From the reviews I have heard Ray tracing in still not working at this time, and there are only like 2 games that could even use it. Drivers are not optimized, sot it is more like a half baked version of what may be not what is. It may be a good card but not in the current state and the cost is just too high right now.
There are around 25 confirmed to be adding RT, according to NVIDIA. These are very good cards, without question, but they'll be getting better over time. Doesn't make them bad now by any means.
Do your homework before you buy one of these new cards. There's reviews starting to popup everywhere as the NDA was lifted today. Here is a couple of reviews I found.
The marketing hype on this overpriced card is absurd. Just bought a 1080 ti for under $400 which should last me for a few years. Ray tracing is pretty much an emerging tech that will need far more powerful GPUs to effectively use it.
If your monitor is closer than 6 ft from your eyes, you won't see much benefit from 4k either. So a 1080 is about as much as you need for the foreseeable future.
The upcoming 2060's and 2050's won't be able to do any ray tracing without a severe degradation of FPS. You can probably include the 2070 in that too.
Take advantage of the low prices on the 10xx series, best bargain for a long time. 20xx prices are as expected ridiculous!
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I think we've reached a stage where there is no point in upgrading your GPU unless yours is 2 iterations (generations) behind, 1080p resolution (1440p is better but 4k its a waste of money) is more than enough to enjoy a pretty game (a gtx 980 does this more than well).
NVIDIA trying to justify RTX price tag on Ray Tracing is valid (after all it's their product), but anyone who buys one because of this is wasting money. I'm sure 2 iterations from now the performance on games where you can activate Ray Tracing will be reasonable enough to justify the upgrade but not now, and i'm 100% sure that it wont be for the next 4 years.
The marketing hype on this overpriced card is absurd. Just bought a 1080 ti for under $400 which should last me for a few years. Ray tracing is pretty much an emerging tech that will need far more powerful GPUs to effectively use it.
If your monitor is closer than 6 ft from your eyes, you won't see much benefit from 4k either. So a 1080 is about as much as you need for the foreseeable future.
The upcoming 2060's and 2050's won't be able to do any ray tracing without a severe degradation of FPS. You can probably include the 2070 in that too.
Take advantage of the low prices on the 10xx series, best bargain for a long time. 20xx prices are as expected ridiculous!
Where did you get one for under 400? I asked you in a pm and another thread, still with no response.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
Or you can buy two 1080ti for the same price . The performance per $ compared to last gen is abyssal plus features like RTX where only the TI can use it barely (1080p, ~50/60fps) that's what happens when you don't have competition . Plus the NDA contract where it says that any confidential information provided to the party must be used "solely for the benefit of NVIDIA" .
Still a great overpriced card tho .
One RTX 2080 is faster than a 1080ti at a $100 higher cost.
I think you want to compare a 2000 series lower model vs a 1080 higher model
So 2080 vs 1080ti - as again as far as price and performance those 2 are in the same tier.
2080ti is way faster than 1080ti and should be compared to the titan x again if you look at price/performance that comparison makes sense
The real issue is Nvidias new naming - 2080 should be named 2080ti
2080ti should be named 2080 titan and then all would make sense as far as price and performance
yup so many nubs comparing the 2080TI to the 1080TI, and even more nub authors comparing the 1080 to the 2080...
shame on nvidia for the name trickery to dupe passerbys and for price gouging us with lame tech and weak cuda core increase
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
DLSS is just rendering the game at a lower resolution and upscaling. Nvidia claims it's a better form of upscaling than video cards have used for the past 20+ years, and that's plausible. But it's not really a form of anti-aliasing, so much as it is a way to have reduced processing load at the expense of reduced image quality. For all of those people who want to pay $1200 for a video card so that they can run games at reduced settings.
DLSS 2x is potentially more interesting, but all we have at the moment is marketing junk, not actual games that we can evaluate.
