Benchmarks: GTX Titan X in SLI

Dave James
Mar 30, 2015

Were an insatiable lot, us PC gamers. Nvidia gives us the fastest GPU thats ever been produced and whats my response?
'What happens if I strap two together?'
So into my test rig go a pair of GeForce GTX Titan X cards, and during our time together they ably demonstrate exactly why
Nvidias magnum opus is a better graphics card than AMDs slightly quicker Radeon R9 295X2. I got a bit of flack for
suggesting that, despite the Radeon offering higher average frame rates, the GTX Titan X offered a much better gaming
experience overall. It was all to do with the fact that a quick single GPU is going to deliver far less gaming stress than a
multi-GPU array.
As much as multi-GPU computing has improved in the last few years, not just in the scaling of performance but in the overall
reliability, you'll still hit times when your pair of cards or GPUs is cut in half by an uncooperative driversomething that very,
very rarely happens with a single GPU.
An esteemed colleague made the point that essentially the default state of multi-GPU is to be broken and in need of a fix.
When a new game, new bit of software, or a new piece of hardware is released well often need someone somewhere to
code in a fix to get things working again. Sometimes that happens via a day one patch, sometimes it can be a couple of
weeks after the fact and sometimes it doesnt happen at all. Company of Heroes 2, Im looking at you.

Why bother?
If thats why a single GTX Titan X is better than a twin-GPU R9 295X2, why am I even bothering to SLI two of Nvidias latest
cards? Its all about the chase for 4K gaming at the highest settings, isnt it?
But in that pursuit, admittedly with early drivers, the problems of flaky multi-GPUs came to the fore. With a pair of GTX Titan
X cards powering my PC I was getting ludicrous gaming performance, but I was also getting a bit of a migraine. Something
weird was happening with them when I wasnt running at the 4K native resolution of my panel, but frustratingly
not every time:

Not pleasant, right? Imagine those green swatches strobing up and down the screen at irregular intervals all the way through
my testing runs, bizarrely avoiding the specific light-sources in-game.

4K performance
But all that was happening at the sort of resolutions youd be mad to run your twin Titan X cards at. Running them at 4K,
especially on a 28-inch G-Sync screen, was an absolute, non-headachey joy. Im a benchmarking nerd and I almost wept
seeing the Heaven test move so lithe across my screen at 3840 x 2160. 49FPS is still not the 60FPS target were all hoping
for, but its still pretty darned glorious.

Interestingly, with a pair of GTX Titan X cards the roles are practically reversed with the R9 295X2. Testing against a pair of
the twin-GPU Radeonsto make a quad-CrossFireX setuphad the Nvidia cards coming out on top in a surprising number
of my benchmarks.
Heaven 4.0 and GRID 2 see the AMD cards still keeping their lead, but in Bioshock, BF4, and Metro Last Light the two
Nvidia GPUs outshone the four AMD chips. Oh, and even with a pair of Titan X cards running at full pelt they still drew less
power from the wall than a single R9 295X2.
DirectX 11 4K synthetic performance Heaven 4.0

Minimum FPS

Average FPS

Nvidia GTX Titan X

15

27

2x Nvidia GTX Titan X SLI

22

49

2x AMD R9 295X2 CrossFireX

52

DirectX 11 4K gaming performance BioShock Infinite

Minimum FPS

Average FPS

Nvidia GTX Titan X

16

56

2x Nvidia GTX Titan X SLI

15

94

2x AMD R9 295X2 CrossFireX

13

Battlefield 4

Minimum FPS

Average FPS

Nvidia GTX Titan X

31

48

2x Nvidia GTX Titan X SLI

48

78

2x AMD R9 295X2 CrossFireX

41

68

GRID 2

Minimum FPS

Average FPS

Nvidia GTX Titan X

63

82

2x Nvidia GTX Titan X SLI

88

115

2x AMD R9 295X2 CrossFireX

110

143

Metro Last Light

Minimum FPS

Average FPS

Nvidia GTX Titan X

14

20

2x Nvidia GTX Titan X SLI

16

34

2x AMD R9 295X2 CrossFireX

26

So yes, in twin SLI you can get the sort of performance that would have you happily gaming at top settings and at 4K. But
what of three, or even four Titan X cards? Well, there again we run into more multi-GPU problems. Scaling has improved
drastically with two GPUs, to the point where in some places you can almost get linear performance scaling, doubling
speeds by adding a second card. But adding another wont get you anywhere near tripling the performance of a single card.
Still less for a fourth cardwhich is why having a pair of R9 295X2 cards cant topple the Titan X in dual-SLI.

When youre getting only a tiny percentage of the performance value of your graphics card thats a bitter pill to swallow.
Especially if that pill costs $1,000. But if youve got the cash, and the 4K monitor, this $2,000 worth of graphics cards will get
you outstanding gaming performance. And a quick word on the pricethats still a whole lot cheaper than the almost
identical Quadro M6000 Nvidia has just released, which is somewhere around $5,000.
The Quadro is the pro-level version of the Titan X, with the same GPU, the same core count and the same 12GB of memory.
All its got for that extra cash is some pro licensing and double precision processing enabled. Suddenly the Titan X is looking
pretty good value, right? Er, kinda...