Gigabyte accidentally confirms more Ampere SKUs, 3080 20GB, 3070 16GB & 3060 8GB

[RejZoR]

10 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

It's great that you have the money. But for many, they aim for compute parts that will last them a long time, which also reduce e-waste, something. others think about. Considering the you can't upgrade a graphics card memory, this posses a problem.

 

The big problem for many, is that while the memory amount is indeed sufficient for todays games, for the target resolution each GPU model targets, that is today. The new console are around the corner, and next gen games are coming for them and on PC. Will it be enough memory for games 1-2 years from now.... we don't know. But having some headroom is welcome. If the 3080 had 12GB it would have been less of a concern. 16GB would have been more the enough for 3-4 years, most likely.

 

It has nothing to do with money. If I was shitting money, I'd be jumping between platforms every 2 years. Instead, I'm still on now almost prehistoric LGA2011 on Core i7 5820k. It's about making good decisions that will serve you well long term. That especially applies with platforms, if you pick well it can serve you superbly up to 6 years without showing any serious aging. And for graphic cards, I have my own rule that I only upgrade them when new generation can spit out double the framerate of my current one. Which, coincidently goes with RTX 3080. In most games it spits out double the framerate of GTX 1080Ti (which is currently 3 years old). And I'm finally a bit excited about ray tracing. Do I seriously need it. No. I could keep it for longer, but curiosity got me. And I hope it'll benefit me in Killing Floor 2 which is old, but during carnage still very demanding game. And still very nice looking one.

[Mister Woof]

1 hour ago, Fatih19 said:

Are you MLID?

IDK what that means

[Fatih19]

1 minute ago, Mister Woof said:

IDK what that means

A youtuber that goes by the name of Moore's Law is Dead uploaded a video a week ago speculating on the possibility of Nvidia purposefully limiting 3080 supply.

 

[GoodBytes]

26 minutes ago, Fatih19 said:

A youtuber that goes by the name of Moore's Law is Dead uploaded a video a week ago speculating on the possibility of Nvidia purposefully limiting 3080 supply

 

Right, but Steve at GamerNexus reports that from the perspective of AIBs the number of chips that they got, is the same are previous launches.

 

[Fatih19]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

Right, but Steve at GamerNexus reports that from the perspective of AIBs the number of chips that they got, is the same are previous launches.

Report: Availability & Supply of NVIDIA RTX 3080 Video Cards - YouTube

 

I don't believe MLID, I'm merely saying that Woof's opinion reminded me of that video.

[Delicieuxz]

6 hours ago, Murasaki said:

Excuse me a 3070 16GB? Nice bait for the miners while I snag me a 8GB!

Does the amount of VRAM matter for mining?

[Murasaki]

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Does the amount of VRAM matter for mining?

Not a clue! But im sure its bigger numbers are more enticing!

[eeeee1]

wow there really will be a 3060! this is something i cant miss!

[DaRk0]

I think I'll pull some favors with my developer friends to make me a robot for the launch.

[SolarNova]

Not unexpected tbh.

 

Here are my 'rough' predictions by the time everything is released

 

Based on Previous generations
Card---------------------Price----- Relative 'Gaming' Performance

RTX Titan 3k-----------$3000------125%
RTX 3090 24GB-------$1500-----120%
RTX 3080ti 12GB------$750--------115%
RTX 3080 20GB-------$650-------105%
RTX 3080 10GB-------$580-------100%
RTX 3070ti--------------$470-------80%
RTX 3070---------------$400-------70%
RTX 3060ti-------------$350-------50%
RTX 3060---------------$300------40%

 

Based on 20 series "Fk the consumer"
Card------------------------Price

RTX Titan 3k--------------$3000
RTX 3090------------------$1500
RTX 3080ti 12GB--------$1000
RTX 3080 20GB----------$800
RTX 3080 10GB---------$700
RTX 3070ti----------------$550
RTX 3070-----------------$470
RTX 3060ti----------------$370
RTX 3060-----------------$300

 

AMD--------------------Relative to Nvidia 3080

Navi 23   $1000------115% (Causes Nvida to release 3080ti and perhaps RTX Titan 3k)
Navi 22   $650-------105% (As good or slightly better than 3080 10GB but with 16GB)
Navi 21   $350--------65%  (Value card)

or

Navi 23 $600----------90%  (Unable to compete AMD drops price, causes Nvidia to drop 3080 price, releases 3080ti at higher price point)
Navi 22 $400----------70%  (Competes at mid range, Nvidia drops prices)
Navi 21 $300----------60%  (Best value low end)

[porina]

I don't get why some think 10GB cards will be junk in a year or two. The vast majority of the installed base right now is 8GB or less. Game devs will make games work great on those. I don't consider a 3080 to be "best of best" card anyway, for those who have to run everything on max settings they have already failed if they buy a 3080.

