Nvidia Super Card Reviews

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Performance is not linear, just like the prices aren't...

That does not change the accuracy of the comparison. 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

% always sound so fancy but do you check your performance in % or FPS in games?

I do not compare FPS of cards to each other unless it is the same game and the same settings.  When you compare multiple games as an average you no longer get any more meaning out of FPS than you do percentages. 

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

We're much closer with framerate than % numbers. People have better idea what they are dealing with than if you tell them %.

 

Only for specific games and settings, not for comparisons between multiple games as averages when comparing cards to cards.

 

I understand 15FPS is more meaningful when judging if a card is even worth buying or if the difference is 100 and 110 between two cards in one game, but those graphs are comparisons of multiple benchmarks for each resolution,  Quoting an FPS number in that situation in some cases will be more deceptive because it could lead people to think that the average FPS listed for any given card will be what they expect in any given game.  We both know that is not the case. 

[SupremeGOAT]

So Super is the new way of saying TI got it...

[Derangel]

8 hours ago, Origami Cactus said:

Consoles are on AMD hardware, so all console ports will be AMD optimized. The PS5 and New XBOX are on Ryzen+Navi. The current PS4/pro and Xbox 1/x are also on AMD hardware.

Why do people assume that PC versions will suddenly, magically, favor AMD hardware when that hasn't been the case for the past six years of AMD powered consoles?

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Derangel said:

Why do people assume that PC versions will suddenly, magically, favor AMD hardware when that hasn't been the case for the past six years of AMD powered consoles?

I don't even know why people assume games favor any hardware in any meaningful way.   The last time I couldn't play a game at decent settings because I had the wrong brand GPU was BF1942 because my 3dfx didn't have T&L.

[RejZoR]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't even know why people assume games favor any hardware in any meaningful way.   The last time I couldn't play a game at decent settings because I had the wrong brand GPU was BF1942 because my 3dfx didn't have T&L.

Coz they don't. I had bunch of Radeons and GeForces and never cared what game favors what. Games were always smooth enough I never even noticed that would matter.

[pas008]

16 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Percentage display is the dumbest thing possible. 9% sounds like a lot, but when you convert that to framerate it's a much different picture. People need to stop relying on this nonsense and compare actual framerate. And despite perfomance bumps, this is an incredibly boring launch. They just upped the HW like always. Not a single new software feature. Last meaningful one they released was Adaptive V-Sync/Fast V-Sync. And it has been years since then. The rest is utter useless ugly shit.They had so many chances to release new software too and they refused. First with RTX cards and now with Super. I guess NV CP, NVIDIA EXperience and everything around it will maybe get fixed and improved in 2034... If lucky.

What? its facts

Is it not?

Same variables too

What you want individual stats go find those but this is great for all around performance increase

Id rather use these considering upgrade than searching each damn game and then seeing their variables

 

 

 

10% lift in a year is nice in my opinion considering its same line with More cores available

Better control panel would be nice ill agree with that

But we usually pay for performance numbers

[CarlBar]

On 7/2/2019 at 4:50 PM, VegetableStu said:

FE pricing, although come to think of it I don't think I've seen an MSRP 2080ti that often...? o_o

 

Yeah i paid £1400 at launch for mine, (Gigabyte Aorus Extreme OC) and the same model is now retailing for £1600. MSRP 2080Ti's are pretty close to a myth these days, though there where a fair few at launch.

[RejZoR]

8 hours ago, pas008 said:

What? its facts

Is it not?

Same variables too

What you want individual stats go find those but this is great for all around performance increase

Id rather use these considering upgrade than searching each damn game and then seeing their variables

 

 

 

10% lift in a year is nice in my opinion considering its same line with More cores available

Better control panel would be nice ill agree with that

But we usually pay for performance numbers

So much talk and you all missing the point. Numbers are correct, it's just that they don't represent the results in meaningful way without having to dig into it with dedication. 60fps is smoother than 40fps. You know the exact baseline and upgrade. Saying RTX 2060 Super is 50% faster than RTX 2060 tells you what? Nothing if you don't have an idea how fast RTX 2060 was in the first place. And that's why I don't like % values.

[aliasdred]

I'm still sour about the naming scheme.

THEY ALREADY HAVE THE 'TI' SCHEME, WHY START A NEW ONE?

Dafuq Nvidia?

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

22 minutes ago, aliasdred said:

I'm still sour about the naming scheme.

THEY ALREADY HAVE THE 'TI' SCHEME, WHY START A NEW ONE?

Dafuq Nvidia?

they also do have "SE" (gtx560SE)

[mr moose]

54 minutes ago, aliasdred said:

I'm still sour about the naming scheme.

THEY ALREADY HAVE THE 'TI' SCHEME, WHY START A NEW ONE?

Dafuq Nvidia?

Naming schemes are a horrible twisting inward spiral of death,  If a company  strays too farm from the current name they risk people thinking it a new product and riskier although possibly significantly better.  However if they use the same name or continuation,  then people think its the same product only a little better.   It's all marketing headfuckery. 

 

https://hbr.org/2011/05/the-best-way-to-name-your-product-20

 

Basically we have consumer psychology to blame for this.

 

 

 

 

 

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, aliasdred said:

I'm still sour about the naming scheme.

THEY ALREADY HAVE THE 'TI' SCHEME, WHY START A NEW ONE?

Dafuq Nvidia?

Not to mention the dafuck naming scheme of GTX 1660 which literally fits nowhere. And they already had GTX series without ray tracing...

