknowledge that Phi is probably gonna rock out with its 512 bit bus.
Gotta give Nvidia kudos for finally not crippling fp64, but at this price point, who cares? If you're looking to do compute and have a GPU budget of $2K, you could buy:
An older Tesla
2 Titans
-or-
Build a system with 2 7970Ghz and 2 Gtx 580.
And the last system would be the best...compute on the amd cards for certain algorithms, on the nvidia cards for the others, and pci bandwidth issues aside, running multiple complex algorithms simultaneously will rock because you can enqueue and execute 4 OpenCL kernels simultaneously. You'd have to shop around for a while to find some 580's though.
Gamers aren't gonna buy this card unless they're spending Daddy's money, and serious compute folk will realize quickly that if they buy a mobo that will fit 2 or 4 double-width cards, depending on Gpu budget, they can get more flops per dollar with a multiple-card setup (think of it as a micro-sized Gpu compute cluster). Don't believe me? Google Jeremi Gosni oclhashcat.
I'm not much for puns, but this card is gonna flop. (sorry)
DanNeely - Thursday, February 21, 2013 - link
Has any eta on when the rest of the Kepler refresh is due leaked out yet?HisDivineOrder - Thursday, February 21, 2013 - link
It's way out of my price range, first and foremost.Second, I think the pricing is a mistake, but I know where they are coming from. They're using the same Intel school of thought on SB-E compared to IB. They price it out the wazoo and only the most luxury of the luxury gamers will buy it. It doesn't matter that the benchmarks show it's only mostly better than its competition down at the $400-500 range and not the all-out destruction you might think it capable of.
The cost will be so high it will be spoken of in whispers and with wary glances around, fearful that the Titan will appear and step on you. It'll be rare and rare things are seen as legendary just so long as they can make the case it's the fastest single-GPU out there.
And they can.
So in short, it's like those people buying hexacore CPU's from Intel. You pay out the nose, you get little real gain and a horrible performance per dollar, but it is more marketing than common sense.
If nVidia truly wanted to use this product to service all users, they would have priced it at $600-700 and moved a lot more. They don't want that. They're fine with the 670/680 being the high end for a majority of users. Those cards have to be cheap to make by now and with AMD's delays/stalls/whatever's, they can keep them the way they are or update them with a firmware update and perhaps a minor retooling of the fab design to give it GPU Boost 2.
They've already set the stage for that imho. If you read the way the article is written about GPU Boost 2 (both of them), you can see nVidia is setting up a stage where they introduce a slightly modified version of the 670 and 680 with "minor updates to the GPU design" and GPU Boost 2, giving them more headroom to improve consistency with the current designs.
Which again would be stealing from Intel's playbook of supplement SB-E with IB mainstream cores.
The price is obscene, but the only people who should actually care are the ones who worship at the altar of AA. Start lowering that and suddenly even a 7950 is way ahead of what you need.