Can some plese enlighten me I am confused. I have never overclocked any of these GPU's or CPU's with "boost clocks" I know my i7 960 has a boost but for overclocking I disable that to get best results. I know though that the 600 series has a base clock and a boost clock. So when overclocking them do you have to disable boost all together or do you have to set your own base clock and then set your own boost clock? Because I am confused, say if I overclocked a Titan and set to the base clock 1000MHz but I didnt set a boost clock would the GPU just stay at 1GHz or would it try and boost upwards and risk frying the card or is it held back by drivers? I much prefer the old way of just having one clock speed and having to raise the clocks like on my HD7970 all I have to do is raise the core and memory speeds and then add more volts where needed. Or am I reading too much into this?

Yields must be terrible if they are dearer, and slower than the 690.

this confirmed or you spouting bs again?

Confirmed on Cockers, yields are absolutely terrible, so they'll be priced between £830-£900, they've got the 690's at only £740, so £90+ for a slower Titan.

Thought it was confirmed they were slower than the 690's, as everyones saying that, guess we'll have to wait for the reviews then to find out for sure, as what ive said is still speculation.

Anandtech said they tested monitors in their office and only one worked up to 75hz -- some Samsung display and they said it made no noticeable visual difference. Where it will be nice is those Korean displays that were able to be driven all the way to 120hz. But yeah, most monitors won't see a benefit from this. I'm also pretty sure this has nothing to do with Titan, as you could do it through the custom monitor profile available to all Nvidia cards, this just makes it easier.

What do we think the chances of this display overclocking are to be driver based and not locked specifically to Titan hardware?

Well maybe you are right richguy, does seem silly for peeps to buy a titan when they could buy a 690 for less....(i agree with you on that 100%) and it's faster... unless I am missing something...?

In other words, this could be the "normal" 680 at 500-550$. Then I could buy it. Now, at 900$, it's like it doesn't exist for me. As other guys say, too much premium you have to pay. Nice card, though. Certainly I'd prefer it over SLI.

Worst part of this is: (just like it's said in preview) this was suppose to be the GTX 680, but due to GK104 being on-par with the 7970 they decided to make it as their high end model. So the way i see it( my opinion only) they've put GK110 in the shelf for a year and just didn't worry about making anything new. Then one year later they take it, clean the dust off it and sell as their flagship model. Only one i can blame at this point (again my personal opinion) is AMD/ATI for not putting up a descent fight. So nVidia now are selling the chip (that originally was suppose to be way cheaper) for almost 2x the price, and that is just because .... THEY CAN and they have no competition, as this will be the fastest single GPU card on the market. Can't really blame them, they are just a company that is trying to make money. In my opinion, paying more than £500 for a single GPU card is just stupid, especially is the rumours are true and this card is slower than 690 (for quite a bit bigger price).

Surround. 690 only has 2gig ram per GPU. Off the top of my head: Skyrim, Crysis 1 + 2, BF3 all need more than that if you wish to use 4/8x levels of AA in 5760x1200+. Probably half the reason the released slides show 3 way Titan stomping SLI 690s.