I haven't said it isn't technically apples and oranges; I simply wanted to refute the blindingly obvious fallacy that the 295X2 is technically two cards. I mean....you only have to look at it....
However, for a lot of people, including me, the only meaningful metrics are the price and performance of any single physical card. I have exactly zero desire to run a multi-card setup, but I'm perfectly happy running a multi-GPU setup. I don't give a toss how one card or the other achieves its price/performance ratio, as long as it is in fact one card. Hence for all meaningful purposes comparing the Titan X and 295X2 is indeed apples vs apples.
Well, looking at the only benchmark in common with the 390X leaked slides and, yes, with oooooooooooodles of speculation. The 390X is going to sit pretty side by side with this.
The slide had tombraider UHD performance at 1.5x that of the 290x, which brings it to 51FPS at it's slowest (compared to the titans 48). I'm not even for a second attempting to push the 390X as the "top card" but it's clearly not being eclipsed by this.
Depends on pricing now though. If it's $999/£886.94 and the (seemingly) similar performing AMD card sits around £600, that's going to be a pretty hard sell.
It's a single card that has the innards of 2 cards shoved on to it. No, it isn't "2" cards. It's also still not a straight up comparison to the single GPU Titan. And at launch, the 295x2 was selling, retail, for $1500US. So maybe a 2gpu card that originally retailed for 50% more than the Titan does should outperform it.
And as for the 390X, to quote someone else, from another thread - I put no stock in leaked benchmarks.
And that there is all I was originally saying. As for your not thinking it's a valid comparison, that's of course up to you. For me it's the only meaningful comparison there is, along with price and performance. And what the price was at launch is entirely irrelevant, except for those (very few, I think) who may find themselves frozen in time. My own experience of time appears to still be moving linearly forward and my calendar reads 20.03.2015, so you'll have to pardon me for being more concerned with the price/performance right now.
Thank you for actually including the GTX 780ti in this. More and more, I am finding reviews that are not included "last" generation's top tier cards in the benchmarks and it makes it hard to gauge where the performance gains are. Granted I have an EVGA GTX 780ti SuperClocked card and the reference model is a bit under the performance of that. It may have been useful to also include the 970 in these benchmarks but overall, nice job guys. Thanks a lot!
A review by Tech USA said that the Titan-X delivers only 30FPS on Crysis3 (very high settings). So that is very disappointing, probably due to GDDR5 being the bottleneck. I am disappointed with this review in that the Titan-X was not compared against the 295X2. It would be very interesting to test the AMD flagship gpu against the Nvidia flagship gpu.
Well said. It's absolutely retarded that it isn't mandatory to include at least 3 generations back. Doesn't need to be on the main graph as it could swamp the view, but at least have a selection box. Knowing how it performs against its current rival is all well and good, but pretty much everybody in the world at all times wants to know how it performs against their current card to see if it's worth upgrading!
After 3.5=4, NVidia loses some precision again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)