@Renunciation: Haha thanks. Praise the sun.

@Xristophoros: Who told you that, or where did you read that?

@Utnayan: I've done some video game design, briefly dabbling in GPU related work for a few months. If you're saying that games which came out before this card don't fully utilize its power, then you would be correct in general.

It sounded like you were implying that upgrading to this card would make no difference for any game that was a console port. Obviously, I don't know specifically which games you're referring to. Do you consider GTA V, Dark Souls 3, or The Witcher 3 to be console ports? This card is probably overkill if it's rendering at 1080P for those games (unless they're being played on a 120hz or 144hz monitor with the framerate unlocked), but if the resolution is bumped up to 1440P or 4K it's going to pump out some noticeably better frame rates than a 900 series card, the old Titan X, or even the 1080.

Also, some of what you said didn't make sense to me. Maybe there was a typo somewhere when you said "every damn PC game with the exception of 4 are console ports utilizing none of the power. " Are you saying that only 4 games would benefit from this new card or what? Which games?

How about your first sentence, "You are naive as hell if you think that there is anything but one (If that) PC developer who will utilize resources to take advantage of any of this power." Do you seriously think there is only one PC developer that will make a game that puts the new Titan X to good use? If so, please tell me which developer you think that is and why.

Come to think of it, your whole statement made little sense except the phrase, "I think you need a class in how game development works", which sounds very douchey and arrogant. Why did you even say that? Do you have a lot of knowledge about game design?

I don't know about your idea of what a "class in how game development works" would be, but in my experience the utilization of the features of a new graphics card would not be covered in most game development classes. That's a subject that would be covered in a class about graphics, not game development.

@off3nc3: They introduce a new series every 2 years. The 900 series was 2 years ago, 1000 series is coming out now (one by one it seems) and in 2 more years, we'll probably see the 1100 series. If someone buys the xx60 or xx70 card every 4 years, they'd be spending about $200 - $350 every four years. A couple years ago, that was enough to easily achieve 60 fps at 1080P resolution, which is not considered high end anymore on a PC.

@Xristophoros: I agree that Uncharted 4 is probably the most visually impressive game so far, but those real world visuals just don't appeal to me as much as the dark fantasy worlds created in games like Dark Souls. I can see the real world every day. If I'm playing a video game, I want to see and experience something new :)

You're right that it's up to the developers to optimize a game to run efficiently regardless of which platform they're building the game on. The producers and the owners have the final say though when it comes to development time and priorities though. Profit is usually the top priority, so it's not common for a company to let the developers spend extra time to optimize the game (it's more likely they'd make them spend time on paid DLC instead.) From what I've read, game development at most studios turns into unending crunch time just to barely get the game finished in the short amount of time that the owners / producers required of the devs. In many cases, I don't know if a developer is truly at fault if they're being rushed to make a game faster than it could properly be put together. Of course there seem to be some exceptions for companies like Naughty Dog, Blizzard, and maybe Nintendo (at least Nintendo used to seem that way) where "Quality comes first", "It'll be done when it's done", and "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad" - Miyamoto. I wish those were mottoes for more game companies.

I've been a console gamer most of my life with an occasional PC game every year or so. I'll never forget the great feeling when I sold my NES and all of my games at a rummage sale to buy a SNES. It's becoming more and more common for AAA games to be released on PC as well as console. In fact it's so common that a console exclusive game is pretty rare. That's a big part of the reason I decided to invest in a powerful PC.

I enjoy my PS4 and the library of PS+ games that I rarely get around to playing. I played through Killzone: Shadow Fall when the console came out and had a great time playing through Bloodborne. Thanks to my PS4, I'll be able to play Final Fantasy XV as soon as it comes out instead of waiting a year for the inevitable PC version that I'll pay for as well... And I truly hope that the gameplay doesn't turn into a slideshow like it did in both demos. Well, that's pretty much it for my PS4 box.

Every time a multi-platform game I want comes out, I buy it on PC for multiple reasons. Why would I put one of them on my always crowded 500GB PS4 hard drive to play at a lower resolution, lower framerate, and typically sit through about 5-10 times the amount of load time (compared to games installed to an SSD on the PC)? Installing an SSD in a PS4 results in barely a fraction of the improved load times that a PC SSD does. This is likely due to the limited data transfer rate in the PS4 I'm guessing. I'll keep my PC games around forever. Consoles will eventually get packed up into storage.

On PC I've got a 1 Terabyte SSD for big games like the Witcher 3 and Dark Souls 2 (3-10 second loading screens don't usually stay long enough to read the text) and then a 3 Terabyte HDD for smaller games that don't require long load times. Games on the 3 Terabyte hard drive only load at about 1.5 to 2 times the speed of the PS4.

