Titan X Announced

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dangerman1337

Senior member
Sep 16, 2010
333
5
81
That's why I doubt the price will be $999. At that price it's more appealing than two 980s. At the current pricing of the 980 the Titan X almost HAS to be at least 1200-1300.
Well if Nvidia were to drop the 980 price by a bit (like 50$) the Titan X at 999 USD it would not conflict with that price point as it would be up to customers to decide between performance with SLI or something more stable and have possibly slightly better DP performance than the Titan Black. Though I fear 1350 USD will be the price point as that could point towards Nvidia raising the price of things in general. I know the GM200 is a bigger chip than the GK110 but 28nm has matured and wafers have lowered in price IIRC and it'll be 600mm2 (1.53x398mm2 based on transistor count) which is not much bigger. I think that Nvidia will release a 985/990 GM200, probably in the summer to counteract AMD's 300 series at at 550 and 700 USD (former being cut down and the later being the full GM200 with 6GB VRAM and severely cut down DP performance) and the 980 will be 400 USD (and a very small 970 price drop) by then and cover the varying price points.
 
Last edited:

gradoman

Senior member
Mar 19, 2007
881
538
136
That's why I doubt the price will be $999. At that price it's more appealing than two 980s. At the current pricing of the 980 the Titan X almost HAS to be at least 1200-1300.

That's what I'm thinking as well. $999 is just too cheap -- if the performance is a lot better than a single 980.
 

Cloudfire777

Golden Member
Mar 24, 2013
1,787
95
91
GTX Titan X, hopefully mainly aimed for gaming and single precision which Maxwell is known for. Have 12GB VRAM to market it as true 4K card and ready for virtual reality. But then again, could have a lot of FP64 cores as well to sell more cards.

Quadro M6000, the choice for those who want computation. Like GTX Titan X, it will also have 3072 cores and 12GB VRAM.
http://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2015/01/NVIDIA-GM200-QUADRO-M6000.png

GM200 is only slightly bigger than GK110, so they can tops fit in 26MMs. Meaning GTX Titan X will be the best they can offer until Pascal is here in 2016. We might see a cheaper GTX 980 Ti card with 26SMM when AMD release their R9 390X.
 
Last edited:

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,108
1,260
126
If the card has disabled units, as I expect it will, we can potentially expect to see 1.5GB of the 12GB that operates like the 500MB crippled VRAM on the 970. I'd expect nvidia not to bother concealing that this time though and it not to have much effect on performance. 12GB is beyond sanity of what you need for gaming. 6GB would be ample for any use case. Maybe three 4K monitors in surround would push beyond that.
 

DooKey

Golden Member
Nov 9, 2005
1,811
458
136
I'm in for two if the price is $999 each. Can't wait to upgrade my Swift to a 4k G-sync model and really go to town gaming.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
14,806
5,431
136
Wow, I didn't know that NV was skipping Maxwell as a Tesla card. Thanks for the info.

If NV stripped Big Maxwell of its GPGPU goodies and just makes a straight up gaming chip, but huge, it would be a big departure from their past three generations... but it should be a beastly performer.

It makes sense. nVidia had to scrap the 20 nm versions of Maxwell they were working on so the Big Maxwell DP-focused chip was one of the casualties.

Tend to agree on the $1350 speculation. Maybe they will release a cut down version with 6 GB later for $999.
 

Railgun

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2010
1,289
2
81
Tend to agree on the $1350 speculation. Maybe they will release a cut down version with 6 GB later for $999.

Retail or not, all else being equal, I can't see a $350 difference for just 6GB of memory. That just doesn't make sense.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
If the card has disabled units, as I expect it will, we can potentially expect to see 1.5GB of the 12GB that operates like the 500MB crippled VRAM on the 970. I'd expect nvidia not to bother concealing that this time though and it not to have much effect on performance. 12GB is beyond sanity of what you need for gaming. 6GB would be ample for any use case. Maybe three 4K monitors in surround would push beyond that.

