The NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan X Review
by Ryan Smith on March 17, 2015 3:00 PM ESTFinal Words
When NVIDIA introduced the original GTX Titan in 2013 they set a new bar for performance, quality, and price for a high-end video card. The GTX Titan ended up being a major success for the company, a success that the company is keen to repeat. And now with their Maxwell architecture in hand, NVIDIA is in a position to do just that.
For as much of a legacy as the GTX Titan line can have at this point, it’s clear that the GTX Titan X is as worthy a successor as NVIDIA could hope for. NVIDIA has honed the already solid GTX Titan design, and coupled it with their largest Maxwell GPU, and in the process has put together a card that once again sets a new bar for performance and quality. That said, from a design perspective GTX Titan X is clearly evolutionary as opposed to the revolution that was the original GTX Titan, but it is nonetheless an impressive evolution.
Overall then it should come as no surprise that from a gaming performance standpoint the GTX Titan X stands alone. Delivering an average performance increase over the GTX 980 of 33%, GTX Titan X further builds on what was already a solid single-GPU performance lead for NVIDIA. Meanwhile compared to its immediate predecessors such as the GTX 780 Ti and the original GTX Titan, the GTX Titan X represents a significant, though perhaps not-quite-generational 50%-60% increase in performance. However perhaps most importantly, this performance improvement comes without any further increase in noise or power consumption as compared to NVIDIA’s previous generation flagship.
Meanwhile from a technical perspective, the GTX Titan X and GM200 GPU represent an interesting shift in high-end GPU design goals for NVIDIA, one whose ramifications I’m not sure we fully understand yet. By building what’s essentially a bigger version of GM204, heavy on graphics and light on FP64 compute, NVIDIA has been able to drive up performance without a GM204-like increase in die size. At 601mm2 GM200 is still NVIDIA’s largest GPU to date, but by producing their purest graphics GPU in quite some time, it has allowed NVIDIA to pack more graphics horsepower than ever before into a 28nm GPU. What remains to be seen then is whether this graphics/FP32-centric design is a one-off occurrence for 28nm, or if this is the start of a permanent shift in NVIDIA GPU design.
But getting back to the video card at hand, there’s little doubt of the GTX Titan X’s qualifications. Already in possession of the single-GPU performance crown, NVIDIA has further secured it with the release of their latest GTX Titan card. In fact there's really only one point we can pick at with the GTX Titan X, and that of course is the price. At $999 it's priced the same as the original GTX Titan - so today's $999 price tag comes as no surprise - but it's still a high price to pay for Big Maxwell. NVIDIA is not bashful about treating GTX Titan as a luxury card line, and for better and worse GTX Titan X continues this tradition. GTX Titan X, like GTX Titan before it, is a card that is purposely removed from the price/performance curve.
Meanwhile, the competitive landscape is solidly in NVIDIA's favor we feel. We would be remiss not to mention multi-GPU alternatives such as the GTX 980 in SLI and AMD's excellent Radeon R9 295X2. But as we've mentioned before when reviewing these setups before, multi-GPU is really only worth chasing when you've exhausted single-GPU performance. R9 295X2 in turn is a big spoiler on price, but we continue to believe that a single powerful GPU is a better choice for consistent performance, at least if you can cover the cost of GTX Titan X.
Finally on a lighter note, with the launch of the GTX Titan X we wave good-bye to GTX Titan as an entry-level double precision compute card. NVIDIA dumping high-performance FP64 compute has made GTX Titan X a better graphics card and even a better FP32 compute card, but it means that the original GTX Titan's time as NVIDIA's first prosumer card was short-lived. I suspect that we haven't seen the end of NVIDIA's forays into entry-level FP64 compute cards like the original GTX Titan, but that next card will not be GTX Titan X.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
276 Comments
View All Comments
Braincruser - Wednesday, March 18, 2015 - link
The titan was teased 10 days ago...Tunnah - Wednesday, March 18, 2015 - link
It feels nVidia are just taking the pee out of us now. I was semi-miffed at the 970 controversy, I know for business reasons etc. it doesn't make sense to truly trounce the competition (and your own products) when you can instead hold something back and keep it tighter, and have something to release in case they surprise you.And I was semi-miffed when I heard it would be more like a 33% improvement over the current cream of the crop, instead of the closer to 50% increase the Titan was over the 680, because they have to worry about the 390x, and leave room for a Titan X White Y Grey SuperHappyTime version.
But to still charge $1000 even though they are keeping the DP performance low, this is just too far. The whole reasoning for the high price tag was you were getting a card that was not only a beast of a gaming card, but it would hold its own as a workstation card too, as long as you didn't need the full Quadro service. Now it is nothing more than a high end card, a halo product...that isn't actually that good!
