Turkish website finally tests 2080 Ti vs 1080 Ti in 4K with benchmarks

[Taf the Ghost]

13 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

I was thinking that the bare minimum increase would be about 20% for this generation just based on the general CUDA count increase (4352 vs 3584)...  Good to see that it may actually be a bit higher than that, but still not looking at it as an upgrade for this generation.  Maybe in 2 to 3 years when they have their next generation being released and some of the specialized features become more mainstream.

20% more CUDA cores, 27% more memory bandwidth and some % more power through the core. All together, 30-35% looks to be the generational number, but also at a pretty massive premium. 

 

Other fun part is we can start predicting 2080 results. It's got 2/3s the CUDA core count, but also a little higher clocks. So, say 70% of the 2080 Ti. Suggests the 2080 will be faster in games that want the memory bandwidth than the 1080 Ti, but slower in ones that need the shader performance.

[TOMPPIX]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. DICE isn't releasing BF5 as RTX only because that's just stupid.

no but you do buy the rtx cards with the tensor cores packed in.

[voiha]

That's the type of video that I expect to be on the trending page. Cancer and not true at all

[ouroesa]

Would be nice if they had CPU usage somewhere as well as some of the top %  framerates might be bottlenecked by CPU, bringing the average down; not entirely likely at 4k but it might help to explain some of the lower differences. It's probably a combination of CPU bottleneck, drivers not being mature and games not optimized for using the new tech. My guess is that those new cores are sitting idle most of the time during these benchmarks. If they offloaded some of the AI, shadows, etc to the specialized cores the gap should hopefully increase.

 

That said, they can stick it where the sun don't shine with the current pricing. It's artificially inflated (IMHO) to get rid of the overstock of 10 series GPU's and making the client pay for it. Wish AMD had something to compete with the 10 and 20 series to nudge Nvidia into playing a little more nicely and taking responsibility for their own cock-ups.

 

Would be interesting if they had a GTX lineup as well with the RT and AI cores removed which could perform closely(?) to the RTX series when RT is switched off but at a more reasonable price point. Won't hold my breath though...

 

All of the above is just speculation and assuming the review was done at least semi-properly. Can;t wait to see reviews from my own trusted sources.

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, voiha said:

That's the type of video that I expect to be on the trending page. Cancer and not true at all

Tell me more.

[GoodBytes]

13 minutes ago, TOMPPIX said:

remove the tensor cores and all that other bullshit and drop the price, then it might be worth it. don't force everyone to become an "early adopter"

i'd rather join in on the ray tracing when it's actually ready.

Isn't that what the 2070 is essentially is? I expect the 2060 or the the 2050 to be exactly that.

[TOMPPIX]

6 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Isn't that what the 2070 is essentially is? I expect the 2060 or the the 2050 to be exactly that.

doesn't look like that 

they still have tensor cores.

oh my bad. you talked about the 2060.

gaming and posting on forums at the same time is kinda hard xD.

[pas008]

41 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Not impressed. It is clear that Nvidia can't compete, not innovative and will close it doors. I expect minimum, a 300% performance boost at worst case. And for the price, unacceptable.. maybe if it was a 20$ graphics card, sure... MAYBE.. not sure.. but at this price point, heh. It is clear that VIA S3 graphics chip is the way forward. At least with the S3, if it can't do something like DVD playback, it doesn't attempt at doing it. Nvidia is clear can't handle games, it should not do it.

/ Troll comment for comedic effect.

 

But on a serious note. A nice performance bump 30% is actually a bit more than what I expected. I expected a 10-20% boost due to the focus on Ray Tracing. Now we have to see power draw, official drivers, and all that, but so far so good. For sure the focus is on Ray Tracing, I would like to see how it makes things better in supported games, as of course it would need to justify the price. If Nvidia is really not dropping the price, and the performance is really 30% at best, and Ray Tracing is nice, but not massively big in reality, than I might be waiting this gen out.

I might wait out this gen too but I'll be waiting for sli new nvlink performance numbers too

 

17 minutes ago, TOMPPIX said:

remove the tensor cores and all that other bullshit and drop the price, then it might be worth it. don't force everyone to become an "early adopter"

i'd rather join in on the ray tracing when it's actually ready.

maybe those tensor cores might be up to something else besides denoising

[Levent]

FYI: he states that he used results across the web for his video, with different setups (cpus rams etc..) so pretty much this moron is trying to milk the hype.

[TOMPPIX]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

maybe those tensor cores might be up to something else besides denoising

not without proper drivers.

[PlayStation 2]

22 minutes ago, voiha said:

That's the type of video that I expect to be on the trending page. Cancer and not true at all

Any proof that it isn't true?

I'm not saying it is true nor am I saying for anyone to take this as definitive results, but seriously. Tell me how this is definitively not true.

