First Alleged GTX TITAN-X Benchmarks Surface

This is from TechpowerUp:

First Alleged GTX TITAN-X Benchmarks Surface

Here are some of the first purported benchmarks of NVIDIA's upcoming flagship graphics card, the GeForce GTX TITAN-X. Someone with access the four of these cards installed them on a system driven by a Core i7-5960X eight-core processor, and compared its single-GPU and 4-way SLI performance on 3DMark 11, with its "extreme" (X) preset. The card scored X7994 points going solo - comparable to Radeon R9 290X 2-way CrossFire, and a single GeForce GTX TITAN-Z. With four of these cards in play, you get X24064 points. Sadly, there's nothing you can compare that score with.

NVIDIA unveiled the GeForce GTX TITAN-X at the Game Developers Conference (GDC) 2015. It was just that - an unveiling, with no specs, performance numbers, or launch date announced. The card is rumored to be based on the GM200 silicon - NVIDIA's largest based on the "Maxwell" architecture - featuring 3072 CUDA cores, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and a 384-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface, holding 12 GB of memory. The benchmark screenshots reveal core clock speeds to be around 1.00 GHz, and the memory clock at 7.00 GHz.

No simple Firestrike scores though :P.

I think I found more from Videocardz:

Like always, we bring you the first performance figures of soon-to-be-released enthusiast graphics card called GeForce GTX TITAN-X.

GeForce GTX TITAN X specifications

While we are still waiting for Jen-Hsun to send us PowerPoint presentation, we do know some specification tidbits that you may find interesting. First of all, the base clock is set to rather low frequency of 1002 MHz. The memory clock is pretty much what you’ve expected, 1753 MHz (7 GHz effective). TITAN X has 384-bit interface, so the maximum theoretical bandwidth is 336 GB/s (I think theoretical is the key word when it comes to describing NVIDIA cards these days). The new TITAN has 12GB GDDR5 frame buffer, twice as much as TITAN and TITAN BLACK, three times more than GeForce GTX 980.

We’ve been told TITAN X will cost 999 USD, just as previous TITANs. We can’t confirm it yet, but we will keep you updated once we learn more.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Series Specifications
	GeForce GTX TITAN X	GeForce GTX TITAN Black	GeForce GTX TITAN
Picture
GPU	28nm GM200	28nm GK110-430	28nm GK110-430
CUDA Cores	3072 TBC	2880	2688
TMUs	192 TBC	240	224
ROPs	96 TBC	48	48
Core clock	1002 MHz	889 MHz	836 MHz
Boost Clock	? MHz TBC	980 MHz	876 MHz
Memory Clock	1750 MHz	1750 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory Bus	384-bit	384-bit	384-bit
Memory	12GB GDDR5	6GB GDDR5	6GB GDDR5
Bandwidth	336 GB/s	336 GB/s	288 GB/s
TDP	230W TBC	250W	250W
Power Connectors	1x 6pin; 1x 8pin	1x 6pin; 1x 8pin	1x 6pin; 1x 8pin
Display Outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DP	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DP	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DP
MSRP	999 USD TBC	999 USD	999 USD

GeForce GTX TITAN X performance

GeForce GTX TITAN X performs really well in synthetic benchmarks. Interestingly we also have Quadro M6000 FireStrike score, which seems to perform just as fast as its gaming variant. It does somewhat confirm both cards have the same GPU configuration.

We also have SLI scaling tests, bear in mind though, SLI tests were performed at non-reference speed.

Moar from chiphell :P

Ofcourse all of these becnhmarks came from the future through a time hole that appeared near to some people :P

This is still under NDA....

Final edit(lol): By the way, Videocardz's Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming sux with only 11053 graphics score.

My Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming at default factory clock has 12212 graphics score...

that's about what i expected(980+~35%)

it's not worth a $1000 that's for sure

in an ideal world this would have the 980.It would have launched at ~$650 with 6gigs of vram.The 970 would have been $200 less with the specs of the 980.

Well GTX980 costs $550. A 35% performance increase would make it a $750 GPU. Now if we add around $200 for extra 8GB VRAM (since GPUs like R9 290X cost $100 more with extra 4GB) the price goes to $950.

Well $950 is pretty close to $999....

Hmm.. So about 30% better than GTX 980....

That's pretty good. Pretty much same performance as Titan Z.

But all the VRAM bra' !

Something is wrong with the benchmarks...

13636 for the Strix 970 is low, I got 14038 with mine.

depends

2 overclocked 980s will outperform a titan in most cases except when the game doesn't support sli.

However their vram might be a limitation at 4k res.

price/performance 970 sli is still the best buy though,even with 3.5gb of vram(10-15% slower than 980 will outperform a titan in most cases)

12 gigs of vram is overkill though,you will run out of power way before you max them out.

6 is the sweet spot right now.

Yeah I noticed that too.

Final edit(lol): By the way, Videocardz's Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming sux with only 11053 graphics score.

My Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming at default factory clock has 12212 graphics score...

I even noticed a far bigger score. You had like 3% better results at 3Dmark11. I had more than 10% higher score at Firestrike...

Either their scores are with day one drivers, or we have golden samples. :P

ps: I doubt we have better cooling since they usually test this on an open bench...

They are probably running stock clocks or something cause my firestrike score is higher than 980 sli(970 sli)

running them at 1540/3780

here

just look at the cpu score

No way would a hexa core score higher than an octa core

1000 dollars... what a scam.

Look at the older titan black card... its almost neck and neck with the 970. just wait a year or so and buy a mid-high end card like the next gen equivilent of the 970/980, whatever that will be called and save yourself 500 dollars.

What will the numbering on the next gen of nvidia cards be anyways? they usually reset labels back down to a lower number after they hit the 9xxx

who buys 1000 dollar gpus?

@Old_Gooseberry: People who can afford it for gaming and people who do not want to buy the more expensive Quadro workstation cards.