Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

NVIDIA GTX 780 6GB coming..

Guess this is only interesting to those doing GPU rendering like me. Not sure it would do anything for the gaming community.
 
I think it's great! I won't replace my current GTX 780, but for those who need this it will be awesome.

Too bad the new POS Mac Pro is stuck with old GPU technology.
 
If you ask me, it's not even necessary, even for the gaming crowd. I understand that 6gb is just a selling point, but from a dev's perspective, even today's games generally don't need that much video memory. I imagine if a game uses that much, then it's just inefficiently using memory and highly un-optimal practices. It won't magically make your games go faster either.

It sounds great in all, and I'm sure it will eventually be used and abused properly, but right now, I see it as highly unnecessary.
 
blueshogun96 said:
If you ask me, it's not even necessary, even for the gaming crowd. I understand that 6gb is just a selling point, but from a dev's perspective, even today's games generally don't need that much video memory. I imagine if a game uses that much, then it's just inefficiently using memory and highly un-optimal practices. It won't magically make your games go faster either.

It sounds great in all, and I'm sure it will eventually be used and abused properly, but right now, I see it as highly unnecessary.
Click to expand...


Titanfall can use up to 3 GB vRAM.
 
blueshogun96 said:
It won't magically make your games go faster either.
Click to expand...

If you're playing in 1080p, then yes, I agree with you. As more and more games start pushing 4K (and higher?), and gamers potentially play with more than 1 panel (3 panels @ 4K?! EEK!) then the memory becomes infinitely important.

Don't be myopic.
 
blueshogun96 said:
If you ask me, it's not even necessary, even for the gaming crowd. I understand that 6gb is just a selling point, but from a dev's perspective, even today's games generally don't need that much video memory. I imagine if a game uses that much, then it's just inefficiently using memory and highly un-optimal practices. It won't magically make your games go faster either.

It sounds great in all, and I'm sure it will eventually be used and abused properly, but right now, I see it as highly unnecessary.
Click to expand...
That's kinda my point, it's not that interesting or necessary for gamers IMO. But for me, for Octane GPU rendering, it's the best value out there I think.
 
...and suddenly, it's 'last generation'

keystonetitan-232x149.png

Nvidia announced the Titan Z today - dual 2880 CUDA core GPUs (5760 CUDA cores total), 12 GiB DDR5 VRAM.

http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/03/25/titan-z/
 
AidenShaw said:

Nvidia announced the Titan Z today - dual 2880 CUDA core GPUs (5760 CUDA cores total), 12 GiB DDR5 VRAM.

http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/03/25/titan-z/
Click to expand...
Yeah, watched the live stream and it's crazy card ... for a crazier price (considering it's not a Quadro).

And it's the same GK110 generation chip. But for the price of one Titan Z, you could 5 x 780 6GB, which would give exactly twice the number of CUDA cores. Or 3 x Titan Blacks if you needed the DPFP performance, and have 1/3 more CUDA cores.

Just doesn't make sense to me.
 
riggles said:
Yeah, watched the live stream and it's crazy card ... for a crazier price (considering it's not a Quadro).

And it's the same GK110 generation chip. But for the price of one Titan Z, you could 5 x 780 6GB, which would give exactly twice the number of CUDA cores. Or 3 x Titan Blacks if you needed the DPFP performance, and have 1/3 more CUDA cores.

Just doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

It makes sense to have the fastest graphics card around - even if some multi-card setups add up to more cores.

It makes sense if the dual GPU card has better memory bandwidth than dual single GPU cards.

And it really should make those poor souls who bought the "new Mac Tube" with Radeon cards wonder "what have I done"....
 
I'm curious if it will look like 2 chips or 1 to CUDA and if all 12 GB will be accessible to both of the chips or if it is split.

It could potential be much better for certain applications if it acts like 1 card and all 12GB of memory are allotted in a singe chunk of global memory.

