The NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan X Review
by Ryan Smith on March 17, 2015 3:00 PM ESTFar Cry 4
The next game in our 2015 GPU benchmark suite is Far Cry 4, Ubisoft’s Himalayan action game. A lot like Crysis 3, Far Cry 4 can be quite tough on GPUs, especially with Ultra settings thanks to the game’s expansive environments.
At 4K Ultra this happens to be another case where the GTX Titan X delivers framerates around 40fps, in this case coming in at 42.1fps. To get a single-GPU card up to 60fps we need to drop to Medium settings, which gets the GTX Titan X to 60.5 at a fairly significant hit to image quality.
Compared to NVIDIA’s other high-end cards, Far Cry 4 puts the GTX Titan X in a very favorable light. Along with the customary 35% performance lead over the GTX 980 at 4K Ultra, the newest Titan beats the GTX 780 Ti and GTX Titan by 60% and 80% respectively, highlighting the architectural efficiency improvements in Maxwell. On the other hand the lead over the R9 290XU is only 29%, making it one of the smallest leads for the GTX Titan X and highlighting how as always AMD and NVIDIA’s relative performance shifts with the game in question.
Dropping down from 4K to 1440p, the GTX Titan X continues to do well, becoming the only single-GPU card to surpass 60fps even at this lower resolution.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
276 Comments
View All Comments
chizow - Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - link
AMD fanboys went apeshit when AT used non-ref cooled GTX 460s that showed those cards in better light than the reference coolers, AMD fanboys need to pick a story and stick to it tbh.evolucion8 - Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - link
Ahh, we can't never miss your daily dose of AMD bashing under any GPU article, thanks for the fun.shing3232 - Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - link
Yep, it is quite entertaining.Kutark - Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - link
Entertaining but still accurate. Fanbois are fanbois, they're stupid regardless of what side of the isle they're on.chizow - Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - link
Like I said, happy to keep the AMD fanboys honest. as I did again here.Stuka87 - Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - link
That had nothing to do with non-ref cooled 460's. It was using FTW versions, which were heavily overclocked vs stock clocked AMD cards. It had nothing to do with what cooler was on them. Just the overclocked being portrayed as though they were standard edition cards. The article was later changed as I recall to state that they were overclocked cards and not stock 460s.chizow - Wednesday, March 18, 2015 - link
Its the same difference, the AMD cards are no more "stock" with custom coolers than those FTW editions. AMD baked an overclock into their boost that they weren't able to sustain without extravagant cooling. And when I mean extravagant cooling, I am talking about the Cadillac Aluminum Boat we used to be like "Oh wow, maybe one day I will fork out $60 for that massive Arctic Cooling cooler".So yeah, now you get "stock clocked, stock cooled reference cards", if you want AMD to show better in benchmarks, have them design either 1) better cooling or 2) less power hungry cards.
chizow - Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - link
@Ryan, we can't revisit all the nerdrage and angst from AMD fanboys over EVGA sending you non-reference cooled GeForce cards because they were too good over reference? Funny what happens when the shoe is on the other foot!My solution: AMD should design cards that are capable of comfortably fitting within a 250W TDP and cooler designed to dissipate that much heat, and not have to resort to a cooler that looks like an Autobot. I'm not kidding, briefly owned a Sapphire Tri-X 290X and the thing doubles as its own appliance.
Stuka87 - Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - link
Stop stating that it was because of the cooler. As I mentioned above, FTW cards are heavily overclocked and should not be portrayed as standard edition cards.MrSpadge - Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - link
Go back and read that article. The factory-OC was clearly stated.