Should I buy a Titan?

  • 54 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Fredddi43 (326 posts) -

Guys, Crysis 3 runs on lowest settings only at 30fps on my Radeon 5850. I'm thinking about getting the Titan so I can play it at 60 on Ultra. Am I done messed up? Not sure if I should get that beast or maybe just a 680... Don't want to upgrade again anytime soon, but would still like to play everything on max, since I'm just a big fat graphics whore...

Edit: The card is the weakest part of my PC, the rest is top notch and would easily be enough to handle the games....

Online
#2 Edited by the_devoid (39 posts) -

My advice would be to look at benchmark comparisons between the titan and the 680. Personally I would just get the 680 because I don't think the titan is better enough to justify the ~$600 price difference, but it is the most powerful single GPU out right now so I guess it depends on how important that is to you.

#3 Posted by believer258 (11771 posts) -

Do you have $1000 to blow? Yes? Awesome! Buy a 680 for $500, get a 3DS and a couple of games, and then take a girl to the nicest place in town.

#4 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

Do you have $1000 to blow? Yes? Awesome! Buy a 680 for $500, get a 3DS and a couple of games, and then take a girl to the nicest place in town.

-OR-

Get two 680s and get her to take you somewhere nice. Let's work at toppling gender stereotypes. And also video games.

#5 Edited by Cameron (596 posts) -

Unless you are just rolling in money I wouldn't recommend it. It's almost always better to buy mid-high end stuff and upgrade it every few years. You could buy a new mid-high end card (let's say $300) every two years for the next six years and and still have a good card at the end of it and you'd still spend less money than if you bought a Titan, which will be garbage in six years. Buy hey, if you've got the money and want the best, I guess that's the Titan.

#6 Posted by Cirdain (3038 posts) -

690

#7 Posted by believer258 (11771 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Do you have $1000 to blow? Yes? Awesome! Buy a 680 for $500, get a 3DS and a couple of games, and then take a girl to the nicest place in town.

-OR-

Get two 680s and get her to take you somewhere nice. Let's work at toppling gender stereotypes. And also video games.

Supposing one does convince their lady to take them someplace nice; wouldn't it still be better just to get a single 680 so you have an extra $500 to spend? Or, if you're going to spend $1000 on computer parts, just go ahead and get the Titan?

(I was originally just going to say "go get laid, yo"
but that implies hiring a whore
a prospect to which I say no;
my verse is rotten to the core.)

#8 Edited by paulwade1984 (477 posts) -

wait for the 700's... 780 will be a beast. 770 will be what everyone buys

Actually. Is the titan the 780? I know 800's arent due until 2014 and they are next gen chips. 700's are just a refresh.

#9 Posted by BeachThunder (11793 posts) -

Well, if you have a spare 1000, then go for it.

#10 Posted by Andorski (5236 posts) -

I believe the GTX 690 gets better benchmark performance and is slightly cheaper. Only benefit on the Titan is that it's dual slot vs. triple slot. If you're crazy, go for either card. I'd personally just get a $300-400 card and wait for the new consoles to come out so you have a better idea on what your upgrade plan will be for the next 5-7 years.

#11 Edited by Devildoll (877 posts) -

@fredddi43 said:

Edit: The card is the weakest part of my PC, the rest is top notch and would easily be enough to handle the games....

Since you are asking other people whether you should buy a $1000 graphics card or not, I'm not just going to take your word for that.

Just tell us what you got instead.

As i said earlier, just buy a 680 and then if that isn't enough either get another 680, or sell it and get a titan.

If you are even considering getting a titan in the first place, this wont really strain your wallet.

@paulwade1984 said:

wait for the 700's... 780 will be a beast. 770 will be what everyone buys

Actually. Is the titan the 780? I know 800's aren't due until 2014 and they are next gen chips. 700's are just a refresh.

The titan is the titan, 780 will be whatever Nvidia decides to call the 780.

But yes, maxwell is currently scheduled for 2014. whether the consumer versions of it will be called 700 or 800, no one can say, yet.

@andorski said:

I believe the GTX 690 gets better benchmark performance and is slightly cheaper. Only benefit on the Titan is that it's dual slot vs. triple slot. If you're crazy, go for either card. I'd personally just get a $300-400 card and wait for the new consoles to come out so you have a better idea on what your upgrade plan will be for the next 5-7 years.

another benefit of the titan is that it is a single gpu card, you'll get less issues.
And another bonus is that you can dump 4 of em into a computer, where as you can only have two 690's.