I would buy one in a heartbeat instead of the tesla k40 I had been looking at.
 
dalupus said:
I'm curious if it will look like 2 chips or 1 to CUDA and if all 12 GB will be accessible to both of the chips or if it is split.

It could potential be much better for certain applications if it acts like 1 card and all 12GB of memory are allotted in a singe chunk of global memory.

I would buy one in a heartbeat instead of the tesla k40 I had been looking at.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the Titan Z be like my GTX 590s (1.5 gigs per GPU, but marketed as 3 gigs) and GTX 690s (2 gigs per GPU, but marketed as 4 gigs) and could be really the GTX 790 in all but name [ http://videocardz.com/49465/asus-geforce-gtx-titan-black-6gb-memory-gets-listed-974-eur ], with 6 gigs per GPU. Applications like OctaneRender will probably see only 6 gigs. So the Tesla K40 with one GPU processor and 12 gigs of vram will load more data and still has a reason for existence, but the Titan Z will process that data about twice as fast (with double the CUDA cores) if the data doesn't require more than 6 gigs of memory space.

Also keep in mind, as Riggles first pointed out to me and as can be seen from the video, the Titan Z will consume 3 slot spaces*/. At best, I could install only four of them and one Titan Black Edition (25,920 CUDA cores total) into my otherwise 8 double wide GPU slotted Tyan server for about $13k or I could install 8 Titan Black Edition SCs for about $8.08K (23,040 CUDA cores), saving me about $4.9K, but leaving me with 2,880 fewer CUDA cores. 23,040 CUDA cores happens to be the same number of total CUDA cores that I have at present in my 8 GTX 780 Ti ACXs that cost about $250 less per GPU card than the Titan Black Edition. The Titan Black Edition does have twice the amount of vram (6 gigs vs. 3 gigs), however.

*/ Note that in the video that Nvidia uses the price for 4 Titan Zs (4x$3K=$12k) whereas they appear to be comparing only three of them to attain the processing power of the Google brain system aggregation.
 
Last edited:
riggles said:
Or 3 x Titan Blacks if you needed the DPFP performance, and have 1/3 more CUDA cores.

Just doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

1/3 more cores, but 3x space in your machine. If you want to boost compute capacity without increasing the number of actual machines...
 
jasonvp said:
If you're playing in 1080p, then yes, I agree with you. As more and more games start pushing 4K (and higher?), and gamers potentially play with more than 1 panel (3 panels @ 4K?! EEK!) then the memory becomes infinitely important.

Don't be myopic.
Click to expand...

Panels?
 
FluJunkie said:
1/3 more cores, but 3x space in your machine. If you want to boost compute capacity without increasing the number of actual machines...
Click to expand...

Because of the triple-width of the Z, it doesn't save you much space. Especially considering most standard boards have the x16 slots spaced for double-wide. So the most you'd fit in is two, which could also accommodate 4 reg Titans (for less money and more performance).

I just don't see scenarios outside the cluster and cloud computing world where this price premium for small space savings would make practical sense.
 
riggles said:
Because of the triple-width of the Z, it doesn't save you much space. Especially considering most standard boards have the x16 slots spaced for double-wide. So the most you'd fit in is two, which could also accommodate 4 reg Titans (for less money and more performance).

I just don't see scenarios outside the cluster and cloud computing world where this price premium for small space savings would make practical sense.
Click to expand...

Clusters was actually what I was thinking of.

It's an edge use-case.
 
iBug2 said:
Wow, this is some crazy GPU, but 3000$ price tag? Are they frikking kidding me? When did gaming GPU's become this expensive? Seriously, I remember buying the newest gen stuff for 300$ back in the 90's.
Click to expand...

Well, considering the W9000 is still > $3000 and has a fraction of the performance...

----------
AidenShaw said:
And it really should make those poor souls who bought the "new Mac Tube" with Radeon cards wonder "what have I done"....
Click to expand...

What's wrong with underclocked cards from 2012?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back