Titan's in SLI 2,3 and 4 Way SLI Benchmarks

I do not know how credible this site is but for the most part looked legit. The review looks at all SLI setups and compares to SLI setups of the GTX 690's and GTX 680's and has apparently done extensive tests on a lot of games that we play today, enjoy.

Site : http://us.hardware.info/reviews/4031/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-3-way4-way-sli-review-incl-5760x1080-and-frametimes

Edited by Brandon - 06 Mar 2013 at 9:08am

i dont know why people keep comparing the 690 to the titan......

in my opinion all they should be comparing is the 680 2gb in single and sli, the 680 4gb in single and sli, and the 7970ghz edition in single and xfire, with the titan.

i dont think the 690 is in the same category regardless of its performance.

yea i understand that, but the way they work is just different to me.

Dont get me wrong, the 690 is a great card i almost bought one. a true comparison with it and the titan would be if the titan had 2x3gb gpu's in it.

i would run a titan in sli before i would run 1 690. I dont like the idea of 1 card doing the work of 2. That and what happens when 1 gpu goes out on the 690, RMA time. If 1 card goes bad in a sli,xfire set up your comp isnt floating until you can get the card replaced.

I was playing with my bro and a buddy of mine last night in bf3. My bro has 2x 680s and a great rig, my buddy has a 690 and a rig to support what it can do, and im running 2x 6970s. And my bro and i both had better framerates on ultimate running 3 monitors than my buddy did running a 2560x1440 rez. I firmly believe its because of the work load on the 1 card than spreading it to two cards.

Originally posted by bprat22 Solidus1833....  Just curious.... does your brother have 2gb or 4gb vram 680s.  Vram doesn't stack and a 690 might have 2x 2gb vram and advertise as a 4gb card, but really only has 2gb vram thats usable.  Was wondering if that might be the difference, but just thinking out loud.

lol yea sry i should of specified that. He is running just the 2gb evga cards not the awesome looking 4gb cards. And you are right about the vram. I read somewhere on the forums about sli and xfire arnt true 4gb vram. its just 2 gb mirrored. This is why on my build i was mulling about on either 2x 680 2gbs, or 1 of the 4gb versions, or the titan. I personally dont like overclocking anything. Except for cpu's. This is why im going with the titan, and non oc'd card with more performance than the 4gb 680.

From what I see on most of the sites for bench marks the avg it seems to be 40% increase in power than a single 680 in comparison. Unfortunately thats not enough for me to switch to titans, I'll stick with my quad sli 680's until something crushes them beyond belief, especially for the asking price of the titans. What I personally think NVidia did was put out the last Kepler card and made it a bit more powerful than the rest in single gpu terms, and enough to stomp out AMD and anything that they could possibly put out in the next 12 months to buy them time for their 7 series to come out next year which from reading rumors will be a massive step forward from the titans and I doubt they will cost more than a titan, if anything the same price, then I will make the switch. For now I think 4 680's will be more than enough to handle ultra settings for any games released this year especially if the creator and director of Crysis says nothing will compete graphically wise to what they have set in for Crysis 3, and my 680's handle Crysis on 3 screens at 6120x1080 at 80+fps no problem.

Originally posted by Brandon From what I see on most of the sites for bench marks the avg it seems to be 40% increase in power than a single 680 in comparison. Unfortunately thats not enough for me to switch to titans, I'll stick with my quad sli 680's until something crushes them beyond belief, especially for the asking price of the titans. What I personally think NVidia did was put out the last Kepler card and made it a bit more powerful than the rest in single gpu terms, and enough to stomp out AMD and anything that they could possibly put out in the next 12 months to buy them time for their 7 series to come out next year which from reading rumors will be a massive step forward from the titans and I doubt they will cost more than a titan, if anything the same price, then I will make the switch. For now I think 4 680's will be more than enough to handle ultra settings for any games released this year especially if the creator and director of Crysis says nothing will compete graphically wise to what they have set in for Crysis 3, and my 680's handle Crysis on 3 screens at 6120x1080 at 80+fps no problem.

ive been talking with my bro about that. Why would they price a card soo high... when the 7 series is supposed to be such a large step forward? So then the 7 series card will be "quote" better than the titan, then wouldnt they lose money on the 7 series to make it cheaper for their average buyers?

Originally posted by Brandon No they wont lose money, infact they are making as much money as they can squeeze out of people before they move to their new chipset, make no mistake NVidia is making a profit on all cards they sell, realistically it probably costs NVidia 100 bucks to make 1 titan, maybe 2 at most. When they turn around and make the 7 series, it will be either cheaper or the same price as the starting list price of a titan, who knows maybe a little more. But even if it is cheaper, they will make profit whichever direction they go. Example: 780 is released and is 1k, the titan gets reduced to 450 bucks, it cost Nvidia 1-200 bucks to make, they still profit.

Yes but isnt most of Nvidia's net come from the Average gamer? not the enthusiast? Average gamers usually dont spend more than 200 bucks for a card. Or mabe this is just a way for Nvidia to say were raising our prices deal with it? lol

To answer your first question, yes they make the most of their profits from the lower end cards than that of the titans, but as Nvidia stated these titans were made for the enthusiast and boutique companies, they know its a smaller market but they know they will sell and turn a profit either way. They did not make the titans to be put at a competitive price point.

To answer the second question, I am all for SLI love it since it first started out, I will never go back to a single card again. Yes the 4gb 680 has the same bandwidth of 2 680's 2gb but it does split the power drawn and 2 cards support each other is better than just 1 work horse IMHO. So for me 2 680's 2gb is what I would go with, my 4 680's are all 2gb each as well, more than enough bandwidth, no need to pay for the 4gb per card. Great part is to think in the back of your head is, 1 titan does not beat 2 680's and it costs 100 dollars less

Well I remember 2 years ago when skyrim first came out and I was running 2x 580's and never had any choppy issues and when I ran it on my 4x 680's I never saw any choppiness either, I have never used AMD products before but one thing I hear a lot is that Nvidia is great about updating their drivers like ALOT, so that could be one of the reasons you are having issues. As far as the games that dont support xfire or sli thats an easy fix just shut the sli off and turn it back on when you are playing a game that does support it, and as far as I can tell games from here on out are all starting support sli and xfire and slowly but surely 3+ monitor setups and resolutions. Also this is a first for me when using 3 monitors, 2 years ago when I played skyrim with 2x 580's in sli enabled I was using 1 monitor and no issues, and now with 3 monitors and 4 cards no issues.

The vram only comes into play for very few games that use it at a high res.

So its very simple if you play those games like gta or Skyrim moded then you want the 4GB versions if not then its the 2GB version.