#12 Posted by Snail (8593 posts) -

Fuck it, buy three and run them in tri-SLI.

#13 Posted by SlashDance (1812 posts) -

Don't let Crysis 3 be your only motivation. Seriously there's very little difference between medium/high and very high. Not worth it.

Also $1000 for a video card is completely nutts no matter how powerful it is.

#14 Posted by BeachThunder (11793 posts) -

@snail said:

Fuck it, buy three and run them in tri-SLI.

And then play a bunch of ASCII roguelikes...

#15 Edited by ripelivejam (3713 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Do you have $1000 to blow? Yes? Awesome! Buy a 680 for $500, get a 3DS and a couple of games, and then take a girl to the nicest place in town.

but which girl?? WHICH GIRL?????

(haha and i act like i actually have a choice in any way/shape/form :( )

e: also this reminds me of when i "wasted" $600 on a 8800gtx when it was reasonably new. it did keep me going for quite awhile though.

#16 Posted by Devildoll (877 posts) -

@ripelivejam: Yup, the first series that had "shaders", along with the first quad, the Q6600, that shit lasted for ages. a 8800GT/GTS would have been a tad friendlier on the wallet though.

#17 Posted by subyman (595 posts) -

Don't buy it. $1000 GPUs are really dumb for anything other than making money (super computers, etc.) This card doesn't make sense at all. It's 40% faster for 250% the price of a 680/7970. Actually, the 7970 is the one to get right now. The latest drivers AMD put out are fantastic, plus they are bundling some sweet games. I own a 680 BTW, so I'm not being biased.

#18 Edited by MonetaryDread (2007 posts) -

Main Response: Do not buy a card until after the PS4 / neXtbox come out. No matter what you buy it will be obsolete in a year.

Actual Response to your question: Buy two 660's; the 7970 is not fast enough to max out Crysis 3, and ATI, has the most awful multi-GPU scaling out there.

Look at that graph. Sure, lower is better, but I would rather have a consistent frame rate than one that jumps around like that.

Plus, look at the difference between the 680 and the 7970. The 680 costs less to operate, it a fuck-tonne quieter,has better graphics options, and performs better when there are multiple cards in a system. - but the 7970 comes with Crysis 3, Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite. So yeah. Probably just get a 7970 if you are only looking for one card.

#19 Posted by Samael2138 (232 posts) -

I'm running a 690 in my rig and I've yet to find many games that even begin to actually work the card, much less stress it. I haven't gotten Crysis 3 yet, but Crysis 2 runs as smooth as butter. Just like Battlefield 3, The Witcher 2, etc...., so I don't know if the Titan is really justifiable. I'd go with a 680 myself. I almost feel as if my current 690 is a bit overkill.

#20 Edited by MonetaryDread (2007 posts) -

I'm running a 690 in my rig and I've yet to find many games that even begin to actually work the card, much less stress it. I haven't gotten Crysis 3 yet, but Crysis 2 runs as smooth as butter. Just like Battlefield 3, The Witcher 2, etc...., so I don't know if the Titan is really justifiable. I'd go with a 680 myself. I almost feel as if my current 690 is a bit overkill.

Your 690 is not overkill. You paid too much for it, but that is the one PC config out right now that will still be able to play games in two years. While playing Crysis 3 I wish my 680 was about 5-10 fps faster.

#21 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

No. Buy whatever GPU will net you 60FPS in the games you desire at your resolution. The rest is wasted power. If a 670 will do, get that. If not, then a 680. Only if those don't meet your requirements should you invest in a 690 or Titan; FPS over 60 is wasted unless you have a monitor that refreshes faster than 60Hz. Put the money you save aside for either a) a 2nd GPU when you start to dip below your acceptable threshold, or b) a totally new GPU when it becomes prudent to do so.

#22 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4337 posts) -

Buy it, you won't have to worry about upgrading for years.

#23 Posted by Barrock (3525 posts) -

Do you have small man syndrome?