When it comes down to it, you're paying 250% the cost for 33% more performance, and that is disgusting. Don't even bring RAM into it, it's not only super cheap and in no way a justification for the cost, but in fact is useless, because NO GAMER WILL EVER NEED THAT MUCH, IT WAS THE FLIM FLAMMING WORKSTATION CROWD WHO NEEDING THAT FLIM FLAMMING AMOUNT OF FLOOMING RAM YOU FLUPPERS!
This feels like a big juicy gob of spit in our faces. I know most people bought these purely for the gaming option and didn't use the DP capability, but that's not the point - it was WORTH the $999 price tag. This simply is not, not in the slightest. $650, $750 tops because it's the best, after all..but $999 ? Not in this lifetime.
I've not had an AMD card since way back in the days of ATi, I am well and truly part of the nVidia crowd, even when they had a better card I'd wait for the green team reply. But this is actually insulting to consumers.
I was never gonna buy one of these, I was waiting on the 980Ti for the 384bit bus and the bumps that come along with it...but now I'm not only hoping the 390x is better than people say because then nVidia will have to make it extra good..I'm hoping it's better than they say so I can actually buy it.
For shame nVidia, what you're doing with this card is unforgivable
Michael Bay - Wednesday, March 18, 2015 - link
So you`re blaming a for-profit company for being for-profit.maximumGPU - Wednesday, March 18, 2015 - link
no he's not. He's blaming a for-profit compaby abusing it's position at the expense of its customers.Maxwell is great, and i've got 2 of them in my rig. But titan X is a bit of a joke. The only justification the previous titan had was that it could be viewed as a cheap professional cards. Now that's gone but you're still paying the same price.
Unfortunately nvidia will put the highest price they can get away with, and 999$ doesn't seem to deter some hardcore fans no matter how much poor value it represents.
I certainly hope the sales don't meet their expectations.
TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, March 18, 2015 - link
I would argue that the vram may be needed later on. 4GB is already tight with SoM, and future games will only push that up.people said that 6GB was too much for the OG titan, but SoM can eat that up at 4k, and other games are not far behind. especially for SLI setups, that memory will come in handy.
Thats what really killed the 770. gpu was fine for me, but 2GB was way to little vram.
Tal Greywolf - Wednesday, March 18, 2015 - link
Not being a gamer, I would like to see a review in which many of these top-of-the-line gaming cards are tested against a different sort of environment. For example, I'd love to see how cards compare handling graphics software packages such as Photoshop, Premier Pro, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, SolidWorks and others. If these cards are really pushing the envelope, then they should compare against the Quadro and FirePro lines.Ranger101 - Wednesday, March 18, 2015 - link
I think it's safe to say that Nvidia make technically superior cards as compared to AMD,at least as far as the last 2 generations of GPUs are concerned. While the AMD cards consume
more power and produce more heat, this issue is not a determining factor when I upgrade unlike
price and choice.
I will not buy this card, despite the fact that I find it to be a very desirable and
techically impressive card, because I don't like being price-raped and because
I want AMD to be competitive.
I will buy the 390X because I prefer a "consumer wins" situation where there are at least 2
companies producing competitive products and lets be clear AMD GPUs are competitve, even when you factor in what is ultimately a small increase in heat and noise, not to mention lower prices.
It was a pleasant surprise to see the R295X2 at one point described as "very impressive" yet
I think it would have been fair if Ryan had drawn more attention to AMD "wins," even though they
are not particularly significant, such as the most stressful Shadow of Mordor benchmarks.
Most people favour a particular brand, but surely even the most ardent supporters wouldn't want to see a situation where there is ONLY Intel and ONLY Nvidia. We are reaping the rewards of this scenario already in terms of successive generations of Intel CPUs offering performance improvements that are mediocre at best.
I can only hope that the 390X gets a positive review at Anandtech.
Mystichobo - Wednesday, March 18, 2015 - link
Looking forward to a 390 with the same performance for 400-500. I certainly got my money's worth out of the r9 290 when it was released. Don't understand how anyone could advocate this $1000 single card price bracket created for "top tier".Geforce man - Wednesday, March 18, 2015 - link
What still frustrates me, is the lack of using a modern aftermarket r9 290/x.Crunchy005 - Wednesday, March 18, 2015 - link
I actually really like how the new titan looks, shows what can be done. The problem with this card at this price point is it defeats what the titan really should be. Without the couple precision performance this card becomes irrelevant I feel(overpriced gaming card). The original titan was an entry level compute card outside of the quadro lineup. I know there are drawbacks to multiGPU setups but I would go for 2 980's or 970's for same or less money than the Titan X.I also found these benchmarks very interesting because you can see how much each game can be biased to a certain card. AMDs 290x, an old card, beat out the 980 in some cases, mostly at 4k resolutions and lost in others at the same resolution. Just goes to show that you also have to look at individual game performance as well as overall performance when buying a card.
Can't wait for the 390x from AMD that should be very interesting.