[GoodBytes]

28 minutes ago, porina said:

I don't get why some think 10GB cards will be junk in a year or two. The vast majority of the installed base right now is 8GB or less. Game devs will make games work great on those. I don't consider a 3080 to be "best of best" card anyway, for those who have to run everything on max settings they have already failed if they buy a 3080.

Like I said, we don't know... but we have a new console gen that will be released. And despite what many PC gamers thinks, gaming console is a big part of the gaming industry, and influence how far graphically most games are pushed to. 

 

Now, technically, you can always argue, "As long as the game runs above 30fps average, a lowest settings and resolutions, it is fine.", sure, I have a GeForce 210 for you, right here, you can still buy them for some reason (the GPU that never wants to die). But realistically, people want to play games at max or near that settings at their native resolution, or what they plan to get later on (say a ultra wide 1440p screen, or go all in on a 4K display) at 60fps or higher. Basically, they want the experience of the game (which is art) that was envisioned by the developers. That is also part why IPS panels are gaining grounds and is quiet popular in the gaming scene. People want to get the best experience possible.

 

The concern is not helped that the GPU is still expensive. Sure, Nvidia was nice to not continue forward with the 2000 series pricing, and took a step back... (actually the sales of the 2000 series were poor for Nvidia, that is the real reason, confirmed by Steam hardware survey). And you had massive hype on the performance, which in reality isn't coming close to reality. Sure a great GPU, but not "2x performance", and while yes, they said "Up to", usually you expect "up To" to be "close to" in most cases, and not that odd special case. 

 

This is like you paying for 100Mbps internet from your ISP, and you get 8Mbps, and you call them, and go "Hey! what's going on...", and they go "What? We said, "UP TO", what are you are complain about... 0Mbps is also part of the "Up to" so consider lucky that you have something!", right? So for the price, people expects a bit more out of the GPU. In a way, Nvidia shot itself in the foot with that hype... as those who are concerned about VRAM, will now play the waiting game, and not jump in and buy... which I think, depending on what AMD has in store, might hurt Nvidia on the possible sells that they could have done... just for cheaping out on 2 or 6GB... or Nvidia drops the price.

[porina]

38 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Like I said, we don't know... but we have a new console gen that will be released. And despite what many PC gamers thinks, gaming console is a big part of the gaming industry, and influence how far graphically most games are pushed to. 

Next gen consoles have 16GB total to deal with GPU and system uses. You can argue a little bit about a dedicated vs general OS saving some footprint, but fundamentally it isn't a lot. It might not be split exactly half and half say, but I doubt games will spend all the ram budget on storing textures.

 

What about dynamic streaming of GPU data? Well, we're getting that on PC too. It's a near future tech, so no we don't have it now, but those new titles going on console could well support it on PC as well. There will be some quantity of data kept in ram, and if insufficient, some portion streamed. So maybe we see some performance difference if a hypothetical future game had say 14GB of textures, and you had a 10GB card, vs a 20GB card that could retain all of it in one go. It will be a choice if you have the 10GB card if you want to run the higher textures at reduced performance, or if you pick the texture option optimised for up to 8GB cards for example. I'm assuming the higher texture data will also have a performance impact in itself since you are working on more data, so that will be a performance tradeoff regardless if it is kept in vram or not.

 

Also let's not forget sometimes game devs put in settings beyond existing hardware because they can. You can't ever say you can run every game with good performance at max settings.

 

Edit: I would add, I don't agree with the rest of the reply, but I don't wish to spend the time going over every detail why as some of it is drifting quite far from any sense. I guess I could summarise my position here as, nvidia said the 3080 has a certain hardware configuration. That is what they are selling. What they are not selling is a statement of "the 3080 is 2x the perf of a 2080 in every possible scenario existing or will exist". The 3080 is what I consider the performance value card. Performance first, value second. That's not to say it is highest performance. If you want that, that's what the 3090 next week will deliver.

Edited September 19, 2020 by porina
reworded some parts in body, added end bit

[GoodBytes]

34 minutes ago, porina said:

Next gen consoles have 16GB total to deal with GPU and system uses.

