Nvidia Pascal Titan Rumored to be coming as early as April
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
SparkleDJackson
New member
My 780s are running in 2.0 mode on my r4e and i am sure both are 3.0 compatible but even still i get beast performance
As far as I've heard it enables SLI without these pesky bridges for the first time in GPU history! Oh wait.... AMD has that for a few years now.
It's meant to be a new (nVidia) way of inter-GPU communication for multi-GPU setups and GPU-CPU communication for that matter.
Posts merged - don't double post
Why aren't you enable PCIe 3.0 speeds for your GPUs? I'm also using a R4E (plus two 980Ti's) and it works fine with PCIe 3.0 speeds...
Last edited by a moderator:
SparkleDJackson
New member
In the bios it says its 3.0 but when i use gpuid etc it says its running 2.0
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
After the criticism AMD received from the 390X, I feel it would be a little foolish on nVidia's part to rebadge the 980ti. If they can redesign it with GDDR5X and reduce the TDP then great, especially if the price is right. But The main reason why the 390X was initially such a criticised card, despite it being strong competition to the 980 for a lot less money, was because it was a very hot and demanding GPU, and that was a rebadge. To rebadge the 980ti as a 1070/1080 might have folks complaining and pining for the good old 970 days where you could overclock it on air to surpass a 980 on a 500W PSU. The improvements in each new architecture should be about performance per watt, lowering the cost, and lowering the TDP. That's for the midrange-high-end cards (960-980). The enthusiast GPU's should be about raw performance. After their lifespan is completed, they should be removed from the market, due to their high TDP's. That's my opinion and is reflective of Maxwell and big Kepler; not small Kepler or Fermi. I like cards that are powerful, but not at the expense of temperatures. The 980ti was a hot GPU. If you had water cooling then you had a phenomenal card, but I've seen too many 980ti's surpassing 80°C with high fan speeds. That's too high for a 970/980 GPU, in my opinion. It would take the wind out of the sales of nVidia's previous crown of best performance-per-watt with Maxwell.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
390x doesn't even run hot... And that's also coming from personal experience with OC'ing
xnax2802
New member
The whole AMD "rebranding scandal" was blown out of proportions tbh. They weren't just rebrands (as TTL even pointed out), and everyone who calls himself tech savvy should know that. There's nothing wrong with refreshes as long as the cards perform better in any department that matters.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Ya they were more of a refresh than anything. Added vram, better overlocking(at least for me) and faster memory chips and aggressive pricing. A rebrand doesn't get any of that
TPC
New member
Basicly, you know, every current gen GPU with just a tiny bit of usefull power is running hot. I.E. my 770 is surpassing 70°C with a CPU cooler sized cooler. A 980/970/ even 960 isnt that much better when you start pushing it.
jimma47
New member
Don't know why there was so much hate on AMD for that - Nvidia had been doing it for years as well. Minor improvements and a new number on the box.
80 is still not that hot. I agree they're pretty warm but the most I've seen on my top 980 has been around 81 degrees on 100% load. The fans don't even ramp up until they get to 70 or so on a standard profile.
I think once you're seriously into Ti dollar territory then watercooling is definitely on the agenda, or at the very least a quality case with decent airflow.
80 is still not that hot. I agree they're pretty warm but the most I've seen on my top 980 has been around 81 degrees on 100% load. The fans don't even ramp up until they get to 70 or so on a standard profile.
I think once you're seriously into Ti dollar territory then watercooling is definitely on the agenda, or at the very least a quality case with decent airflow.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Depends on what you think is hot. I'd agree more that 80C is more normal and anything below is pretty cool. I think once 86 and up starts happening is when you start to get little anxious about temps.
