cut
Looks quite decent. If priced well at around 650 $ it can be a killer product but I doubt it.
about 50% more performance on gtx 680 means about 750 dollars MRSP (gtx 680 is 499 dollars)
cut
Looks quite decent. If priced well at around 650 $ it can be a killer product but I doubt it.
Usually newer generations of hardware are more cost-effective than older generations.about 50% more performance on gtx 680 means about 750 dollars MRSP (gtx 680 is 499 dollars)
Usually newer generations of hardware are more cost-effective than older generations.
I have no idea. But let me mention something else: there is really no good reason why anybody should linearly associate processing power and price. Or, at least, think that a linear association is fair.799$ at launch?
Reminds me a lot of the 7800GTX 512MB. Which also gives me this uncomfortable (and possibly totally incorrect) feeling that the Kepler technology is pretty old and won't be long until it's looking pretty outdated.
I'm not entirely sure that high-end parts like this one are solely for the purpose of a halo effect. Bear in mind:The "Titan" name allows Nvidia to use it as their halo part for this and next series as well.
In the end it hardly matters as these will be sold in the thousands or tens-of-thousands at best. There just isn't a market for desktop graphics cards costing this much, it's a professional card used as a desktop halo part and that's it.
Where dies this argument come from? nVidia has had big cards like that which are used for both consumers and professionals for a long time Why would this be any different?This card wouldn't exist without Nvidia's grip on the professional market though.
http://clbenchmark.com/compare.jsp?config_0=11905948&config_1=14470292#environment
I thought it had some larger caches - can't be seen there (apart from the obvious total increase from 8 to 14 SMX).
So at 875mhz compared to 1059 for 680 we got +44% shader/tmu and +23% setup/rop (and likely +50% bandwidth).