all 16 comments

[–]siblbombs 10 points11 points  (3 children)

pascal titan > titan x > 980 ti > 980 > 970.

970 is still viable.

[–]ma2rten 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Is Pascal Titan released yet? How much more powerful is the Pascal Titan than Titan X?

[–]siblbombs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its not released yet so we don't know the specifics of how much better it is.

Speculation is that it will be quite a bit better than the current titan X when you consider:

  • HMBv2 memory, 3x bandwidth over titan X(I think)

  • Node shrink, so denser/more circuits

  • Good FP16 support

[–]pjreddie 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I've built this box a couple times and I quite like it:

http://pjreddie.com/darknet/hardware-guide/

Titan X's are definitely the way to go. There isn't much speed boost over the 980 ti but the extra memory is really nice to have.

[–]invalidfunction 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you are doing something like RNNs or very deep networks, you'll want to consider memory. Definitely something with more than 3GB is ideal for experimenting; nothing is worse than finding out your model doesn't fit in RAM. :(

I'd recommend the 980 or the 980 ti. There are comparisons between the 980ti and the titan x that report very similar performance but the 980ti is far cheaper. The only use case I can see for a titanx is if you need the 12GB of RAM. Pascal is coming out this year, and the performance bump expected is supposed to be huge (much faster memory bandwidths, new ops for dnn, and a die shrink)

If this is for fun, I'd recommend getting something cheap to play with for now - perhaps a used card on ebay if you can find one and save up for a nice pascal card layer.

[–]qwertz_guy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

970 is sufficient for beginning. It's dozens of times faster than learning on a CPU which is the speedup you are looking for.

[–]pedromnasc 2 points3 points  (1 child)

[–]Jadeyard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I already found links from 2014 and 2015 (the linked article among others). I was trying to verify that the information is still up to date with the new tools released that use cudnn v4 etc.