But yeah AMD and Nvidia both do it but people just bash AMD at every opportunity. Most people are just bandwagoners and are on Nvidia side so that's why. People just don't listen these days so I don't expect it to end anytime soon
coffeefoot
Member
Maybe I've got a great card, Mr. NBD, but my 980 SC stays between 65-70 c. w/ clocks at about 1.529 playing crysis 3. SO for me, they will have to come up with some crazy new stuff to get me to change.
jimma47
New member
I only hit the 80s once I went SLI and the top cards are always a bout 10 degrees warmer. Still well within acceptable limits.
Crazy new stuff you want will be playable 4k ultra settings on high refresh rate monitors. Hopefully the Pascal and Polaris can do it straight off the bat. If not then maybe the next gen.
Keen to see where this coming generation will take us.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
I'd say that's a great card and you got lucky. That's pretty low temps for that high of a clock. Most cards hit that magical 1500mhz but they do get hot at those clocks. I still don't see how temps in either case makes you NOT want to switch over. Both are great as is the performance. Not choosing a better product based off a small temp difference is quite dumb imho. Staying well within operating temps for either chips and both are very quiet shouldn't be a deciding factor in staying with one or the other.
coffeefoot
Member
Agreed. My point was to try and set the bar higher. especially as I plan to put it under water. Actually, I was considering getting another one but maybe I should wait until things get shaken out a little. But to your point, higher temps doesn't bother me as I know there are alternatives because I haven't set up watercooling yet.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
The 390X runs hot enough considering its competition is the 970 and 980. The constant rebuttal of 'Well, mine doesn't run that hot' is missing the point. If the chip can handle it, the temperatures could be 100°C and it won't matter, theoretically. It's only a problem if the fans have to be spinning at high speeds to reach 100°C and are loud. Similarly, if power consumption goes through the roof, that's bad. Or if it makes the rest of the system hotter, that's bad. Temperatures are irrelevant when you factor in fan speeds, heatsink design, power of the GPU, overclocking headroom, competition, power consumption, and so much more. It's not just a matter of saying 'Well, it's hot so I won't buy it', or 'It's not hot so I will buy it'. At least it shouldn't be. For nVidia, I simply said I don't feel it's in line with what they were so applauded for with Maxwell. To rebadge or rebrand—whatever you want to call it—their 980ti as a 1070/1080 might shift that praise to criticism. The 980 wasn't an amazing value GPU, but it overclocked well due to its efficiency. The 980ti overclocks well, but it's held back by temperatures. If it were a 1070/1080 GPU, it might be held back as a seller because of temperatures and, now, power consumption. If they can reduce the temperatures and power consumption, and improve the yields, just as AMD did, then it would be a very good card for the money. That's basically what I said. If GDDR5X reduces the power and nVidia can improve the yields by shipping '1080's' at 1450Mhz boost minimum and 7600Mhz on the memory, all for $450, that's pretty damn good. Otherwise I think they should ditch it and make a whole new '1080'.
The major benefit for rebranding and redesigning the 980ti is to improve the lifespan of the GM200 core, thus aiding in repairing nVidia's negative image of 'crippling' older GPU's. This might encourage folks to buy now at the higher price, knowing that well into 2017 they will still have a GPU that nVidia is fully supporting. The debate of whether nVidia purposefully and carelessly cripples previous generations is not the point; the point is, people think they do. Go on Facebook and that's what you see. The same type of nonsense about AMD is being spread. If folks here are trying to refute the ridiculous claims about AMD, which everyone tries to do, why aren't they interested in nVidia breaking their arguably ridiculous and ill-founded claims that they gimp their GPU's in order to sell newer ones?
For AMD, the 390X worked. It was a good seller. After the initial complaints died down, it sold well enough and made a lot of gamers happy. It also meant that 290X users who bought a 290X almost three years ago still have an excellent GPU that's supported by AMD. However, in all fairness, the 8GB of VRAM hasn't helped very muchs. When you compare the 290X 4GB vs the 8GB version, the difference is negligible unless we're talking Crossfire at high resolutions. The 8GB, to me, was just a marketing gimmick. They had to give gamers reason to upgrade. The overclocks and the binning processes were more beneficial in average systems than the additional 4GB of VRAM.
