Nvidia launches new performance king, the $1,200 Titan Xp graphics card

[Shawn Knight]

Nvidia on Thursday launched a new version of its flagship consumer graphics card. The Titan Xp, which replaces last year’s Titan X, carries the same $1,200 price tag albeit with a bit more performance on tap (at least, on paper).

The Titan Xp packs a full-fat Pascal GP102 GPU featuring 3,840 CUDA cores with 12 TFLOPS of theoretical throughput (the Titan X and the GTX 1080 Ti have just 3,584 cores) and a boost clock of 1,582MHz (up from 1,531MHz). The 12GB of GDDR5X RAM (11.4 Gbps) has a 384-bit memory interface width and 547.7GB/s of bandwidth.

The card carries the same 250W thermal envelope as its predecessor. You’ll need one 8-pin power connector and a 6-pin connector (in addition to what it draws from the PCIe slot, of course).

The new Titan Xp will no doubt be the new performance king. Nvidia says it generates up to three times faster performance compared to the Titan X (the 2015 Maxwell variant) but isn’t offering any hard numbers otherwise. For that, we’ll have to wait until the benchmarks start pouring in.

Nvidia also said today that it will have new beta Pascal drivers for MacOS next week. It’s worth noting that said drivers will enable support for all GTX 10-series video cards, not just the new Titan Xp.

The Titan Xp is available as of writing directly from Nvidia for $1,200 (limit two per customer). Your move, AMD.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/68840-nvidia-launches-new-performance-king-1200-titan-xp.html

 

[davislane1]

1080ti for life.

 

[ZackL04]

Jesus, Nvidia just creating monsters

 

[Steve]

Titan XpP to have 4096 CUDA cores. Makes regular visits to the toilet.

 

[Evernessince]

I don't get why they didn't wait till Vega released. Nvidia releasing a card right after AMD released their next big thing has always been a good marketing move in my opinion.

Doing it like this...with that price is kinda of like letting a wet fart out with everyone next to you.

 

[mrjgriffin]

Who wants to bet amd will now delay vega in hopes to top this new line up from nvidia? any takers?

 

[Squid Surprise]

I don't get why they didn't wait till Vega released. Nvidia releasing a card right after AMD released their next big thing has always been a good marketing move in my opinion.

Doing it like this...with that price is kinda of like letting a wet fart out with everyone next to you.

Last year's Titan was basically rendered obsolete by the 1080ti.... This gives people a reason to spend $1200 again.... Because scarily, the Titan series tends to sell out...

Vega is not really relevant at this price point - AMD will be competing with the 1080/1080ti.... Hopefully....

 

[Evernessince]

Who wants to bet amd will now delay vega in hopes to top this new line up from nvidia? any takers?

No point, AMD doesn't need to beat this new Titan Xp as they don't have a reputation of being the market leader in performance. What I expect AMD to do is to release a product that is competitive with either the 1080 or 1080 Ti at a good price.

It's not like they can just delay a card and suddenly add a bunch of performance. It takes a long time to get GPUs into production and unless you are just re-enabling core, like what Nvidia did here, it is far too late in the cycle for AMD to make big design changes.

 

[Evernessince]

Last year's Titan was basically rendered obsolete by the 1080ti.... This gives people a reason to spend $1200 again.... Because scarily, the Titan series tends to sell out...

Vega is not really relevant at this price point - AMD will be competing with the 1080/1080ti.... Hopefully....

In this case though: they released the Titan X Pascal, which was touted as their best, and then released the 1080 Ti, which was touted as their best, and now this the Titan Xp, which is being touted as their best. Nvidia knows they have these cards, they just like kicking their customers in the balls.

 

[madboyv1]

So, a faster Quadro P6000 for a fraction of the cost and consumer specific drivers. Just... wow... That's a lot of horsepower.

 

[Squid Surprise]

In this case though: they released the Titan X Pascal, which was touted as their best, and then released the 1080 Ti, which was touted as their best, and now this the Titan Xp, which is being touted as their best. Nvidia knows they have these cards, they just like kicking their customers in the balls.

The 1080ti isn't better than last year's Titan x.... But it's almost as good and half the price.... By releasing this card, Nvidia gives you a reason to spend big money - and people will pay...

Nvidia really had no reason to release the 1080ti so early.... All it did was kill their old Titan x (which I assume they didn't have much in stock) and force them to reduce the price on their own pretty awesome 1080. If I had been them, I'd have waited for Vega and then released this card along with the 1080ti to crush AMD....

I wonder if maybe they think Vega will actually compete with them - so want to get the jump on them early....

 

[ScubaRhys]

Last year's Titan was basically rendered obsolete by the 1080ti.... This gives people a reason to spend $1200 again.... Because scarily, the Titan series tends to sell out...

