NVIDIA Fires Shots at AMD’s 7nm Tech - Claims "Can Create Most Energy-efficient GPU in the World Anytime"

[thedangerine]

I love when companies are like, "we could do this whenever we want," like ok then why don't you. I'm not saying Nvidia couldn't do that whenever they want but like whoopdee do. 

 

 

also the RTX 2070 has two power connectors and all 10 series cards up to the 1080 had one 8 pin and sipped power, kinda took a step back in power consumption with the 20 series imo

[RejZoR]

The kind of logic where if you push some shit and brag so hard about it, at least have a significant backlog of games featuring it already. You can't compare whole API with a single feature from it. Which RTX is. NVIDIA should have made sure they have enough big titles ready to go with it on release date of RTX cards. One thing is impressing people with tech videos of it, another saying, we'll have 5 RTX ready games in 1 week time after the release of cards. People would go mad about it. Instead, big load of nothing happened.

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, pas008 said:

What kind of logic is this?

Dx9 10 11 and 12 games didn't just pop up right away they needed hardware support first plus you don't want to alienate a huge audience by focusing on using newer tech as a developer you dabble and offer a little or some support until it becomes norm or mainstream

Dx12 been out for how long? Vulkan?

How many games are using them?

Ok then shit takes time sadly

 

But you may have your commerical flop opinion but then again you just showed how your logic works

I have had this exact discussion with RejZoR before, he doesn't really understand that side of the technology, for him it's just a superficial whinge about NVIDIA being crap for whatever reason only he understands.

[pas008]

10 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

The kind of logic where if you push some shit and brag so hard about it, at least have a significant backlog of games featuring it already. You can't compare whole API with a single feature from it. Which RTX is. NVIDIA should have made sure they have enough big titles ready to go with it on release date of RTX cards. One thing is impressing people with tech videos of it, another saying, we'll have 5 RTX ready games in 1 week time after the release of cards. People would go mad about it. Instead, big load of nothing happened.

Wow you are lost you think devs should make games on tech that doesn't exist yet 

And once it's released it takes time to utilize it still

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

The kind of logic where if you push some shit and brag so hard about it, at least have a significant backlog of games featuring it already. You can't compare whole API with a single feature from it. Which RTX is. NVIDIA should have made sure they have enough big titles ready to go with it on release date of RTX cards. One thing is impressing people with tech videos of it, another saying, we'll have 5 RTX ready games in 1 week time after the release of cards. People would go mad about it. Instead, big load of nothing happened.

Ray Tracing is an entire change to the whole graphics pipeline, that's as big if not bigger than some of the changes Direct X has gone through. Compound that with nobody is really going to start a 3+ year development cycle to support a hardware feature for hardware that does not exist yet so you have no way of testing or optimization. Expecting 5, 10, 20 games at the release of new graphics cards hardware is totally unrealistic, in fact when is the last time that many games got released at the same time. That amount doesn't even happen with new consoles, you're lucky to get 5 and they get much better and sooner early access development hardware.

 

Game developers won't, and shouldn't fit their schedule around a GPU company's release of hardware or technology like you want them to. You might as well just ask Nvidia to be a game development studio and publisher at that point.

[thorhammerz]

4 hours ago, pas008 said:

Wow you are lost you think devs should make games on tech that doesn't exist yet 

Some people just prefer to live with their delusions fantasies of how reality works when it gives them an excuse to hate on game developers (and the hardware companies) for existing as a for-profit organization .

[RejZoR]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Ray Tracing is an entire change to the whole graphics pipeline, that's as big if not bigger than some of the changes Direct X has gone through. Compound that with nobody is really going to start a 3+ year development cycle to support a hardware feature for hardware that does not exist yet so you have no way of testing or optimization. Expecting 5, 10, 20 games at the release of new graphics cards hardware is totally unrealistic, in fact when is the last time that many games got released at the same time. That amount doesn't even happen with new consoles, you're lucky to get 5 and they get much better and sooner early access development hardware.

 

Game developers won't, and shouldn't fit their schedule around a GPU company's release of hardware or technology like you want them to. You might as well just ask Nvidia to be a game development studio and publisher at that point.

Erm, have you thought you're looking at this the wrong way? You're saying they couldn't release features for cards that didn't exist yet. I was thinking more along the lines of NVIDIA making sure devs are capable of doing that before releasing cards. You know, not releasing them before their prime time?

 

Why do you all think people were buying graphic cards, proper 3D ones like mad in the past? Because Doom and Quake games were pushing the boundaries of graphics and were basically the only games to utilize tech to such extent. People WANTED to buy new hardware because of that. Today, it doesn't matter if you have a 250€ graphic card or a 1200€ graphic card, end experience is basically the same, it's just how fluid it is. And it's very even with cheap cards if they aren't exactly bottom crap. If RTX was marketed properly, people would WANT the RTX cards for that. What we got instead? Almost everyone recommending to just buy old 1080Ti coz it makes no difference if it's older gen without RTX. NVIDIA released this awesome super realistic feature with basically zero incentive to jump on it other than bunch of hyped videos that are next to worthless for a gamer. Essentially they had to have just 1 high profile game fully ready to go with RTX on release day and it would make the whole difference, for which they should partner with a developer to do it before the launch. They were making this thing for 10 years if CEO of NVIDIA is to be believed and yet in 10 years time, they were unable to make a deal and ensure that. Come on, who's the idiot here? It would also be easy to convince shareholders to postpone the launch if they were pressuring them, because rushing a product when competition has nothing and then have this awesome hardware no one can really use is all the R&D time and money thrown down the toilet. No one's gonna buy a 1200€ card for the future to maybe use it for this feature some day. It's struggling to do it now, it's not gonna be faster in next 2-3 years...