[Alex Atkin UK]

27 minutes ago, TOMPPIX said:

remove the tensor cores and all that other bullshit and drop the price, then it might be worth it. don't force everyone to become an "early adopter"

i'd rather join in on the ray tracing when it's actually ready.

You seem to be forgetting that it never WILL be ready if people aren't actually using it, as developers have no motivation to implement it.

[Alex Atkin UK]

15 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Isn't that what the 2070 is essentially is? I expect the 2060 or the the 2050 to be exactly that.

Indeed, everything points to 2060 and below not having those features.

[Mira Yurizaki]

27 minutes ago, TOMPPIX said:

no but you do buy the rtx cards with the tensor cores packed in.

You have to start somewhere, and developers can't start anywhere without actual hardware being released first.

 

Also you mentioned "when it's ready." What does that even mean? And what makes you the authority on when something is ready or not?

[AnonymousGuy]

Looks like the 2080Ti going to be out of stock for a while.  I probably should have gotten on the preorder bandwagon as soon as it came available and then cancelled if performance sucked, but then again I don't do much gaming nowadays. *shrugs* oh well...it eases the pain of dropping $1200 on the iPhone X Plus next month.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

You seem to be forgetting that it never WILL be ready if people aren't actually using it, as developers have no motivation to implement it.

they should have waited for the second 7nm gen to implement it, then you would be able to make something that can actually deliver which would lead to better results, Rt is cool and all but i will always take fps over quality, when you are having fun quality means nothing 

[TOMPPIX]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

"when it's ready."

when the can actually do real ray tracing without having to use ai to denoise it.

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

they should have waited for the second 7nm gen to implement it, then you would be able to make something that can actually deliver which would lead to better results, Rt is cool and all but i will always take fps over quality, when you are having fun quality means nothing 

But that's just you. Some people are willing to sacrifice some FPS for higher quality.

 

If you don't like the card's performance with the new features turned on, then don't buy it. Buy whatever suits you and leave it at that.

 

Just now, TOMPPIX said:

when the can actually do real ray tracing without having to use ai to denoise it.

Requirements are vague. What's "real" ray tracing?

[Alex Atkin UK]

4 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

they should have waited for the second 7nm gen to implement it, then you would be able to make something that can actually deliver which would lead to better results, Rt is cool and all but i will always take fps over quality, when you are having fun quality means nothing 

I think you are jumping the gun there as we have no idea if it will reduce the frame rate or actually IMPROVE the frame rate, by taking the load off the shaders.  It depends how the game engine scales the raytracing under heavy load.

I for one am really excited to see what the RTX 2070 can do, even if I have to drop to 1080p to enable RTX.

Not everyone cares about playing above 60fps and 1080p 60 with raytracing could potentially look better than 4K 60 with it off.

[PlayStation 2]

3 minutes ago, TOMPPIX said:

when the can actually do real ray tracing without having to use ai to denoise it.

Let's be honest: it's pretty damn inefficient to run super high quality ray-tracing when we can do lower quality but still really nice ray-tracing but using that remaining power to de-noise that part of the image, especially if it means that the lower quality but artificially cleaned image runs better than the slightly higher quality, visual-wise, image that would likely run like shit.

[riklaunim]

With the sell-out of used 1080Ti as well as dropping retail prices it may be cheaper to get two 1080Ti than one 2080Ti. That could be an interesting comparison.

[TOMPPIX]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Let's be honest: it's pretty damn inefficient to run super high quality ray-tracing when we can do lower quality but still really nice ray-tracing but using that remaining power to de-noise that part of the image, especially if it means that the lower quality but artificially cleaned image runs better than the slightly higher quality, visual-wise, image that would likely run like shit.

right now it is inefficient. but who knows if it would be in ... 5 years?

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, TOMPPIX said:

right now it is inefficient.

Well, yeah. The tech is brand fucking new, and I'm not shocked that it's not running all too well in comparison to not using it. In its own right, however (and really, that's how it needs to be looked at to see how genuinely impressive it is) it's... pretty damn good, if not a little sluggish to be used for wide use, even on high-end cards.

I won't deny for a second that real time ray-tracing has some ways to go before it's usable to the general consumer, but considering where the RTX cards sit right now, I'm impressed. It holds a lot of potential.

[Alex Atkin UK]

4 minutes ago, TOMPPIX said:

right now it is inefficient. but who knows if it would be in ... 5 years?

But even then, wouldn't it be better to have twice as many rays being traced at a lower resolution?

You could potentially support more bounces therefore increasing its realism.  Its not like reflections are often razor sharp anyway.

Bottom line, if we are comparing to how things are done now, its a vast improvement (when implemented well).

[Levent]

Translation of the video: "Using the results given by nvidia(?) and results from 2080ti users but as you might know 2080ti has not reached turkey yet but as you all know results can differ on each system, some of these results were on 7700K and some on second gen ryzen cpus..."

Dont even waste your time arguing over this video lmao.