I just discovered that I twice as much money in my savings account as I thought. At the same time I found out how terribly my 660 runs Max Payne 3. I got the Asus 660 because it was the price of two games and came with BL2 and AC3 (gave one away and haven’t played the other yet :s). I have been really satisfied with this card in other games but for MP3 it’s unacceptable.
So anyway, I now looking for a new graphics card and I am a bit of an NVidia fanboy (unless someone can convince me otherwise). I’m wondering if I should go all out and get a Titan or just get a 680 (I don’t want to have a dual GPU card) or just wait for next gen. My monitor is the Asus PB27Q8 (2560x1440) @85 Hz. I really want to run games at full specs above 85 FPS.
In the past I have often bought good value products first and then later bought the best (not only computers), which is wasting a lot of money.
So is the Titan worth it? I have the money for it, but don’t want to be wasting my money. I really want the Titan, but I need someone to talk me into buying it. Getting drunk tonight might solve the problem…
Also, does anyone know where I can get a Titan plush? Then I don’t have to take my card out of my rig every night.
titan rapes the 680 in performance. especially at that res. you're likely to get a good 10-15fps better from the titan over the 680 in the most gpu intensive situations. the titan will also last you a lot longer than a 680 will. there is the issue of your system, could there be any potential bottlenecks? if the answer is no, then go ahead and get the titan. if yes then get the 680 for now then upgrade your system before upgrading your gpu again.
10-15 FPS more is not raping in performance. The Titan is a better card, yes, but the 680 is still a fantastic performer. However, it is not a $500 card; it should be priced in the $300-350 range, and $400 max for the 4GB model. If you must stick with Nvidia, the Titan is the way to go. 6GB frame buffer to help a lot with 1440p, but it isn't going to handle games at max settings at 1440p above 85 FPS; it is impossible. The resolution is demanding, but for a single card solution, and a single GPU solution, the Titan is the best choice. Consider the 7990; the official one is coming out, and it will be a good bit better than the Titan for that resolution; it is essentially down-clocked 7970 CF, but the PowerColor Devil 13 7990 actually has a pretty massive boost OC that puts it pretty competitively against standard 7970 CF. I personally alwasy go for the better single-card solution, so the Titan is an attractive option, but 7970 CF or a 7990 is noticably better (sometimes 50 FPS better) than a single Titan, 680, or in some cases, 680 SLI. I wouldn't get a 2GB card for 1440p; 3GB minimum - I.E., 7950, 7970, 7970 6GB, 680 4GB, and Titan.
Games tend to use VRAM dynamically. If you have 2GB available, then it will use 2GB accordingly. Still, the 7990 is a much better choice; equal or less money, 3GB per GPU, and more powerful. If you are doing a dual GPU-card, then the 7990 is the way to go.
There are only 2, currently: Asus and Evga. I love Evga cards - fantastic quality, but not much better, at all, than the Asus one. Gigabyte is apparently making a Windforce Titan, which will be much better than the Evga/Asus ones for air-overclocking, but it will naturally be more expensive.
85C for 4.8gHz on air isn't bad, but there are better. I am running my 3770k at 4.6gHz on air (Phanteks PH-TC14PE), idling at 29 C, maxing under IntelBurnTest small FFT at 69 degrees C. When I went to 5.0gHz at 1.42V (my 3770k is stubborn), I was maxing at 76 C. Consider getting some better fans for your CPU cooler, and loading up your case. That Titan will need some air :)
Evga has a SC Signature that costs a bit more than the others. From what I can see are Gainward, Zotac and Gigabyte also making the card. I have great experience with Asus and I've heard great things about Evga, but what is the SC Signature and why does it cost so much more?