Vega is not really relevant at this price point - AMD will be competing with the 1080/1080ti.... Hopefully....

In this case though: they released the Titan X Pascal, which was touted as their best, and then released the 1080 Ti, which was touted as their best, and now this the Titan Xp, which is being touted as their best. Nvidia knows they have these cards, they just like kicking their customers in the balls.

Of corse Nvidia know what they are going to release a few months down the line. Do you expect them to announce the Titan Xp and say "this isn't the best card we are going to make, we are planning on releasing more powerful cards in the future but here you go!"

I don't understand why people get so worked up when companies release newer, faster hardware. We're you not expecting another card out of Nvidia or something mate? Oh and spoiler alert, Nvidia will probably release another more powerful card next year. Maybe even this year!

As for AMD, I would say he same rule applies to them. But they didn't actually release a better card last year. In fact they still haven't been able to match the 2015 980ti. I should probably warn you though, AMD are likely to be releasing their best card ever soon. But savvy tech fans like me will give you the scoop, AMD will release another card, probably next year and it will be faster again. Chances are they probably already have it in development, those bastards huh!

 

[Lurker101]

As much as I want one, I'm going to hold out and wait for Titan 7

 

[DDG4005]

I can't speak to the price but at last this card's GPU has all of its CUDA cores enabled. If I didn't already have Maxwell-era Titan X cards in my boxes, and I had the money, I'd buy two so that I wouldn't have to upgrade for awhile.

 

[dirtyferret]

Titan XpP to have 4096 CUDA cores. Makes regular visits to the toilet.

$1200, I'll grab two in case the first one dies out on me or I need a GPU in my work PC to so I can read emails on two monitors at once.

Out of curiosity, does anyone in the PC review industry ever call out the video card manufacturers / game developer symbiotic relationships of generating "artificial" demand in the PC gaming marketplace.

For example; something as simple as changing AA from MSAA to SSAA can have a big hit on GPU demands yet have little noticeable impact on the game itself for the majority of people. Yet this change will demand a higher performance GPU to play at the "Ultra Level" and therefore creating demand for new & better video cards on games with a graphic engine based on 3-D models with little to no improvements from 3-4 years ago (after all these games also need to wok on an xbox & playstation console). Extended shadows, lighting, water & ground clutter can also have similar results just by moving their performance just one notch in video settings.

A perfect example of this on the GPU side is the Nvidia 970 3.5GB, launched in fall 2014 it was the PC gamers choice. The GTX 1060 3GB launched in fall 2016 offering the same ballpark performance is now lauded as slow, memory gimped (-.5 GB will do that to you) and the dreaded "not future proofed" even if it outperforms the AMD 470 4GB in the majority of tests at 1080p and only trails the 1060 6GB by 5-10% in most games; because gaming at 50 FPS is easy as a day at the beach but gaming at 45-47 FPS is the definition of a day of back breaking labor!

 

[meric]

I find this strange. Isn't this the second pascal based titan? 2 titans in the same arch, within less than 1 year? Titans users may be feeling betrayed

 

[ddferrari]

I find this strange. Isn't this the second pascal based titan? 2 titans in the same arch, within less than 1 year? Titans users may be feeling betrayed

Betrayed? Like Nvidia gave them a forever promise ring or something?

The release of this card in no way affects the other Titan's performance, which is stellar by any standards. The fact that they share the same name doesn't really matter; if Nvidia decided to launch this as a brand new model called The Giant or whatever, it would be business as usual. People have to accept that there will always be something better out soon, regardless of its name.

They are re-releasing some 10 series cards with their new 11Gbps GDDR5X memory, too. That's just the way it goes.

 

[theBest11778]

Titan XpP to have 4096 CUDA cores. Makes regular visits to the toilet.

$1200, I'll grab two in case the first one dies out on me or I need a GPU in my work PC to so I can read emails on two monitors at once.

Out of curiosity, does anyone in the PC review industry ever call out the video card manufacturers / game developer symbiotic relationships of generating "artificial" demand in the PC gaming marketplace.

For example; something as simple as changing AA from MSAA to SSAA can have a big hit on GPU demands yet have little noticeable impact on the game itself for the majority of people. Yet this change will demand a higher performance GPU to play at the "Ultra Level" and therefore creating demand for new & better video cards on games with a graphic engine based on 3-D models with little to no improvements from 3-4 years ago (after all these games also need to wok on an xbox & playstation console). Extended shadows, lighting, water & ground clutter can also have similar results just by moving their performance just one notch in video settings.

