Nvidia Debuts The GTX Titan Z, A $US3,000 Video Card For Maniacs

Nvidia Debuts The GTX Titan Z, A $US3,000 Video Card For Maniacs

Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang kicked off the company's GPU Technology Conference today as he often does, holding something incredibly powerful and expensive above his head. This time it's the Geforce GTX Titan Z, more video card than you need or could afford.

So I'm making a gross generalization of our readership's financial situation. I'm willing to bet a large percentage of you folks aren't immediately reaching for your credit cards in order to make sure your PC is outfitted with a supercompter of a graphics card. If I'm wrong, I'll set up a donation page for you to send me sympathy money.

Anyway, the Geforce GTX Titan Z. Engineered for the next generation of 5K and multi-monitor gaming, it's built around two Kepler GK110 chips. At 2,880 cores per GPU, that's 5,760 processing cores. It's got 12GB of dedicated frame buffer memory as well, bringing us ever closer to the point where our video cards have much more memory than our computers themselves. Some of us are already there.

Nvidia's blog post on the new card doesn't mention the price, because it's a silly number. The $US3,000 price tag comes from the fine folks at TweakTown, who are hoping to see what a PC equipped with four of these can do.

I am betting it can travel through time. Maybe it already has.


Comments

    If it was single core, with 12GB I would buy one for my film work.

    You know what makes me really really happy? That before long there'll be a cheap consumer level card that far surpasses this. Heck, it'll probably be in your phone eventually. I love technology!

    Sounds great but knowing Nvidia they'll probably have drivers to take advantage of it ready by 2019.

      Hey at least their drivers work, unlike AMD.

        Them feels when ATi/AMD drivers have worked flawlessly for myself since I built my first PC in 2005, across 8 different cards, 4 of those in 2 separate Crossfire configurations.

        Guess I'm just lucky.
        Either that or people just like to spout rubbish.

          I'm pretty sure you're just lucky! The amount of machines I see/fix that have issues with AMD drivers is just mind boggling!

          I dunno mate, but I picked this laptop up with a 5000 series AMD gpu in it, windows says its a 5000 series like the stickers say and likewise the AMD site does, got the correct drivers for it, they don't work, it took the 4000 series drivers for anything to actually work and spit out the right resolution for it.

        I have two GTX670's in my system and even I have to down vote you on this one. You clearly haven't been on the NVIDIA driver forums recently, have you? (people complaining about significant and sudden stalls in frame rates, and system lockups and/or continual recoveries from something as simple as using Firefox or even installing/uninstalling the drivers in the first place). Both companies have issues with drivers to some degree. I have actually owned cards from both NVIDIA and AMD, so my opinion is based on experience and not hearsay, and I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing wrong with AMD cards (their price to performance ratio is usually better than NVIDIA's for many of the tiers, and they have done much better with crossfire and frame pacing in more recent times, not to mention they have ventured into a development of an new API ... oh, and they won the bidding to manufacture the hardware for ALL next gen systems). If AMD ever stop making graphics cards, then you can expect a nice hefty increase in price from NVIDIA. You sound like a NVIDIA monopoly would be right up your alley. You don't like a healthy competitor in the market? Kinda weird if you ask me.

          I dunno, I just like drivers that WORK as intended for my GPU. In the past (and present) i've only ever had issues with drivers for AMD/ATi cards, to the point I wonder why I bother giving their stuff a shot. Sorry if it upsets you that I like a set standard from the products I buy. Never had an issue with my 6200GT, 6600GT, 8800GTS (which lived for 6 years and was a beast) & GTX560. Never an issue with any card

    Won't somebody please think of our wallet!

    I'm still waiting for news about the 800 series

      I'm still waiting for news about the 4k monitor that works above 30Hz and is affordable (looking at you Dell....30Hz...Osrsly..)

        look at LinusTechTips most recent monitor video. Believe that was a 4K 60Hz display.

    So it's a dual-GPU Titan Black?

    6GB VRAM per GPU is not enough. I have games with Win8 chewing up 2.6GB VRAM, at 1080p. 4K is 4x te resolution, which means that you need 10.4GB VRAM at the least, going by shitty-console-port-in-2013 standards. So 12GB per GPU is actually the bare minimum that a 2015 card aimed at 4K market would need ..... if it could actually max the games out.

      I'm interested in what game is chewing up 2.6GB VRAM. I've never had any issues with a 2GB card at 1080p.

        Thief.

        Skyrim with mods (read: what should be the final product) is >2GB too, apparently.

          Mods are far from optimised, so thats not really the best explanation on a game needing 2.6GB VRAM.

          Also RAM scaling isn't really linear like you mention. 4K has 4 times the pixels, not necessarily the resolution, and thats UHD 4K. RAM usage does not scale linearly by pixel count, there is so many more factors involved.

          I'm mainly concerned with how well the dual-core GPU goes, and hope it stays up to shape with cards like the 690.

            It should demolish 690, since 690 was only slightly ahead of the first Titan.

              I more meant in terms of behaving as good as the 690 did in the ways of dual-GPU. (690 was just 2 x 680's chucked in one card).

      Twice the resolution 4x the area
      1080 is 1920x1080
      4k is 4096x2160
      So a little over double the resolution.

      Last edited 26/03/14 5:00 pm

    cant wait to play minecraft with this baby!

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now