#24 Posted by LiquidPrince (15896 posts) -

If I were you I'd get a 7970 Ghz Edition. Very similar specs but half the price. The only big difference is the 6GBs of RAM vs 3GBs.

#25 Posted by Shivoa (618 posts) -

The Titan isn't for normal gamers. If you've got no use for the FP64 units (mainly for compute tasks, like that CUDA code you need to run for work) then you're paying well above the normal price/performance curve for transistors you won't use and support for tasks you don't plan to run (previous consumer GeForce cards have had an artificial limit on the FP64 performance applied via the drivers to avoid competing with the Tesla compute cards - this one does not and is only limited by data integrity like ECC RAM and does not scale up to use in many-GPU-machines like the Titan supercomputer cluster).

It's a way of buying a triple SLI machine with insane amounts of performance if money is no object, but I wouldn't say it was the best way. It's a way of getting a lot more GPU grunt out of a SFF PC (due to the blower design so 7970 GHz can't be used as that uses open cooling that makes for a harder fit for SFF cases) than you expect but you'd not being doing badly with games with a lesser card for a lot less. But mainly it is a gaming card that also allows strong FP64 compute performance and access to CUDA code. If you're not working on that then this is a hard sell. Sane people would buy a $500 card and then look at buying another $500 sometime in 2014-2015 and ending up with a more modern and faster card for the 2015-2016 era while spending the same amount of cash.

#26 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

Even if you have the money I would say no.. get some fancy clothes or whatever.

#27 Posted by Devildoll (877 posts) -

@liquidprince: while the 7970 is a great card.

You cant compare the two just of specs.
They are built by two different manufacturers, the cards are on different achitectures. the only time you can accurately compare graphics cards just by going of specs is when you compare a 7970 with another 7970, that has been overclocked, cause then you know that the ONLY thing that differs is the clockrate, and logically, the one with the higher clockspeed is going to be faster.

In this case, as with most other cases, What you have to do is look at actual game performance.The titan is alot faster than any single GPU out today for games.

when it comes to compute, the 7970 actually beats it in some stuff.

#28 Posted by Mars_Cleric (1593 posts) -

nah

#29 Posted by PerryVandell (2103 posts) -

No. When it comes to video cards (and this applies to other electronics as well), you reach a point of diminishing returns. Yes, the Titan is the most powerful card out there right now, but you don't generally get your money's worth when buying the best of the best. A GTX 670/680 should be more than fine, while saving you a hefty chunk of change in the process. It's your money, and I'm not going to tell you how to spend it. But I think you can get much more out of a grand than a really nice video card.

#30 Posted by andrewf87462 (553 posts) -

I suppose it's only worth getting the Titan if you are running at 2560x1440. My 3GB GTX 580 still plays everything at full settings, (running at 1920x1080), but they are more difficult to buy now, so I'd probably recommend at GTX 680.

#31 Edited by Bollard (5392 posts) -
#32 Edited by TheLegendOfMart (243 posts) -

Unless you are running 2560x1440 or triple monitors, no. GTX670/680 or AMD 7970 are fine for 1080p monitors.

#33 Edited by Corvak (968 posts) -

If you want to spend $1000 on a GPU, get a 690. It's got better performance than a titan, at the cost of a bit more power consumption. Titan only pulls ahead if you SLI it...and even then its pretty much theoretical performance since one will run everything outside of triple monitors on ultra w/ antialiasing on.

Right now the most performance/dollar is probably the 7870LE (which is basically a 7950) or the GTX 670. Also bear in mind that nvidia cards always seem to cost more than their AMD equivalents, so make sure the differences in drivers are worth it to you.

#34 Edited by FrankieSpankie (228 posts) -

I got really excited when I first saw the news too but you're better off just going with a 690.

#35 Edited by ShaggE (6399 posts) -

Titan nothing. Did you know there's a Voodoo TWO!?

#36 Posted by punkxblaze (2968 posts) -

@believer258: That sick impromptu rap earned you a follow.

#37 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

Buying brand new video card tech is a bad idea for your wallet

Just wait until the tech gets cheaper and buy one then.

#38 Edited by Tarsier (1057 posts) -

in a year those things will be obsolute

#39 Posted by MedalOfMode (294 posts) -

Buy A TITAN

#40 Posted by Stonyman65 (2655 posts) -

The question here that we need to know but nobody has asked yet is...