The awkwardly presented graphics are a creative way to make it hard for your readers to do the salient comparison: a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti versus a GeForce RTX 1080. The latter costs a lot more, but performance is pretty close between the two of them.
Only worth it to those who are insistent upon high frame rates in 4K on max settings. I do just fine with my Titan XP. I'm kind of appalled that Nvidia priced this at $1199 for a ~30% increase. Ray tracing is cool and all but it'll take a while to flesh out beyond a few titles to full adoption. Not to say I absolutely won't buy one, but I'll certainly wait for some non reference versions that can get the best overclocking potential out of the card to make it worth the price tag.
GameByNightHardware and Technology EditorMMORPG.COM Staff, MemberRarePosts: 793
The awkwardly presented graphics are a creative way to make it hard for your readers to do the salient comparison: a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti versus a GeForce RTX 1080. The latter costs a lot more, but performance is pretty close between the two of them.
Um, just NO. Total waste of time with these graphics cards. Absolutely will not give money to this steaming pile of hot garbage. The 2080 performs exactly like a 1080 Ti stock, which who keeps it stock anyway? Of course a 1080 Ti gets overclocked which means out performing a 2080, which is more than enough horsepower for a few years. Maybe by then the 2080 Ti will be justified because ray tracing will actually be something more than just smoke and mirrors. 30% higher performance just like we've had since the 480 series cards, but at a $1200 price tag aka 70% price increase?
Hey if you want to agree with Nvidia and their tactics or argue for the 2000 series card then that is your prerogative. Just know that you are the problem in the equation condoning artificial inflation pricing out a major portion of the gaming market, preventing future gamers from entering into the PC gaming space, and contributing to the downfall of PC gaming as a whole. This pricing all but guarantees pushing people away from PC gaming and over to consoles.
Just to be clear, nothing against consoles, but shouldn't we be trying and helping to make PC gaming more accessible to the masses, not less?
Or you can buy two 1080ti for the same price . The performance per $ compared to last gen is abyssal plus features like RTX where only the TI can use it barely (1080p, ~50/60fps) that's what happens when you don't have competition . Plus the NDA contract where it says that any confidential information provided to the party must be used "solely for the benefit of NVIDIA" .
Still a great overpriced card tho .
If you buy two GTX 1080 Tis, then you have to deal with imperfect SLI scaling. That would also use a lot more power than a single card. Even if they were the same price as a single RTX 2080 Ti, I'd rather have the single card.
These charts are unprofessionally drawn, they're distorted across the horizontal axis in such a way as to exaggerate the advantage of the 20 series cards.
For example, on the 1440p chart for GTA V at average, the 1080 gives 170 fps and the 2080 177 fps. That's only 7 fps more, yet the bar for the 2080 is more than double the length of the bar for 1080. Surely, you guys know that a valid chart uses equal units of measurement across an axis. I guess that's why you didn't lay out any units of measurement across the X axis.
The bars are added together, rather than having the same left axis. I wouldn't call it unprofessional so much as a mistake.
Actually what all these benchmarks show me is how well my 1080 still performs. I'll stick with it for now.
For those with a 900 series or older it seems a good time to upgrade.
The new cards are only relevant if your GPU budget is over $700. For those on smaller budgets, they change nothing. You could argue that the end of the cryptocurrency mining craze means this is a good time to buy a new GPU, but that has nothing to do with the new cards.
Plus the NDA contract where it says that any confidential information provided to the party must be used "solely for the benefit of NVIDIA" .
OK, that's the scary part. What aren't they telling us?
When you actually look into this, it's nowhere near as bad as it sounds. There's a lot of fear mongering going on for what's essentially standard legalese in the NDA. We weren't required to sign anything, for the record.
What was unusual about the NDA this time is the five year expiration date. Most launch review NDAs expire when the cards launch.
It's interesting that they didn't ask you to sign anything. HardOCP wasn't allowed to do a launch day review precisely because they refused to sign the NDA. Nvidia is probably still sore at them over their exposing the GeForce Partner Program.