I highly, highly doubt they'll do that this time around. I also don't expect there to be disabled SMMs.

If they do have disabled SMMs, they do not have to disable ROPs and the accompanied block of L2 cache.
Or if they feel it is so necessary to disable a ROP/L2 block, then they should not introduce a crosslink with the neighboring ROP/L2/MC chain in the shared partition. This cuts out an entire segment of VRAM, but it entirely slashes the potential for a forced period of low-bandwidth memory throughput.

They either have die issues during production that causes some disabled ROP/L2 blocks, or they intentionally disabled that. If it simply happens and they need to use the chips, they should preferably go a step further and simply prevent unnecessary performance issues with a partitioned small block of VRAM by disabling access to that one block of VRAM entirely. Or if they want more round numbers or whatever, disable an entire partition. Then the final card has 5GB (or 10GB) of full speed memory, and no slow partition to cause performance degradation.

I don't think the Titan X will have any disabled ROPs. If they are having chip issues that may force them to have disabled ROPs in another product, I think they'll release a cut-down 980 Ti or a 985/990, and save a fully-functioning GM200 to one-up that some time later. And I think the best strategy to save face is again, disable an entire ROP/L2/MC partition and release a 5GB card, with 2x512MB blocks of VRAM completely inaccessible.

Having a max VRAM limit is better than having a soft-limit that, once crossed, degrades all performance. A max VRAM limit won't have such performance degradation.

If the full GM200 is 24 SMMs, then perhaps a cut-down model has 20 SMMs, in which case, dropping an ROP/L2/MC partition would bring down max performance by 16 pixels/clock, to 80 from 96. If it has 20 SMMs, that is the absolute limit it could produce anyway, so the extra is unnecessary. Plus, that part will STILL have superior performance to the 980, and would carry a 320bit memory interface. They could even later release a 10GB model if they so chose, and in an effort to cut costs, could produce PCBs that actually only had 10 RAM chips instead of 12. Something tells me they wouldn't actually go that route though, so that the PCB could be utilized for a full GM200 as well.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,108
1,260
126
I'm expecting what we saw with GK110. Titan X will have one disabled SM, then we see another card with 3 disabled SMs and then we see the full chip in another card. Released in that order. The alternate to that is Titan X is a full chip and there is a cut down version lacking likely 2 SMs. I think the former is more likely because it will get more mileage out of the chip and you'd expect to see two versions that don't fall under the titan moniker, i.e.; 780ti & 780.

Reviewers are already getting the cards so I think it will release before the month is out or first week of April. They'll have to fill the rest of this year and whatever amount of time next year with products until there is a viable 16nm process to do a new lineup on.
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
They are executing exactly like last time. Mid range 960 ti -> named 980, high end coming out first as Titan to swim in profit, and likely a little later on as the 980/1080 ti. This might depend on how the 390x performs and rolls out.

I will be surprised if the first titan isn't cut down. I doubt they will do any memory hacks like in the 970 though (they didn't say that they won't, only that they won't hide it). Unless the next process node is a lot closer than we think, I think they'll milk out the releases again (both AMD & NV).

The biggest difference is that this time the titan sounds like a normal consumer GPU if it's missing the fp64 DP, with a huge price tag.
 

nvgpu

Senior member
Sep 12, 2014
629
202
81
GTX 980M has 1536 CUDA cores enabled but it has full 256bit memory bus.

Stop with the GTX 970 memory config posts, it's not relevant at all to this thread.
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
Read the post and get the full context. I expect titan to be a cut down chip, just like the original titan. How they will handle the crossbar resources to the memory system is a question if it is cut down. Now everyone will be wanting the details if it's not a conventional memory configuration.

