Crack open your piggy banks as Nvidia just announced a new Titan that costs $100 per billion transistors:

Here's a chart that I stole from Neogaf that explains the differences (thanks, guy from Neogaf who probably stole it from somewhere else!)

Not terribly sure this is "best value" material (it's not), but maybe it's the first card that can do 4k @ 60FPS in every title with everything cranked up? I mean, 11 TFLOPS is a bit bananas, but if it's got any sort of overclocking headroom, it could be like two 1080s in one card.

So, who's got a cool $1200 burning a hole in their pocket?

(Also, why the hell did they just call it "Titan X" again? "Upgrade your Titan X to a Titan X today!")

EDIT: Oh shit, totally forgot: It's out August 2nd, so you might want to ask for some overtime.

@zurv I TOLD YOU

I wonder how many years that'd last for just playing in 1080p.

Should have shorted the Lira.

@ntm: All of them? Or, rather, once things move to new versions of DirectX/Vulcan/whatever and the old ones stop being supported, that's when you'd have to put this card out to pasture, unless Nvidia decides to toss support back from the new GTX 1400 or whatever. Up until DirectX 13 or Vulcan 2 becomes the new hotness, you'd probably be good to go.

Those are a lot of numbers that are higher than the other numbers present in other video cards.

@mirado: No, I didn't ask how good they were for 1080p, I said I wondered how long the new Titan X could last for 1080p.

Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they ask me to play something in 1080p. Call that job satisfaction? ‘Cos I don’t.

@sinusoidal: Point is, I don't really care to play with 4k or higher. That said, this was hypothetical, because it's not likely I'll get any of those, at least any time soon. As for the answer, no, it's not satisfying.

@ntm: If they continued supporting the drivers and you could continue putting it into newer motherboards so you could upgrade the other components of the computer then it has enough power to last for a decade or more. But chances are Nvidia will drop driver support before then and/or Microsoft will come out with a version of DirectX that is incompatible with some part of the card. But if the software and hardware allowed there would be nothing stopping that card from running games at 1080p until Intel figures out how to get dye sizes down below 10 nm, which considering it took them over a decade to get down to 16 nm I wouldn't count on the next jump happening any time soon, if ever.

That Mhz is lower than the 1080Mhz!

Eh. I'm not going to have the cash to build a computer to support this kind of card anytime soon, so I'll pass. Plus, I don't even have a 4K monitor, or even a 1440p one, so I wouldn't be able to take advantage of such a ridiculous card anyway. If I were building a computer this year, I'd probably go for a 1440p-focused build with a 1070.

Not paying that much for a video card even if I Hadn't just lost my job. I would have gotten a GTX 1060 but now I won't be able to buy anything not strictly necessary for me or my family to survive. At least I have a back log of PS2, PS3, Vita and PC games to last me a decade or more and I hope to get a new job long before then. Sucks to loose your job when your newborn child is not even 2 months old. But I'll do whatever it takes. My gaming PC from 2013 can easily play all games I have and since I won't be able to buy new ones anyway I guess that's enough. I just hope to have a job when Mass Effect comes out. I've always bought Mass Effect on day one.

So I'm guessing that it can play Minesweeper pretty well.

FLOPS = cores * core speed * (usually) 2.

Not exactly important without knowing the performance per core (which is good when talking about Pascal). GTX1080 vs Fury X is a good example of this. The 1080 is pretty much always faster, despite having fewer FLOPS.

Also, nice casual price bump (again).

@ntm said:

That's exactly what I said: my guess was that a Titan X could play games at 1080p for as long as games are still using an API that the card supports (although that may be optimistic and perhaps something concrete like seven years would be safer, as we haven't even really adopted DirectX 12 all that much yet, but whatever, let's run with it). I didn't give you any performance numbers, as you know a Titan X would be complete overkill, and would continue to be overkill until that day. 11 Teraflops won't allow the card a gradual decline; it'll be a monster and then fall off a cliff.

A first-gen Titan is now three and a half years old, produces 4.4 TFLOPS, and still busts 60 FPS on most titles. It still can hit near 60FPS or better on games like Battlefront, Arkham Knight (when that game isn't on fire, which is to say never), Mad Max, Rainbow Six: Siege, and The Witcher 3. The new Titan X is almost three times as powerful, FLOPS wise. It may never stop at 1080p because it can't keep up; it'll take a whole new, unsupported API to keep it from playing titles at 1080p at an acceptable framerate, or some sort of weird paradigm shift where 1080p stops being the dominate resolution and everyone lives in a 4k future.

