Nvidia GeForce Titan: supercomputer GPU power for the 1%

I think more people should just do what I do and save themselves the grief...

buy used.

Seriously, I bought a 3 month old HD7970 for $250, a card that still goes for $400-$500 new. Nothing wrong with it, terrific performance Crysis 3 blah blah blah. I don't play the "who's got the shiniest, fastest and soon to be bested graphics card" game anymore. I look at my desired performance window, and then seek out a preowned unit for nowhere near retail price.

Looking back I haven't bought a brand new graphics card in probably 5 years.

What a waste of time and money. An overclocked 670 outperforms a 680 even a moderately overclocked 680. Two of them are better than a 690 and MUCH cheaper. All you really pay for here is the 6GB of VRAM. PC games are so badly made now, they are worthless console ports, if PC gaming wasn't such a joke and the card was 300-400 dollars cheaper then sure but over $900 for what..nothing........a fool and his money...........

For a single monitor or tv running in 1080p, yes this is over kill, hell, a 670 or 7950 is still a bit too much for that resolution. But a lot of gamers have been going to multi-monitor gaming setups or high resolutions monitors at 1440p or 1600p. At extremely high resolutions they need this much horse power when they power 3 monitors at 2560 x 1600 each.

Captain Obvious has now liked my post.

Would you care to explain how my post was unrelated? It seems to me you were stating that your 670 was somehow superior to a 660 Ti SLI setup?

If you want the game to look as good as possible, a 670 or 7950 really aren't. If you want to crank anti-aliasing all the way up at 1080p and maintain 60fps - you need a 680, 7970, or SLI. In some cases (like Crysis 3) a Titan can't even provide the performance.

IMHO, I think the Titan is about one-upping AMD on the compute front and nothing more. Mainstream Kepler can't compete with AMD's GCN in compute, so they release Titan ... which is a fully unrestricted Kepler.

If you look at benchmark results a 7950 and 670 just about max everything or close to it at 1920 X 1080. 1080p is small chips. There might be a few cases like Crysis 3 but that game makes any GPU work hard. If you need SLi for playing at a measly 1080p then your cards are weak. 670's and 7950's effortlessy overclock to be as fast, sometimes faster then a 680/7970 so that comment doesn't hold any water. Even in stock vs stock form they are only 5-15 FPS behind anyways.
If you look at the review on this site about bargain eyefinity, you will see SLi GTX660Ti's beating a 680/7970 by only 5-15FPS in many games. Thats pitiful, my 670 Windforce 3X is faster then a stock 680/7970.
My 670 plays Crysis 2 @ 1600p 4X/4X PhysX+DX11+Highres Textures on very high locked at 60 FPS(Ultra and Extreme textures push me into the 30's), and will completely max out games like BF3 and Borderlands 2 @ 1600p locked at 60FPS.

^^^^ You would need to define "completely max". Full screen antialiasing tends to take a toll on any card- the sheer size of the render is enough to saturate the framebuffer and internal bandwidth of pretty much any card.
Note the Super sampling benchmarks:
Alan Wake (DX9)
The Witcher (DX9)
Far Cry 3 (DX11)
Even multi sampling can provide less than satisfactory framerates- Hitman Absolution being a prime example ( here and here ), and with gaming devs now looking at the everything-including-the-kitchen-sink approach to post process effects, I'd doubt that upcoming games such as Metro: Last Light for example are going to reverse the trend of shrinking framerate under fully maxed conditions.

If this is 1% power of supercomputer Titan, then they should upgrade the the supercomputer with a 100 of these instead of the 18000 gfx cards at the moment