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

NVIDIA making sure devs are capable of doing that before releasing cards.

Why? Why should Nvidia seed cards to devs months or years in advance just so you can have a few extra launch titles. Why make every wait for new faster hardware because of a sub set of features, you know everything else about the cards work right? Is the gaming industry supposed to be at the beck and call of Nvidia? No.

 

It makes zero sense to delay either games or hardware so they perfectly line up in a magical world that shouldn't even exist anyway. It's a co-operative relationship not a controlling one, you can work together as well as work independently. 

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Erm, have you thought you're looking at this the wrong way?

This thought might surprise you, but most of us consider things with an open mind.  In fact it seems you are the only one (maybe two others)  in this discussion who has been unwilling to comprehend the size and intricacies of technological development.

Quote

You're saying they couldn't release features for cards that didn't exist yet. I was thinking more along the lines of NVIDIA making sure devs are capable of doing that before releasing cards. You know, not releasing them before their prime time?

 

NVIDIA has been working with the devs to make sure they can use it.   In fact Nvidia, like everyone else working on RT, have been working closely with developers and industry specialists for many years now to bring this tech to the market.  

[laminutederire]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

To be fair, nvidia did make bold claims about it being easy to implement if my memory serves me right. So in a way, not having games for it while understandable isn't entirely acceptable considering those claims.

(And to be fair, they could have trained DLSS models for way more games or they really wanted to. That would not take 3 years to do per game, that should be around a week to a month of training the network, and around the same time to include it in the AA pipeline, so that could have been implemented more widespread.

[RejZoR]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

This thought might surprise you, but most of us consider things with an open mind.  In fact it seems you are the only one (maybe two others)  in this discussion who has been unwilling to comprehend the size and intricacies of technological development.

NVIDIA has been working with the devs to make sure they can use it.   In fact Nvidia, like everyone else working on RT, have been working closely with developers and industry specialists for many years now to bring this tech to the market.  

I know enough that no one's gonna buy a superduper cool product if they can't use features on it. Especially if it costs bloody 1000€ and more...

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I know enough that no one's gonna buy a superduper cool product if they can't use features on it. Especially if it costs bloody 1000€ and more...

Well if you were looking at buying a 1080Ti you might as well get a 2080, if you were looking at a 1080 you might as well get a 2070 etc. If you're in the market for a new card would it not be best to buy the best card you can for the same price point you were looking at, the RTX cards have more improvements than just Ray Tracing and that's primarily in fixing all the hardware shortcomings in relation to DX12 and Vulkan.

 

Even if you don't really like the state of RTX as it is now protesting buying a worse product is not intelligent.

[Sauron]

Meanwhile Vega wipes the floor with Turing in GPU computing performance...

[Guest]

On ‎3‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 7:04 AM, Chett_Manly said:

I mean hes not wrong. AMD's 7nm product has about 12nm RTX2080 performance at a higher power draw. The Nvidia's Turing architecture is more power efficient at 12nm than AMD at 7nm.  

 

345 Watts.. ow wait …. total system power consumption … oke oke nvm 

[RejZoR]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well if you were looking at buying a 1080Ti you might as well get a 2080, if you were looking at a 1080 you might as well get a 2070 etc. If you're in the market for a new card would it not be best to buy the best card you can for the same price point you were looking at, the RTX cards have more improvements than just Ray Tracing and that's primarily in fixing all the hardware shortcomings in relation to DX12 and Vulkan.

 

Even if you don't really like the state of RTX as it is now protesting buying a worse product is not intelligent.

a) I bought 1080Ti two months after release which will make it 2 years old this june iirc so I'm not protesting anything

b) 1080Ti was way cheaper than RTX 2080 when RTX 2080 was released

c) basically everyone recommended 1080Ti over RTX, including Linus and Jayz along with bunch of others, they only stopped when prices stabilized and GTX 1080Ti weren't available in stores anymore

[illegalwater]

52 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

b) 1080Ti was way cheaper than RTX 2080 when RTX 2080 was released

Barely. Most 1080 Tis were still going for $700+ when the 2080 launched.

[RejZoR]

And how much was RTX 2080? 699 ? My ass it was... Ti version was 1200€ and regular was 1000€...

[pas008]

52 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

And how much was RTX 2080? 699 ? My ass it was... Ti version was 1200€ and regular was 1000€...