What resolution is your monitor and what are you playing the game at?

At a certain point, the difference between the $500 and the $350 dollar card isn't that much if you are only running 1920x1080.

Is the money really worth the 10% increase in performance and 5 more FPS?

#41 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

LOL no way, the ultra expensive cards are even that much of a difference, it just appeals to the PC gamer that needs the best even if that means spending an extra 500 dollars for 10% more graphics. But more importantly their isn't any reason to get a expensive GPU other than graphics which wears off within minutes if the game is bad, if having a Titan meant you could have bigger game worlds and more stuff going on that would be one thing but to spend that much on a card that gives you better textures and shadows is just bonkers in my opinion.

#42 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

Main Response: Do not buy a card until after the PS4 / neXtbox come out. No matter what you buy it will be obsolete in a year.

Actual Response to your question: Buy two 660's; the 7970 is not fast enough to max out Crysis 3, and ATI, has the most awful multi-GPU scaling out there.

Look at that graph. Sure, lower is better, but I would rather have a consistent frame rate than one that jumps around like that.

Plus, look at the difference between the 680 and the 7970. The 680 costs less to operate, it a fuck-tonne quieter,has better graphics options, and performs better when there are multiple cards in a system. - but the 7970 comes with Crysis 3, Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite. So yeah. Probably just get a 7970 if you are only looking for one card.

That looks so fake, look how evenly the spikes are spread out.

#43 Edited by MonetaryDread (2007 posts) -

@bourbon_warrior:

Unfortunately that is not fake. This screenshot is from a feature that is going around from a site called pc perspective. Pc Perspective Website The site used to have a focus on SSD's, but they are starting to redefine how video cards are tested.

Have you ever played a PC game where FRAPS says that you are getting 60+ fps in the game, and yet it still feels choppy? Well that is because of frame latency and video cards not outputting full frames on the screen. So PcPer.com is now abandoning FRAPS and is instead using a capture card to record the raw data being output to the monitor and assembling the images, then analyzing how many actual frames per second are being displayed.

As an example:

This is an image of Battlefield 3 running in SLI. You see that the yellow bar on the side represents one half of the frame, while the pink half shows the other, and you notice that where the two frames meet there is screen tearing going on. FRAPS counts this image as being 2 frames in your FPS counter.

Now, even though dual-7970's get a higher average-fps than two 680's, that is explained by this image below.

This is an example of two 7970's in crossfire. You will notice that there is a small pink line in between the grey and yellow bars. That is because that small pink line is actually a separate frame (like the two halves of the last image), and FRAPS is recording that sliver towards your FPS average count - even though all it does is make the image seem less smooth.

Compound these fragments with severe crossfire latency and you get this image.

That giant red block of graph displays the frame latency, combined with the extra useless frames of the 7970's in crossfire. Notice how the latency is spiking from 0ms to over 20ms. This is basically telling you that crossfire is inconsistent with its frame latency. It keeps jumping up and down creating the appearance of choppy, low frame-rate gaming, even though it is technically pushing out over 60fps.

#44 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

That card will be obsolete within a year or two. Get a card that isn't the equivalent of a whole gaming PC instead. I highly doubt it could be at all worth the money they ask.

#45 Edited by MonetaryDread (2007 posts) -

@thelegendofmart said:

Unless you are running 2560x1440 or triple monitors, no. GTX670/680 or AMD 7970 are fine for 1080p monitors.

Well now, that's just a silly statement. When it comes to recent video games a 680 or 7970 is not powerful enough to drive games like Hitman: Absolution, Crysis 3, Assasins Creed 3, the upcoming Tomb Raider or Bioshock Infinite at 1080p with very-high settings. The current gen of video cards are significantly less powerful than what you think they are capable of performing. That is why my original post said to completely avoid purchasing a card until after the new consoles have come out. Yet if money is not much of an issue, and you want a PC that will be able to play games at higher than 720p with all the graphical goodies turned up, you need a card like a Titan, or at minimum two 660ti's in SLI.

@shivoa said:

The Titan isn't for normal gamers. If you've got no use for the FP64 units (mainly for compute tasks, like that CUDA code you need to run for work) then you're paying well above the normal price/performance curve for transistors you won't use and support for tasks you don't plan to run (previous consumer GeForce cards have had an artificial limit on the FP64 performance applied via the drivers to avoid competing with the Tesla compute cards - this one does not and is only limited by data integrity like ECC RAM and does not scale up to use in many-GPU-machines like the Titan supercomputer cluster).