Right but PC isn't a minority either. It just justifies the extra expense for higher resolution textures and models which costs VRAM.

 

34 minutes ago, porina said:

What about dynamic streaming of GPU data? Well, we're getting that on PC too.

Not the exact same technology. But a variation of. We can't do anything at a hardware level, as the PC industry follow standards. Sure new one can be made... but that takes time.

But yea, you are right, but that doesn't mean it will consume less VRAM, it just means that it will consume less CPU usage and reduce latency.

 

34 minutes ago, porina said:

It's a near future tech, so no we don't have it now, but those new titles going on console could well support it on PC as well. There will be some quantity of data kept in ram, and if insufficient, some portion streamed. So maybe we see some performance difference if a hypothetical future game had say 14GB of textures, and you had a 10GB card, vs a 20GB card that could retain all of it in one go.

There is another factor that consumes more VRAM, which I didn't mention. Runtime Ray Tracing has a memory costs also, as we can see with current games. Now, it could be due to poor implementation, or not.. not sure. Too few titles, tech too new to know. It could be true but can be limited... again... we don't know. We need to talk to an experience game developer who worked on full RTX feature implementation. But so far, it suggests to be the case.

 

34 minutes ago, porina said:

It will be a choice if you have the 10GB card if you want to run the higher textures at reduced performance, or if you pick the texture option optimised for up to 8GB cards for example. I'm assuming the higher texture data will also have a performance impact in itself since you are working on more data, so that will be a performance tradeoff regardless if it is kept in vram or not.

We already have that choice... it is called graphical settings. Most big game title have a Texture level slider or option. Which is fine, but I am just saying for the people who are concerned, for the current MSRP price, they want to be sure that they enjoy games with high visual fidelity, with the original "as intended by the developer vision" graphics.

 

34 minutes ago, porina said:

Also let's not forget sometimes game devs put in settings beyond existing hardware because they can. You can't ever say you can run every game with good performance at max settings.

True, and for the longest time, until recently, ultra settings where just a dream to enjoy games. The highest and best card you can buy... point... could not deliver the required performance to enjoy these visual settings. But these settings, was more developers experiment with next generation shaders, new concept, and so on (and ignore optimization). It was more them doing this for educational purposes for them more than anything. Although, these days with "AAA" publishers extreme greed, it allows little of that now... as it costs money, but yea, you are correct... but that is why we have "Ultra" which is positioned above "Max". Technically, there is no more than "Max". as Max is well, maximum.

 

34 minutes ago, porina said:

Edit: I would add, I don't agree with the rest of the reply, but I don't wish to spend the time going over every detail why as some of it is drifting quite far from any sense. I guess I could summarise my position here as, nvidia said the 3080 has a certain hardware configuration. That is what they are selling. What they are not selling is a statement of "the 3080 is 2x the perf of a 2080 in every possible scenario existing or will exist". The 3080 is what I consider the performance value card. Performance first, value second. That's not to say it is highest performance. If you want that, that's what the 3090 next week will deliver.

Technically you are correct. There was also a small note on one of the slides... but they knew the hype they would built, Steve from GamerNexus covered this.

 

Like I said, while I don't disagree with you "Performance first" and "Value second", that is 100% true, if one wants both, then there is the 3070 for that (well, we need to wait and see benchmarks, but assuming it delivers...). But, again, you asked why people have a concern, and I explained that for some people, they see that the performance first and value second isn't balanced out properly. It is ones perspective, that is shared by many. That is fine... we can clearly see that a huge amount of people are happy, and trying to buy this GPU. 

 

While I am very interested in the GPU myself, I am waiting for everything to be released from Nvidia and AMD, let dust settle, and THEN I'll buy...

I mean, I have a Core i7 930... so my GeForce 3080 would be VERY silly in that system if I get it now.. XD

 

[porina]

9 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

But, again, you asked why people have a concern, and I explained that for some people, they see that the performance first and value second isn't balanced out properly. It is ones perspective, that is shared by many. That is fine... we can clearly see that a huge amount of people are happy, and trying to buy this GPU. 

How does the old saying go? "you can't please all the people, all the time"? I don't expect the 3080 to be the right card for everyone, but I've tended to look at hardware on a "good enough" basis. Does it do what you need it to do? For what we currently know of gaming, the 3080 should have the performance to satisfy most, at a price level comparable to Pascal.

 

Anyway, thanks for the follow up response. Generally agree with you there.