Actually what all these benchmarks show me is how well my 1080 still performs. I'll stick with it for now.
For those with a 900 series or older it seems a good time to upgrade.
It is time. The question is do I just save some cash and grab a 1080, or shell out the extra to get a 2000 series card?
It depends on your budget and how long you're willing to wait. If you're willing to spend $1200 and need a card right now, then get an RTX 2080 Ti and be done with it. If you're not willing to spend over $700 for a GPU, then pretend that the RTX 2000 series didn't exist and act accordingly.
Once full lineups of GPUs on 7 nm launch, the RTX 2000 series is going to seem very old, very quickly. I'd bet on that happening within a year, but I don't know if it's going to be early 2019 or basically a year from today.
AMD has promised a new Vega GPU on 7 nm later this year. It's unclear whether there will be Radeon cards based on it. Even if there are, it's not automatic that it will cause a big price drop rather than being priced in line with Nvidia's high end. Rumored specs would put its performance between an RTX 2080 and an RTX 2080 Ti, but the rumors might be wrong. But once one big GPU is out on 7 nm, a bunch of other GPUs on 7 nm probably won't be far behind.
Yes, it is factually a very good card series. BUT! They can fuck right off with their prices. And that's why the RTX series is a cancer upon everyone involved with gaming. It deserves to fail and deserves to F.A.I.L. epically. Unfortunately, it won't and then people will complain about how "gfx cards are expensive". /epic fail
They're expensive to buy because they're expensive to build. If ever there has been a consumer GPU that could justify a $1200 price tag, this is it. Nvidia increased performance by increasing the die size, and that increases cost of production. This is the largest GPU die ever used in a consumer card, and about 25% larger than the second largest. It also requires large amounts of memory built on a brand new standard. If Nvidia tried to price things such that the RTX 2080 Ti sold at retail for $500 each, they'd probably lose a ton of money on it.
From the reviews I have heard Ray tracing in still not working at this time, and there are only like 2 games that could even use it. Drivers are not optimized, sot it is more like a half baked version of what may be not what is. It may be a good card but not in the current state and the cost is just too high right now.
There are around 25 confirmed to be adding RT, according to NVIDIA. These are very good cards, without question, but they'll be getting better over time. Doesn't make them bad now by any means.
I think you mean DLSS, not ray tracing, as that's where Nvidia has announced support from exactly 25 games. It's unclear whether DLSS will ever matter. It might end up completely useless like the TAA that Nvidia wants to compare it to, on account of being inferior to alternatives on an image quality/performance hit basis. Even if DLSS is useless, it might end up being offered in a lot of games if Nvidia offers code for free, as once you can offer one post-processing form of anti-aliasing, you can offer others as options for very little extra developer work.
As for ray tracing, I'm very skeptical about the "hybrid" approach of partial ray tracing that Nvidia is talking about. Unless you have very restricted game mechanics that force two entirely separate classes of things that can never be close to each other, it's likely to suffer from about the same problems as if you could render part of the screen at ultra settings and part at medium: the contrast will look terrible, and worse than doing the whole thing at medium.
I expect that we'll see slow movement toward real-time ray tracing over the course of many years, much as we saw with rasterization. The launch of StarFox didn't mean that all future games would heavily use rasterization, for example. A handful of games with very restricted mechanics so that there isn't very much to draw in the game world in total might offer it, or with few things to offer in a small, confined arena while the background uses rasterization. Think Street Fighter as the sort of game where this might work. There might be some oddball games that decide to go full ray tracing at very low resolutions--think something like 480x270, not 1920x1080. But it's not going to be mainstream until Turing cards are pretty much obsolete.
I think we've reached a stage where there is no point in upgrading your GPU unless yours is 2 iterations (generations) behind, 1080p resolution (1440p is better but 4k its a waste of money) is more than enough to enjoy a pretty game (a gtx 980 does this more than well).
