Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD Graphics Hardware Games

$3000 GeForce GTX TITAN Z Tested, Less Performance Than $1500 R9 295X2 151

Posted by Soulskill
from the spending-a-lot-of-green-for-team-green dept.
Vigile writes: NVIDIA announced its latest dual-GPU flagship card, the GeForce GTX Titan Z, at the GPU Technology Conference in late March with a staggering price point of $2999. Since that time, AMD announced and released the Radeon R9 295X2, its own dual-GPU card with a price tag of $1499. PC Perspective finally put the GTX Titan Z to the test and found that from a PC gamer's view, the card is way overpriced for the performance it offers. At both 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 (4K), the R9 295X2 offered higher and more consistent frame rates, sometimes by as much as 30%. The AMD card also only takes up two slots (though it does have a water cooling radiator to worry about) while the NVIDIA GTX Titan Z is a three-slot design. The Titan Z is quieter and uses much less power, but gamers considering a $1500 or $3000 graphics card selection are likely not overly concerned with power efficiency.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

$3000 GeForce GTX TITAN Z Tested, Less Performance Than $1500 R9 295X2

Comments Filter:
  • 3000? (Score:2, Informative)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @07:59PM (#47207677) Homepage Journal

    Gamers spending 3000 on a video card aren't overly burdened with intelligence.

  • Re:So glad it's over (Score:5, Informative)

    by crioca (1394491) on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @08:00PM (#47207687)

    I'm so glad that I got the gaming bug out of my system when a ridiculously-priced video card was $300, and mainstream cards were in the $90-160 range... This is ridiculous.

    That's still pretty much the case; the difference today is that some people make, or try to make, their living off playing & broadcasting their gameplay. This means they need to be able to run the latest games at the highest specs, record and livestream all at the same time without missing a beat.

  • Re:Wrong tests (Score:4, Informative)

    by sshir (623215) on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @08:31PM (#47207867)
    Result of Nvidia's crippling DP floating point performance on mainstream graphic cards is people started to look for ways around this bullshit.

    Case in point: linear algebra libraries (like 80% of scientific computing). Basically people are modifying algorithms so that bulk of computation is done in single precision and then cleaned up in double. Those mixed mode algorithms often outperform pure DP ones even on non crippled cards (for example MAGMA library).

    People don't like to be screwed with...

  • Re:Wrong premise (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nemyst (1383049) on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @09:42PM (#47208265) Homepage
    Um, no, if Nvidia didn't want that, they wouldn't give the Titans full double-precision performance in the first place. I'm thinking that aside from getting a few sales from overenthusiastic gamers, their main motivation for marketing this as a gaming card is so their compute customers don't stop buying Teslas.
  • Re:So glad it's over (Score:4, Informative)

    by TapeCutter (624760) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @12:20AM (#47209029) Journal
    That's kind of what they do. Not sure about other cards but Nvidia cards handle compatibility with something called compute capability [slashdot.org]. A developer then makes the trade-off that will land somewhere between....

    Extreme compatibility -- work on all nvidia cards and use none of the new hardware features.
    Extreme performance -- work on only the latest cards and use all of the latest hardware features.

    Nobody is buying $3K cards to play video games, they are using them to solve engineering problems, video games are just a convenient way to benchmark performance that is easily understood by laymen.
  • AMD fp64 rate (Score:4, Informative)

    by ponos (122721) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @08:56AM (#47211281)

    I would just like to point out that the 295X2 has superior absolute gaming performance and superior fp32 performance but, just like most gaming NVidia products, the fp64 is crippled at 1/8 fp32 rate at configuration in order to create a profit margin for the costlier "pro" products. The hardware itself is capable of 1/2 fp64 rate and should be superior to the Titan Z if AMD decides to offer "pro-level support".

    As proof, consider the fp64 rate of the single-chip AMD W9100, sold at ~$4000, which is 2.6 TFlops (http://www.amd.com/Documents/FirePro_W9100_Data_Sheet.pdf), versus the 2.7 TFlops of the Titan Z (1/3 fp32 rate, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]). AMD could unlock the 295X2 at its full potential 5.2 double precision TFlops and release it any day if they want, crushing the Titan Z.

    Honestly, instead of the Titan Z, I'd rather buy the AMD W9100 for $4000 and get equivalent double precision compute rate, better perf/W and, most importanty, certification for pro applications and ECC memory. That is certainly worth the extra $1000 in this product segment.

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Working...