A perfect example of this on the GPU side is the Nvidia 970 3.5GB, launched in fall 2014 it was the PC gamers choice. The GTX 1060 3GB launched in fall 2016 offering the same ballpark performance is now lauded as slow, memory gimped (-.5 GB will do that to you) and the dreaded "not future proofed" even if it outperforms the AMD 470 4GB in the majority of tests at 1080p and only trails the 1060 6GB by 5-10% in most games; because gaming at 50 FPS is easy as a day at the beach but gaming at 45-47 FPS is the definition of a day of back breaking labor!

Nvidia caught hell for tr GTX 970 since it was marketed at a 4gb card (they also lost in court over this.) fast forward 2 years later and releasing a card with similar performance and LESS VRAM was just dumb. Games of 2016 clearly preferred more VRAM for higher textures (see gears of war 4 here on Techspot.) as for the RX 470, I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but it easily trounces the 3gb 1060 I'm most titles and is faster than the 6gb model in several (most titles they're close.) so faster, with a full 4gb VRAM, lower price... Please tell me again why the 1060 3gb was a good idea?

 

[Squid Surprise]

Nvidia caught hell for tr GTX 970 since it was marketed at a 4gb card (they also lost in court over this.) fast forward 2 years later and releasing a card with similar performance and LESS VRAM was just dumb. Games of 2016 clearly preferred more VRAM for higher textures (see gears of war 4 here on Techspot.) as for the RX 470, I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but it easily trounces the 3gb 1060 I'm most titles and is faster than the 6gb model in several (most titles they're close.) so faster, with a full 4gb VRAM, lower price... Please tell me again why the 1060 3gb was a good idea?

Cause it performs pretty close to it's competitor, is far more power efficient and sells like hotcakes?

 

[dirtyferret]

Nvidia caught hell for tr GTX 970 since it was marketed at a 4gb card (they also lost in court over this.) fast forward 2 years later and releasing a card with similar performance and LESS VRAM was just dumb. Games of 2016 clearly preferred more VRAM for higher textures (see gears of war 4 here on Techspot.) as for the RX 470, I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but it easily trounces the 3gb 1060 I'm most titles and is faster than the 6gb model in several (most titles they're close.) so faster, with a full 4gb VRAM, lower price... Please tell me again why the 1060 3gb was a good idea?

Obviously failed to see the purpose of my post

"Games of 2016 clearly preferred more VRAM for higher textures" - my point was the tricks of the trade Nvidia/AMD pushes developers in order to create artificial demand for video cards.

"RX 470, I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but it easily trounces the 3gb 1060 is faster than the 6gb model in several (most titles they're close.) so faster, with a full 4gb VRAM, lower price..." not sure if your a blind AMD fanboy but here is a reality check from the largest PC gaming mag in the UL (not a youtube blogger post).
https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2016/11/28/gigabyte-gtx-1060-windforce-oc-3gb/1
six games
@1080p the 1060 3GB clearly beats the AMD 470 in one game and has a marginal lead in three other games. The 1060 6GB only increases the lead in those games. The AMD 470 is only faster in two games, Doom and Deus Ex.
So you are wrong in the AMD 470 trouncing the GTX 1060 3B
You are wrong in the GTX 470 being faster then the GTX 1060 6GB
Do you see the pattern of you being wrong a lot?

"Please tell me again why the 1060 3gb was a good idea"
At launch the GTX 1060 6GB and AMD 4GB & 8GB sky rocketed to prices over $250. You could pick up the GTX 160 3B or AMD 470 4GB for under $200 at their launches. Using facts rather then Hyperbole, the STEAM survey lets you see half of all PC gamers are on 1080p monitors. 25% percent are on 720p resolution monitors and only 6% of gamers use a monitor over 1080p so those cards along with the 1050ti and AMD 460 (even if those cards don't have a chip that can use all the RAM they come with) fill what the business world likes to call a market segment.

Now no need to thank me for educating you on PC hardware and if you plan to have a fanboy fit; well you should re-read the bit-tech article again and see this video again.

 

[theBest11778]

Obviously failed to see the purpose of my post

"Games of 2016 clearly preferred more VRAM for higher textures" - my point was the tricks of the trade Nvidia/AMD pushes developers in order to create artificial demand for video cards.

"RX 470, I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but it easily trounces the 3gb 1060 is faster than the 6gb model in several (most titles they're close.) so faster, with a full 4gb VRAM, lower price..." not sure if your a blind AMD fanboy but here is a reality check from the largest PC gaming mag in the UL (not a youtube blogger post).
https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2016/11/28/gigabyte-gtx-1060-windforce-oc-3gb/1
six games
@1080p the 1060 3GB clearly beats the AMD 470 in one game and has a marginal lead in three other games. The 1060 6GB only increases the lead in those games. The AMD 470 is only faster in two games, Doom and Deus Ex.
So you are wrong in the AMD 470 trouncing the GTX 1060 3B
You are wrong in the GTX 470 being faster then the GTX 1060 6GB
Do you see the pattern of you being wrong a lot?