(Ah, missed the M)
 

nvgpu

Senior member
Sep 12, 2014
629
202
81
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/...cting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/2

When it comes to the ROP/MC partitions then, we can see first-hand in the GTX 970 what’s new in the architecture. In Kepler and previous generation designs, NVIDIA’s granularity for disabling ROP/MC partitions was all or nothing – either the entire partition was turned on or the entire partition was turned off. However starting with Maxwell, NVIDIA has gained the ability to disable the individual ROP/L2 units within a partition, allowing one of the two ROP/L2 units to be disabled. This essentially introduces a 3rd possible option: a partially-enabled ROP/MC partition, backed by two memory controllers and a single ROP/L2 unit
Ryan already explained it there.

Nvidia tried something new with the GTX 970, but unfortunately people are emotional and don't think with their brains, so yeah, whatever. No doubt Nvidia won't do it again, too much grief from ignorant people returning perfectly working fine cards.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
GTX 980M has 1536 CUDA cores enabled but it has full 256bit memory bus.

Stop with the GTX 970 memory config posts, it's not relevant at all to this thread.

Yep, the 980M is essentially a 970 with one more SMM disabled, yet it has full ROP/L2/MC configuration without any of it disabled.

I don't know if the 970 chips were set aside with failed parts or if they were intentionally disabled just because. I would rather have the 980M with desktop-grade memory configuration (as opposed to the slower memory utilized in the mobile spec), than the chopped up 970.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/...cting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/2

Ryan already explained it there.

Nvidia tried something new with the GTX 970, but unfortunately people are emotional and don't think with their brains, so yeah, whatever. No doubt Nvidia won't do it again, too much grief from ignorant people returning perfectly working fine cards.

The issue is access to that partition is all or nothing as Ryan noted. If that partition is accessed, the entire memory operation is at the limited bandwidth and only to that block. Only when that block is not accessed can the GPU resume accessing the main VRAM blocks at full bandwidth.

It is in everyone's best interest to not have to deal with a card with such a configuration. It's nice to have granularity, but it introduces performance degradation, so it's best to disable that entire L2/MC chain and not have that last VRAM block, and not tie two MC's to the same L2 and ROP pair.

People aren't emotional, people don't like a) being lied to, and b) suffering performance degradation that shouldn't occur in the first place. If the card was strictly a 3.5GB card and that last 512MB block was inaccessible, it would perform better, full stop. It's that cut and dry.

Either Nvidia did not expect that to be a presentable issue, or they tried to get away with it. I suspect a little of both, and hoped to prevent any true issue with clever driver operations, but that couldn't work forever.
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
Yep, the 980M is essentially a 970 with one more SMM disabled, yet it has full ROP/L2/MC configuration without any of it disabled.

I don't know if the 970 chips were set aside with failed parts or if they were intentionally disabled just because. I would rather have the 980M with desktop-grade memory configuration (as opposed to the slower memory utilized in the mobile spec), than the chopped up 970.

Thanks for the info, and I agree I'd take that too.

The most interesting thing will be to see the performance but I think the range is pretty predictable at this point.
 

SimianR

Senior member
Mar 10, 2011
609
16
81
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/...cting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/2

Ryan already explained it there.

Nvidia tried something new with the GTX 970, but unfortunately people are emotional and don't think with their brains, so yeah, whatever. No doubt Nvidia won't do it again, too much grief from ignorant people returning perfectly working fine cards.

There's nothing wrong with the memory allocation, it's the fact that they weren't up front about it and only revealed this info months after release.
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
Nvidia tried something new with the GTX 970, but unfortunately people are emotional and don't think with their brains, so yeah, whatever. No doubt Nvidia won't do it again, too much grief from ignorant people returning perfectly working fine cards.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

CNFS
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,108
1,260
126
If the titan x does contain a chip with disabled units there will not be any mystery behind the configuration. There are sure to be enough reviewers who immediately have the same question and ask nvidia if the card has a crippled portion of memory like the 970. I think the earlier idea, that if the chip in titan x is cut down, they will disable a full block to avoid using the same sub-optimal memory system on the 970 is likely.

Alternately if you look at the diagram for the 970's design in the articles exposing the memory issue; perhaps they could leave all the blocks of L2 cache and memory controllers enabled and just disable an SM or two.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |