I bought it for personal uses.
Originally Posted by Eisnefaust
As I said before you are perfectly capable of comparing it to your own setup which will be more relevant to you then numbers crunched on another system.
But - as others already said, useless due to the lack of reference values.
Oh I will be running a lot of GPGPU on the card, it was purchased primarily for CUDA development. Even then however I am going to be moving it into a Z77 board before to long as the board it is on with only PCI-e 2 stiffles the performance of computing the large data sets that I use.
What about OpenCL benchmarks? This expensive GPU is supposed to be more adequate for numerical research and number crunching than simple OpenGL-stuff and therefore I'd have expected some benchmarks regarding this.
If there is a great difference between CUDA and openCL it would be from lack of optimization of the code for the device. The "crippling" of openCL remark is pure FUD however going from previous Cuda -- openCL ports experience with previous generations of CUDA/openCL cards.
It would be nice to see the performance of OpenCL versus CUDA - which I suspect very bad for OpenCL, since the BLOB does by intention cripple the OpenCL.
Wouldn't be able to tell you that as I do not have any GCN cards nor plan on purchasing any.
The competitor in numerical applications/GPGPU would be AMD's GCN architecture in it incarnation HD7970 and for what I saw in the net, Kepler II/GK110 as TITAN is only by 30% faster than the most recent GCN on the GHz-editions of the HD7970. Power consumption on maximum load, minimum load, idle et cetera.