NVIDIA trying to justify RTX price tag on Ray Tracing is valid (after all it's their product), but anyone who buys one because of this is wasting money. I'm sure 2 iterations from now the performance on games where you can activate Ray Tracing will be reasonable enough to justify the upgrade but not now, and i'm 100% sure that it wont be for the next 4 years.
I am still happy with the performance i get from my 980ti, i run games at 2560x1440 and as long as i get 60 fps with high rez, if not max, then i am fine with it. As much as i wouldn't mind having a 2080 i don't see myself getting a new GPU until at least the next generation.
The awkwardly presented graphics are a creative way to make it hard for your readers to do the salient comparison: a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti versus a GeForce RTX 1080. The latter costs a lot more, but performance is pretty close between the two of them.
Are the giant numbers not clear enough?
The problem is that they're so far apart. The numbers you need to compare not only aren't next to each other, but aren't even on the same chart. Look how you did the first chart of non-GPU benchmarks, with the RTX 2080 and GTX 1080 Ti right next to each other. That's how you should have done all of the charts.
I think we've reached a stage where there is no point in upgrading your GPU unless yours is 2 iterations (generations) behind, 1080p resolution (1440p is better but 4k its a waste of money) is more than enough to enjoy a pretty game (a gtx 980 does this more than well).
NVIDIA trying to justify RTX price tag on Ray Tracing is valid (after all it's their product), but anyone who buys one because of this is wasting money. I'm sure 2 iterations from now the performance on games where you can activate Ray Tracing will be reasonable enough to justify the upgrade but not now, and i'm 100% sure that it wont be for the next 4 years.
I am still happy with the performance i get from my 980ti, i run games at 2560x1440 and as long as i get 60 fps with high rez, if not max, then i am fine with it. As much as i wouldn't mind having a 2080 i don't see myself getting a new GPU until at least the next generation.
The general rule of upgrades is that you shouldn't upgrade until you have some reason to believe that your old system isn't good enough anymore. That there is something theoretically better out there isn't such a reason. Too low of frame rates at the settings you like in some particular game that you play is.
Unless you don't have an SSD. Then you should get an SSD whether you realize that you need it or not.
Actually what all these benchmarks show me is how well my 1080 still performs. I'll stick with it for now.
For those with a 900 series or older it seems a good time to upgrade.
It is time. The question is do I just save some cash and grab a 1080, or shell out the extra to get a 2000 series card?
It depends on your budget and how long you're willing to wait. If you're willing to spend $1200 and need a card right now, then get an RTX 2080 Ti and be done with it. If you're not willing to spend over $700 for a GPU, then pretend that the RTX 2000 series didn't exist and act accordingly.
Once full lineups of GPUs on 7 nm launch, the RTX 2000 series is going to seem very old, very quickly. I'd bet on that happening within a year, but I don't know if it's going to be early 2019 or basically a year from today.
AMD has promised a new Vega GPU on 7 nm later this year. It's unclear whether there will be Radeon cards based on it. Even if there are, it's not automatic that it will cause a big price drop rather than being priced in line with Nvidia's high end. Rumored specs would put its performance between an RTX 2080 and an RTX 2080 Ti, but the rumors might be wrong. But once one big GPU is out on 7 nm, a bunch of other GPUs on 7 nm probably won't be far behind.
I am thinking it's a much better move for me to look to snag a 1080 on a deal then go with the 2000 series. It won't put as much of a dent in my pocket, which means I can justify upgrading to 7nm GPU much faster in the next generations than if I bought into the 2000 series. I'm not a huge fan of being part of what many times amounts to a live consumer beta test of new or emerging technology.
I think we've reached a stage where there is no point in upgrading your GPU unless yours is 2 iterations (generations) behind, 1080p resolution (1440p is better but 4k its a waste of money) is more than enough to enjoy a pretty game (a gtx 980 does this more than well).