Games run in 1080P at 60 fps on my PC. The 60 fps matters more to me than the resolution. Having everything in one place is convenient as well. I know it's petty, but I got tired of changing the input on my TV from PC to PS4 to WiiU to PS3 to XBOX 360 etc... Turning each console on when I want to play a game, waiting for them to load if not in rest mode, then turning them off when I'm done. Juggling controllers and making sure to keep them charged while wasting batteries on rarely used ones. Every game that I play could have been created for the PC. One box, one controller, one interface, no subscription, backwards compatibility all the way back and beyond for free. But some of them are console exclusives instead. Why? For corporate profit of course. Some companies make hardware to make money, and take a cut of the games made for that hardware. This kind of gets in the way of a PC gamers Utopia :P

I've heard the argument that without consoles like the PS4 and XBone, there would be no competition and prices would go up... You know what? That's completely false. Steam machines would likely become more popular and pre-built PC sales would skyrocket as companies all compete to give the best (perceived) value for the lowest price. Every gamer would just have one home gaming machine or maybe a laptop and a desktop which both run on the same platform. It's easy to remote in from a laptop to a desktop and play games on the desktop from far away. No need for "PlayStation Now" type services. Just play the games you already bought on the same platform you've always had. When you buy a next generation PC, it plays games from absolutely every generation in the past as well as games from almost every other console and arcade cabinet. Companies shouldn't have to program a game for 3 or more different platforms (what a waste of time and resources). There is already competition between companies who make various PC components as well as competition between companies that sell pre-built PCs. The competition would continue as usual. Video game prices would probably become much more competitive.

I think video game / software sales would increase overall if PC was the only gaming platform (let's assume mobile, handheld, and Mac continue business as usual.) I'm hesitant to buy any game on the PS4, because I'd rather not switch back and forth between my PC and PS4. If I can help it, I'll just leave my PS4 in rest mode. I typically exist rest mode about once a month to add the PS+ games to my library. I just have too many good games to play and not enough time to play them all. First world problems hah?

Perhaps video game prices could go down if companies didn't have to spend the extra time and resources to develop for multiple platforms.... Doesn't that seem like a waste of time?

For someone with a good PC, a PS4 is a limited $300 - $400 box that let's you play the rare couple of games that aren't available on PC. Why? Because companies need to make money.

PC gaming has come a long way, and dealing with errors and setup issues is far less common than it used to be. Despite that, I will openly admit that PC gaming is more error prone than console gaming, though it is rarely a problem, and it's often the result of people not wiping. Hardware for console gaming is a bit cheaper than PC hardware, but a PC is much more than just a gaming machine.... It's versatile and does almost anything you'd want. New consoles don't usually play all of your old games like PCs do. You can keep collecting consoles in your entertainment center (like I do) or just put them in storage and move forward to a universal platform (which I'd like to do.)

Thanks for reading my beer fueled discourse. I hope it was entertaining and sorry it was so long...

@chiefwiggum16: I'm thinking the Scorpio will start at $599.

@thespicychiken: I don't think that's true. Where did you get that information?

@Mo60: @thespicychiken 's sloppy response raised a red flag for me so I did my own research. The answer is, no you will not be bottlenecked by an i7 4790K if you get a new Titan X. I went with the i7 4790K as well because it had a higher clock rate than most (maybe all) of the more expensive processors that had more cores.

I've read that emulated games, such as Xenoblade Chronicles or Super Mario Galaxy on the Dolphin emulator run better on a processor with a higher clock rate compared to a low clock rate with more cores. They run close to flawlessly on mine with a GTX 970. The 4790K has 4 cores with hyperthreading which is the equivalent of an 8 core AMD CPU. More expensive i7's might have 6 cores with hyperthreading (equivalent to 12 cores) at a lower clock rate (cycles per second.) Performance will only be improved by more cores if the game happens to be programmed to properly take advantage of the additional processors... Anyways...

I know it's hard to sort through all of the technical information out there, but I've at least found clear evidence that the GTX 1080 will not be bottlenecked by the 4790K. You can find that easily in a Google search. The GTX 1080 is 10-20% faster than the old Titan X and Nvidia says the new Titan X is 60% faster than the old Titan X. All evidence I can find points to the 4790K still being a top tier CPU with no current bottleneck concerns in site. If the new Titan X is 33% faster than the GTX 1080 and twice the price, are you sure that you want to spend $1200 on a Titan X that might not be noticeably better than a GTX 1080 for $600? I guess the better question is, do you plan to do 1440P, or 4K gaming? Even at 1440P I think you'll be able to get around 60 fps with a GTX 1080 depending on which settings you put higher than "high". I'll predict that the next couple years of VR can easily be handled smoothly by a GTX 1080. If you do want to go for 4K gaming at a framerate higher than 30 fps, then I would go with the new Titan X. I'm curious what kind of 4K display you get if you do because I'm thinking about getting one next year.

Since the new Titan X was just announced 2 days ago, I couldn't find definite proof that the 4790K won't bottleneck it. Instead, I found very strong implications that the new Titan X wouldn't be bottlenecked in the slightest and that the 4790K can still be considered a powerhouse. I would not recommend the Titan X over the GTX 1080 unless you plan to play PC games at 4K. Also, I read some of @thespicychiken's comments on his / her profile page and got the impression that this person would be likely to just make shit up.

Thanks for reading my beer-fueled rant. I learned some new stuff looking this up and I hope it helps.

Enjoy Super Mario Galaxy running on the Dolphin emulator:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpvNliE3zEY

"I passionately hate false information, so I'll fight the good fight when I see it." -Drumjod

@Mo60: I'm glad to see your question. I have a i7 4790K as well with a GTX 970 and I'm curious about the options.