"Please tell me again why the 1060 3gb was a good idea"
At launch the GTX 1060 6GB and AMD 4GB & 8GB sky rocketed to prices over $250. You could pick up the GTX 160 3B or AMD 470 4GB for under $200 at their launches. Using facts rather then Hyperbole, the STEAM survey lets you see half of all PC gamers are on 1080p monitors. 25% percent are on 720p resolution monitors and only 6% of gamers use a monitor over 1080p so those cards along with the 1050ti and AMD 460 (even if those cards don't have a chip that can use all the RAM they come with) fill what the business world likes to call a market segment.

Now no need to thank me for educating you on PC hardware and if you plan to have a fanboy fit; well you should re-read the bit-tech article again and see this video again.

Try checking out some updated benchmarks (They change over time.) http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1080_ti_review,14.html Even that's a month old, but better than citing 5 month old benchmarks. In every game released in 2016-present the RX 470 is virtually tied with the GTX 1060 6GB (they don't even bother benchmarking the 3GB version anymore,) or well ahead. Games like Far Cry Primal, GTA V, Witcher 3 are clear Nvidia wins, but they're older titles. When buying a card today you need to look at trends, therefore more recent benchmarks, and more recent titles should be the primary focus. Also considering the RX 470 can be had for as little as $120 http://www.gamersnexus.net/sales/2864-gpu-sales-rx-470-rx-480-gtx-1080 and it's also a 120w TDP card makes it a clear winner against the 1060 3GB, while also being a much better investment than a 1060 6GB. Not to mention you can actually crossfire the cards if you want to. You know the whole options thing.

 

[dirtyferret]

Try checking out some updated benchmarks (They change over time.) http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1080_ti_review,14.html Even that's a month old, but better than citing 5 month old benchmarks. In every game released in 2016-present the RX 470 is virtually tied with the GTX 1060 6GB (they don't even bother benchmarking the 3GB version anymore,) or well ahead. Games like Far Cry Primal, GTA V, Witcher 3 are clear Nvidia wins, but they're older titles. When buying a card today you need to look at trends, therefore more recent benchmarks, and more recent titles should be the primary focus. Also considering the RX 470 can be had for as little as $120 http://www.gamersnexus.net/sales/2864-gpu-sales-rx-470-rx-480-gtx-1080 and it's also a 120w TDP card makes it a clear winner against the 1060 3GB, while also being a much better investment than a 1060 6GB. Not to mention you can actually crossfire the cards if you want to. You know the whole options thing.

you just linked a test where the GTX 470 still lost to the GTX 1060 6GB in every game but two...I see you never saw my recommendation to view the video so I will re-post it. Also, for crossfire, yeah less then 2% of gamers due it via STEAM hardware survey but whatever floats your boat.

 

[Squid Surprise]

You have to understand, you're dealing with an AMD fanboy... the 470 actually outperforms the Nvidia 1080 and in the future, it will outperform the new Titan Xp.... Honestly, how could he possibly be wrong?!?!

 

[ddferrari]

Try checking out some updated benchmarks (They change over time.) http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1080_ti_review,14.html Even that's a month old, but better than citing 5 month old benchmarks. In every game released in 2016-present the RX 470 is virtually tied with the GTX 1060 6GB (they don't even bother benchmarking the 3GB version anymore,) or well ahead. Games like Far Cry Primal, GTA V, Witcher 3 are clear Nvidia wins, but they're older titles. When buying a card today you need to look at trends, therefore more recent benchmarks, and more recent titles should be the primary focus. Also considering the RX 470 can be had for as little as $120 http://www.gamersnexus.net/sales/2864-gpu-sales-rx-470-rx-480-gtx-1080 and it's also a 120w TDP card makes it a clear winner against the 1060 3GB, while also being a much better investment than a 1060 6GB. Not to mention you can actually crossfire the cards if you want to. You know the whole options thing.

By "trends" do you mean DX12- the twenty or so games out of thousands in which AMD's budget cards sometimes outperform Nvidia's budget cards?

I wouldn't put all your eggs in that basket; a search on Google of "upcoming games using DX12" came up absolutely empty. Wikipedia has a DX12 page, and the section labeled "Upcoming Games (DX12)" is also completely empty (last update 4/9/2017). So here we are in Q2 of 2017 and it appears that few if any game developers have a DX12 game in the works. That doesn't look like a trend or the future of gaming to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_12_support#Upcoming_games

Do you really think Nvidia doesn't have the brains and money to jump all over DX12 and just make AMD obsolete? Perhaps Nvidia is just better at predicting what's going to take off and what isn't. At the moment it looks like developers have all but abandoned DX12. Besides, the Green Team just makes their cards powerful enough to provide good frame rates regardless of the API.