[cj09beira]

15 hours ago, mr moose said:

I don't even know why people assume games favor any hardware in any meaningful way.   The last time I couldn't play a game at decent settings because I had the wrong brand GPU was BF1942 because my 3dfx didn't have T&L.

there were some cases where it definitely mattered, the first week of the original tomb raider nvidia cards suffered to render the tress Fx hair, amd cards still struggle more than they should with hairworks, if you have a high end card you might not notice, but i did notice when using a mid range card, i had a 660 when tomb raider came out and at first i wasn't able to get good performance with hair on, after the update though it was fine, the same though can't be said for hairworks

[Fnige]

On 7/3/2019 at 8:56 PM, VegetableStu said:

2080 ti already exists ._.

But do we need 3 types of 2080s

[looterz]

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

I don't even know why people assume games favor any hardware in any meaningful way.   The last time I couldn't play a game at decent settings because I had the wrong brand GPU was BF1942 because my 3dfx didn't have T&L.

The only real time this might occur is when games use middleware created for and tested on NVidia hardware primarily (Gameworks), or integrate intel's "fast-math" libraries for code (I've never seen this personally). Games favoring certain GPUs or CPUs past that are likely just the hardware and not intentional.

[pas008]

14 hours ago, RejZoR said:

So much talk and you all missing the point. Numbers are correct, it's just that they don't represent the results in meaningful way without having to dig into it with dedication. 60fps is smoother than 40fps. You know the exact baseline and upgrade. Saying RTX 2060 Super is 50% faster than RTX 2060 tells you what? Nothing if you don't have an idea how fast RTX 2060 was in the first place. And that's why I don't like % values.

50% faster is 50% faster

They base that on the baseline of the card they compared too

Logic? Math is hard?

 

The question you are asking is does the consumer need it? That's their decision with their money

 

Wtf did i just read wow

[RejZoR]

26 minutes ago, pas008 said:

50% faster is 50% faster

They base that on the baseline of the card they compared too

Logic? Math is hard?

 

The question you are asking is does the consumer need it? That's their decision with their money

 

Wtf did i just read wow

50% faster of what? Unless you know what kind of performance baseline has, it tells you absolutely nothing. Absolute framerate numbers on the other hand, you need to define them for baseline and for the new card. Then you can already see the difference with or without % number. 20fps more is 20fps more. Or do you all display your framerate in games using % somehow?

[pas008]

16 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

50% faster of what? Unless you know what kind of performance baseline has, it tells you absolutely nothing. Absolute framerate numbers on the other hand, you need to define them for baseline and for the new card. Then you can already see the difference with or without % number. 20fps more is 20fps more. Or do you all display your framerate in games using % somehow?

Those stats are all around average

Its great imo

If You want single game numbers go to those pages

 

Math and logic is hard

[RejZoR]

I bet you're one of those who buy things based on % discount and not actual end price too... coz math is hard or some shit...

[Derangel]

52 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

50% faster of what? Unless you know what kind of performance baseline has, it tells you absolutely nothing. Absolute framerate numbers on the other hand, you need to define them for baseline and for the new card. Then you can already see the difference with or without % number. 20fps more is 20fps more. Or do you all display your framerate in games using % somehow?

Average FPS is a pretty worthless statistic on its own and its even worse if you try to average out all the average FPS numbers from every test to try and come to some comparison conclusion.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, cj09beira said:

there were some cases where it definitely mattered, the first week of the original tomb raider nvidia cards suffered to render the tress Fx hair, amd cards still struggle more than they should with hairworks, if you have a high end card you might not notice, but i did notice when using a mid range card, i had a 660 when tomb raider came out and at first i wasn't able to get good performance with hair on, after the update though it was fine, the same though can't be said for hairworks

Issues like that occur on both brands,  when developers use gameworks it takes a little bit to optimise AMD drivers and vice versa, but we are still only talking weeks tops,   and sometimes older Nvidia cards suffer because of new gameworks processes,  which means it's not intentionally favored hardware.

 

2 hours ago, looterz said:

The only real time this might occur is when games use middleware created for and tested on NVidia hardware primarily (Gameworks), or integrate intel's "fast-math" libraries for code (I've never seen this personally). Games favoring certain GPUs or CPUs past that are likely just the hardware and not intentional.

 

It's quite common for new hardware or new games to have issues that need to be addressed or optimised,  that fact it happens on GPU's is just because they are different not because a game or brand is intentionally favored.  

[pas008]

34 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I bet you're one of those who buy things based on % discount and not actual end price too... coz math is hard or some shit...

Yeah don't quote for sneaky last word

what does purchasing decision have to do with this but if you want to know

I buy on many variables along with variables like:

price to performance with budget or near that there is, looking at historic lows, total end price after cc cash back coupons shipping costs etc etc

 

 

 

[thorhammerz]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

what does purchasing decision have to do with this but if you want to know

Percentages bad! Raw numbers good! Because I say so!

 

[looterz]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's quite common for new hardware or new games to have issues that need to be addressed or optimised,  that fact it happens on GPU's is just because they are different not because a game or brand is intentionally favored.  

That's definitely a thing, I was trying to address the common misconception that devs go out of their way to favor one vendor over another, in general, developers want their products to run the best it can on any hardware available. One of the best examples I have worked with related to what you mentioned is the AMD Bulldozer bugs related to audio, specifically with unreals audio subsystem killing the CPU performance. Still an issue to this day, despite several attempted fixes from Epic and AMD.

[xg32]

I think we can all agree that the 2070 was never worth 500usd, so say 450, the 2060 super is 400usd and is slightly slower, i'd say it's fair pricing, not cheap, but this makes the original 2060 an even crappier deal at 350usd.

 

The 2070 super almost reaches 1080 ti performance for 500usd and the 2080 super rumored to be 10-15% of the 2080 ti for 700usd. I'd look at especially the 2070 super if it's within budget.