NVIDIA trying to justify RTX price tag on Ray Tracing is valid (after all it's their product), but anyone who buys one because of this is wasting money. I'm sure 2 iterations from now the performance on games where you can activate Ray Tracing will be reasonable enough to justify the upgrade but not now, and i'm 100% sure that it wont be for the next 4 years.
I am still happy with the performance i get from my 980ti, i run games at 2560x1440 and as long as i get 60 fps with high rez, if not max, then i am fine with it. As much as i wouldn't mind having a 2080 i don't see myself getting a new GPU until at least the next generation.
Agreed, I still have a 970 that, even though I have to do some tweaking in the graphics options of the games, stills manages to give me good performance.
As you said it would be cool to have RTX one, but not a that price.
Comments
There are around 25 confirmed to be adding RT, according to NVIDIA. These are very good cards, without question, but they'll be getting better over time. Doesn't make them bad now by any means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDrpsv0QIR0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1DoG6uTYBg&t=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUM_eINGUl4&t=
Quote for truth here.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
NVIDIA trying to justify RTX price tag on Ray Tracing is valid (after all it's their product), but anyone who buys one because of this is wasting money. I'm sure 2 iterations from now the performance on games where you can activate Ray Tracing will be reasonable enough to justify the upgrade but not now, and i'm 100% sure that it wont be for the next 4 years.
--John Ruskin
yup so many nubs comparing the 2080TI to the 1080TI, and even more nub authors comparing the 1080 to the 2080... shame on nvidia for the name trickery to dupe passerbys and for price gouging us with lame tech and weak cuda core increase
DLSS 2x is potentially more interesting, but all we have at the moment is marketing junk, not actual games that we can evaluate.
Are the giant numbers not clear enough?
Hey if you want to agree with Nvidia and their tactics or argue for the 2000 series card then that is your prerogative. Just know that you are the problem in the equation condoning artificial inflation pricing out a major portion of the gaming market, preventing future gamers from entering into the PC gaming space, and contributing to the downfall of PC gaming as a whole. This pricing all but guarantees pushing people away from PC gaming and over to consoles.
Just to be clear, nothing against consoles, but shouldn't we be trying and helping to make PC gaming more accessible to the masses, not less?
It's interesting that they didn't ask you to sign anything. HardOCP wasn't allowed to do a launch day review precisely because they refused to sign the NDA. Nvidia is probably still sore at them over their exposing the GeForce Partner Program.
Once full lineups of GPUs on 7 nm launch, the RTX 2000 series is going to seem very old, very quickly. I'd bet on that happening within a year, but I don't know if it's going to be early 2019 or basically a year from today.
AMD has promised a new Vega GPU on 7 nm later this year. It's unclear whether there will be Radeon cards based on it. Even if there are, it's not automatic that it will cause a big price drop rather than being priced in line with Nvidia's high end. Rumored specs would put its performance between an RTX 2080 and an RTX 2080 Ti, but the rumors might be wrong. But once one big GPU is out on 7 nm, a bunch of other GPUs on 7 nm probably won't be far behind.
As for ray tracing, I'm very skeptical about the "hybrid" approach of partial ray tracing that Nvidia is talking about. Unless you have very restricted game mechanics that force two entirely separate classes of things that can never be close to each other, it's likely to suffer from about the same problems as if you could render part of the screen at ultra settings and part at medium: the contrast will look terrible, and worse than doing the whole thing at medium.
I expect that we'll see slow movement toward real-time ray tracing over the course of many years, much as we saw with rasterization. The launch of StarFox didn't mean that all future games would heavily use rasterization, for example. A handful of games with very restricted mechanics so that there isn't very much to draw in the game world in total might offer it, or with few things to offer in a small, confined arena while the background uses rasterization. Think Street Fighter as the sort of game where this might work. There might be some oddball games that decide to go full ray tracing at very low resolutions--think something like 480x270, not 1920x1080. But it's not going to be mainstream until Turing cards are pretty much obsolete.
Unless you don't have an SSD. Then you should get an SSD whether you realize that you need it or not.