800 ish but 3rd party 1080ti was selling for 750 to 800 at the time with dual fans at least

 

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

I think the mindset is that people don't want to pay for an RTX for 2 maybe 3 reasons.  Used prices on Pascal and RX+Vega compared to the current offerings from Nvidia.  Like you can get a 1080 Ti, vega 64, vega 56, 1080, 1070 ti, and 1070 for less than 400 used off ebay.  New prices they're probably less drastic, but that is part of it.  Secondly, people don't want to pay the price of turing and have RTX and DLSS off most of the time as they apparently feel like they're overpaying for that is one defense I've heard.  Thirdly, they're just put off by the RTX lack of support and when they have seen it applied DLSS is causing a blur fest and RTXi s cutting into the frame rate.  The only reason I refuse to buy the 2080 Ti, while I can afford it, is the fuck you price from Nvidia due to the lack of competition.  I'm perfectly fine with a Radeon VII for my use case where it actually is better.  And, I would like a 2080 Ti if Nvidia lowered the price a little, but not now with that excessive price tag for no reason other than, "We have no competition, so fuck you and buy it anyways!  Come one, having them funds makes you better!"

I never liked the price increase either, that's not how it's supposed to happen but the problem is that's what we have now. We can stand around having a bitch about it all day but that doesn't actually make the RTX cards worse than what they are at the given price points. Realistically most people buy new and with the actual improvements in Turing and how 'well' Nvidia supports GPU architecture after they have been succeeded I could only ever recommend buying the same priced Turing as the Pascal.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

c) basically everyone recommended 1080Ti over RTX, including Linus and Jayz along with bunch of others, they only stopped when prices stabilized and GTX 1080Ti weren't available in stores anymore

And that only applied at launch, is it launch now? No. They were also saying have a look at the used 1080 Ti market too. However right now, the time period in this discussion that matters, you can get a decent RTX 2080 for $800 and a GTX 1080 Ti for $850+. Now the only way GTX 1080 Ti would be a better buy is if it were used and much cheaper.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I know enough that no one's gonna buy a superduper cool product if they can't use features on it. Especially if it costs bloody 1000€ and more...

So when your argument falls in a heap you move to argue the price is too high.  Price is dictated by market demand,   The reason they are so bloody expensive is because people do want to buy them.  

 

So again, no,  you don't know anything about it really.  Your whole argument has just been an attempt to claim NVIDIA is somehow second rate, like their existence is having a negative effect on the market.  Your claims are nonsense.  Your understanding of technology and how it develops is insufficient to support your feelings on the matter.

 

 

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, there is/was an overstock issue with both Pascal and Turing.  Not sure if that was ever resolved.  Pascal was due to overstocking after the mining crap, and I don't remember the exact reason for Turing's overstock.  Not sure if Turing is selling as well as Nvidia had hoped.

Most of the issues with overstock were just forum exaggeration.

 

Every time there is a news article about that sort of thing some lawyer starts a class action, then the forums go nuts with claims of the company failure and major issues.

 

Like most threads on most forums, if we go back and look at all the claims of this ilk,   we can see that for every thousand there might be one or two that are still an issue for the company a few months later.   Personally I'd like a dollar for every post that said RIP *enter company here*.  

 

 

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well if you were looking at buying a 1080Ti you might as well get a 2080,

No, because 1080ti has +3GiB VRAM, wich is important in some games or could be more important in the future....

That the "Tensor Cores" might or might not be good for in Gaming, we just do not know.

It might become important. It might be completely useless and offer no advantage.

Wouldn't be the first time that something is dead in the water or absolutely unimportant within the lifetime of the product - like 32bit 

 

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Even if you don't really like the state of RTX as it is now protesting buying a worse product is not intelligent.

Thing is:
We do not really know what is the worse/better product right now. 

Only time will tell.

Now we know that the Voodoo 3/3000 was not worse than the TNT2 PRO.

Now we know that TnL wasn't really important for the Geforce.

Now we know that the Radeon X800 and X850 beat the shit out of the 6800 and later 7900 in later games due to the way the Shader works.

 

On 4/7/2019 at 12:45 AM, mr moose said:

I have had this exact discussion with RejZoR before, he doesn't really understand that side of the technology,

Oh yeah, why don't you start explaining it and prove that YOU understand that part of Technology?
 

But instead you just insult people and claim they don't understand something when they have a different oppionion on a certain thing or came to a different conclusion about a thing than you.

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, because 1080ti has +3GiB VRAM, wich is important in some games or could be more important in the future....

Allocated ram and ram in use are different things, very few games have active in use vram over 6GB.

 

24 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Thing is:
We do not really know what is the worse/better product right now. 

Only time will tell.

Yes we do, it has better hardware support for DX12 and Vulkan. Performance being on average the same for current games means they are functionally equivalent. Problem there is for the games that do utilize the new DX12/Vulkan functions Turing does perform better and that is a trend only to continue. Buying a new GTX 1080 Ti now is not intelligent, and no the vram difference is irrelevant. By the time it would be the next generation of GPUs will be out from Nvidia and AMD. 

 

Tensor cores and RT cores aren't even part of the equation here, I am intentionally ignoring them.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:Buying a new GTX 1080 Ti now is not intelligent,

Unless you intend to watercool and single slot the card, as it only needs one slot for I/O.