It's a way of buying a triple SLI machine with insane amounts of performance if money is no object, but I wouldn't say it was the best way. It's a way of getting a lot more GPU grunt out of a SFF PC (due to the blower design so 7970 GHz can't be used as that uses open cooling that makes for a harder fit for SFF cases) than you expect but you'd not being doing badly with games with a lesser card for a lot less. But mainly it is a gaming card that also allows strong FP64 compute performance and access to CUDA code. If you're not working on that then this is a hard sell. Sane people would buy a $500 card and then look at buying another $500 sometime in 2014-2015 and ending up with a more modern and faster card for the 2015-2016 era while spending the same amount of cash.

I agree with you on almost everything you say here. The only thing that I have to think about is that - now keep in mind this is totally anecdotal evidence - but I have been reading and hearing developers talk a lot about how the future of game graphics are intertwined with GPU computing. Just look at the new Tress-FX system that ATI has developed into the new Tomb Raider game. That is a real-world DirectCU application that is being implemented into gaming. Sure it is just being used for eye-candy, but I am cautious about how functional that system will be on the current 6xx line of Nvidia cards (because of their reduced GPGPU compute performance in comparison to ATI). At the moment, if someone is going to look at investing in computer hardware that is available now, and is still going to be viable a year from now, the Titan looks like a promising chipset. The only caveat is the price of the card in comparison to what you would be able to do with two 660ti's, or better yet, two 680's.

#46 Posted by Jrinswand (1698 posts) -
#47 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

wait for the 700's... 780 will be a beast. 770 will be what everyone buys

Actually. Is the titan the 780? I know 800's arent due until 2014 and they are next gen chips. 700's are just a refresh.

Don't tell people to wait unless the current generation sucks. And the 600 series is really awesome, as is the Titan. I don't think it's WORTH it, unless you really want to push multiple monitors or want a good rendering AND gaming rig (like me, I bet the titan is a beastly rendering platform with all that VRAM, and less optimizing down that the 600 series saw in particular capabilities), but never tell someone to wait. You'll just end up waiting forever because you always want to wait a little longer every time you see something cool. Just get something now, be happy with it, upgrade when you need it.

#48 Posted by Jace (1092 posts) -

@paulwade1984 said:

wait for the 700's... 780 will be a beast. 770 will be what everyone buys

Actually. Is the titan the 780? I know 800's arent due until 2014 and they are next gen chips. 700's are just a refresh.

Don't tell people to wait unless the current generation sucks. And the 600 series is really awesome, as is the Titan. I don't think it's WORTH it, unless you really want to push multiple monitors or want a good rendering AND gaming rig (like me, I bet the titan is a beastly rendering platform with all that VRAM, and less optimizing down that the 600 series saw in particular capabilities), but never tell someone to wait. You'll just end up waiting forever because you always want to wait a little longer every time you see something cool. Just get something now, be happy with it, upgrade when you need it.

Yeah, but the argument is that if you buy a 7xx series card you probably won't need another until the next console generation after the PS4.

#49 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@jace: Or you could wait for the next generation, the 800 series, which will bring a new architecture and new capabilities, instead of just being a bit faster. The cycle goes on and on. Get what you want when you want it, don't wait or you'll just be unhappy two months later when the next hottest shit is released.

#50 Posted by Jace (1092 posts) -

@jace: Or you could wait for the next generation, the 800 series, which will bring a new architecture and new capabilities, instead of just being a bit faster. The cycle goes on and on. Get what you want when you want it, don't wait or you'll just be unhappy two months later when the next hottest shit is released.

No, I think you missed my point and I'm not sure you fully understand how Nvidia products are released.

Not every new series of cards is the same leap ahead as the one before it. That is to say the difference between the 8800 series to the 2XX series was much wider than from the 2XX to the 4XX. This "gap" is determined by how advanced the architecture of the chip becomes over time.


So logically, in order to better future-proof your purchase, you want to buy when the gap will be largest. Which is why "ah fuck it impulse buy whenever" isn't always the best option.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.