JudasIscariot: I am soooo suggesting to the folks in charge of the purse strings here just to see their facial expressions :D
"Could we have 2...for the test lab?"
MaximumBunny: So even as a company these things are expensive for you guys? I would have thought that quadro/firepros and other $5,000+ cards would be in line with your business budget.
It's not just the cost, it's the fact that there's no real point in adding it to a test machine in case 1 person on this site decides to buy one of these bad boys.
Neobr10: Not a surprise. The GTX Titan was never meant to be a gaming video card. Seriously, 12GB VRAM? No game will use that much in the near future, not even in 4K.
But yeah, nvidia's price tags are fucking insane. A GTX 780 Ti costs around U$150-U$200 more than a R290x and the difference in performance between the two is irrelevant.
cjrgreen: It is because the market for Titan cards is willing to pay that price, and because gamers who are bewildered by the price do not see that the market is not them. Titan buyers aren't buying frames per second. They're buying gigaflops per cubic centimeter.
AMD cards are not competitive in double precision floating point. Also, they don't run CUDA, which remains nVidia proprietary. But the users of GPU supercomputing are 80 percent CUDA.
So nVidia can charge what they want for those cards, and get it, because in their market they are the only game in town.
That's true, but CUDA is so last year, I'm much more bullish on OpenCL if they can get it adopted, just because it has a lot more potential. CUDA is cute, but being so reliant on one vendor is a bad idea. Which is probably part of why it was created in the first place.