Most (all?) games seem to require DirectX 11 now. If you had a GPU that only runs 10, it wouldn't matter how powerful it was, you couldn't run that game. Until such a thing happens to the new Titan X, it'll probably handle playing games at 1080p just fine.

(Granted, the most powerful GPU not to support DirectX 12 would be the GT680, which came out in 2012, and games still use DirectX 11, but perhaps DirectX 13 would be a crazy outlier that would cause rapid adoption? Just baseless, hypothetical speculation.)

Of course, I could be totally wrong, and we could see developers packing massive amounts of polygons at even medium detail levels to the point that even a Titan X would buckle at 1080p. However, with consoles lagging behind as they always have (Scorpio seems a bit "meh" now that I can have five more teraflops than their Holiday 2017 future project in my hands in two weeks), I doubt you'll see it.

@mirado: You're right, you did. Sorry. My eye became attached to 'all of them?' Thanks.

@ntm: Oh, no problem. It's all horseshit anyway; I've got no clue if things will actually pan out that way. Perhaps we'll get crazy real time global illumination via ray tracing which needs 30 TFLOPS or whatever to pull off (we've got clever voxel based stuff now but pfffff let's go all the way, right?) and that'll grind a card like this to dust at 1080p. Not a clue.

That's some crazy stuff! I think keeping the Titan X name was a bad idea and I can totally see people who don't keep up on this stuff as much as enthusiasts getting really confused. I think a Titan 2 or X2 would have been better. I guess the rumors and scuttlebutt about 1080TI is kind of out the window now... The stakes for AMD's upcoming high-end cards just got higher.

@stonyman65: the 1080Ti will still come like the 980Ti. Just a retweaked Titan X for gaming. It will probably be faster than a Titan X too that way since this one doesn't seem to be that impressive for gaming.

And yes for the Titan name! More cards need to be called things like Fury, Rage, TNT and Titan! Adding numbers (or just using numbers) is boring!

@gundogan: I dunno, I'm kinda done with 'gaming' stuff being called the Powerthruster XXX or the Nerve Gas Ti.

I want my next GPU to be called the Nvidia Alan.

Some people have too much money to spend on silly things like this.

I'd really love to have the money to spend on silly things like this.

I like the fan on that card. Not going anywhere near that but I can see how people with a lot of disposable income will have an excuse to go hog wild.

Well fuck, i just ordered a 1080 and the 1080ti is probably coming in a few months.

I did not expect this to drop THIS soon, i was expecting next year titan at least. I'm not spending 1200, but i def would consider the TI. Goddamnit made the same mistake again by going for the 80 lol.

I can't imagine what I would play on that thing that I can't play now. Like a new console with no games, I find there are no real killer apps for these new cards. Witcher 3 is one of the most impressive looking and demanding games I've played, but I didn't love it. I'm having trouble thinking of other games. A 4K monitor is something I'd get for viewing photos and scans, not for playing games. QHD is enough for me, gaming-wise.

It's not necessarily a mistake. You can always just resell your 1080 on Ebay if and when the Ti comes out. You'll probably make most if not all your money back doing that, since people seem bizarrely willing to pay damn near full price if not more for used hardware on Ebay.

I just bought1060 no plan to make a gaming PC about the price of this card so I Think I'll be passing on this for now...

TERAFLOPS

Whoa. That's a lot of teraflops. Pretty much has all of them.

Titan cards are never built for gaming anyways, so why bother druling over this? I'm waiting for the 1080ti to replace my 980ti.

Edit: A little sad that it doesn't use HBM as the Radeon cards, doesn't bode well for 1080ti.

Considering the original announcement was at a Machine Learning conference (ML does a lot of floating point math so tends to be offloaded to GPUs) this is way more targeted at hardcore programming shops doing AI work than gamers.

Yeah i dont think a titan is a gaming card, but this means the 1080ti is on the horizon sooner than later. If i had bought a 980ti i wouldnt even be grabbing a 1080 right now. 1200 seems steep even for a titan, i wonder will it have a founder edition as well? If the 1080ti comes in at 1000 then i'll be glad i passed on it.

@guanophobic: HBM is only limited to 4GB so not that interesting for new cards. HBM2 (up to 16GB) production has just started up, so I guess you can't expect cards with HBM2 just yet (end of the year if Vega or the 1080Ti comes out (if the chip even supports HBM2)?).

@gundogan: yeah, i meant HBM2