The major benefit for rebranding and redesigning the 980ti is to improve the lifespan of the GM200 core, thus aiding in repairing nVidia's negative image of 'crippling' older GPU's. This might encourage folks to buy now at the higher price, knowing that well into 2017 they will still have a GPU that nVidia is fully supporting. The debate of whether nVidia purposefully and carelessly cripples previous generations is not the point; the point is, people think they do. Go on Facebook and that's what you see. The same type of nonsense about AMD is being spread. If folks here are trying to refute the ridiculous claims about AMD, which everyone tries to do, why aren't they interested in nVidia breaking their arguably ridiculous and ill-founded claims that they gimp their GPU's in order to sell newer ones?
For AMD, the 390X worked. It was a good seller. After the initial complaints died down, it sold well enough and made a lot of gamers happy. It also meant that 290X users who bought a 290X almost three years ago still have an excellent GPU that's supported by AMD. However, in all fairness, the 8GB of VRAM hasn't helped very muchs. When you compare the 290X 4GB vs the 8GB version, the difference is negligible unless we're talking Crossfire at high resolutions. The 8GB, to me, was just a marketing gimmick. They had to give gamers reason to upgrade. The overclocks and the binning processes were more beneficial in average systems than the additional 4GB of VRAM.
Last edited:
CreatiXx
Member
i run like 2x 390's, redid the paste on the cards and only got 62 degrees max on the hottest card. Let me try a benchmark fast and check again and edit my post for temps but even just a single MSI card max hits 80 but mostly around +-72, tested at work.
Sad enough 390(x)'s really dont sell that well compared to 970/980's :/
Now i do see 8GB Vram as a smart move, thats 2GB more than nvidia has and for some people, just the higher the number, the better they might be. Though it might not be in a direct way. As i found ealier a few months back. The 8GB is great but just i single card wont be enough to get the benfit. But once at crossfire it is pretty sweet imo
Sad enough 390(x)'s really dont sell that well compared to 970/980's :/
Now i do see 8GB Vram as a smart move, thats 2GB more than nvidia has and for some people, just the higher the number, the better they might be. Though it might not be in a direct way. As i found ealier a few months back. The 8GB is great but just i single card wont be enough to get the benfit. But once at crossfire it is pretty sweet imo
Last edited:
AlienALX
Well-known member
"The GTX 1080 is expected to have performance that is similar to the GTX 980Ti"
Then why bother. I mean, it's nice to spend less Watts - but if that is the ONLY thing a new flagship card brings to the table then I got one word for it :
Meh.
Because the 1080 will be considerably cheaper than the 980ti and probably use less power too.
The 970 and 980 weren't that much faster than Titan Black (in fact the 970 was 5% slower) but when you were looking at a minimum of £699 for Titan Black and the 970 was released for £350 or so.....
That erm, slightly annoyed me, having paid nearly £1400 just months prior.
Moving onto Titan P or whatever stupid name they give it this time..
If it launches in April then that's a serious slap in the face for people who have stumped up over £700 for a Titan X. Seriously, if they are going to release cards quicker than crap through a goose at those prices then even the really crazy people (and that's putting it politely) who are buying them will be annoyed.
Having said all of that I shall now wind my neck back in and go back to not caring really. I'm done handing over grands for PC hardware and I have a really bad feeling that I got conned buying these Fury X too. Even though they shouted "4gb will be enough" I have a really horrible feeling that within months it won't be.
As soon as PS4 VR comes along I am ditching PC gaming and going over to the dark side. It's just so much cheaper, and even though games are not as pretty they perform a darn sight better on the derped hardware of a console than they do on an equivalent PC (even though we were told that once the new consoles came out they would be X86 so "PC ports" (spits at the ground at that phrase) would be better than ever.
Yeah, right.
Similar threads
