Nvidia reps suggest 2060 and below will not have Ray Tracing support

[Carclis]

29 minutes ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

Pure performance can be gained by setting everything to low quality. Would you want that? No? Well, I want better quality and RT does that.

Just looking at FPS is kinda silly, don't you think? If only FPS would matter, why have 4k in the first place? Why have shadows, details, lightning? 

Just remove all that and enjoy the pretty 3-4 digit fps on 240p resolution! RT is just an added method of gaining better quality. And the first major advance in a decade as well.

I think looking at pure performance or pure visual fidelity is silly. They need to work in tandem to produce a good experience. I think the argument being made here is that visual fidelity is being pushed so hard here that the performance aspect becomes unreasonable. Compared to what level of performance you are able to achieve with all other settings matched, is it worth the extra cost to enable ray tracing? Is it worth dropping down from 4k 60Hz or 1440p 100Hz to get a 1080p sub-60Hz ray traced experience? And who buys a $600+ GPU with the intent to pair it with a 1080p display?

[AlTech]

Just now, Carclis said:

I think looking at pure performance or pure visual fidelity is silly. They need to work in tandem to produce a good experience. I think the argument being made here is that visual fidelity is being pushed so hard here that the performance aspect becomes unreasonable. Compared to what level of performance you are able to achieve with all other settings matched, is it worth the extra cost to enable ray tracing? Is it worth dropping down from 4k 60Hz or 1440p 100Hz to get a 1080p sub-60Hz ray traced experience? And who buys a $600+ GPU with the intent to pair it with a 1080p display?

This is pretty much what I was thinking ^^^.

 

For 1080p 60fps I think buying a $200 GPU makes a lot sense if somebody's budget permits it. If somebody wants 1440p 120-144 fps then I think a $400-500 GPU would be a good idea if their budget permit it.

 

But going from needing only a $200 GPU for rasterized 1080p 60fps High or Ultra to a Hybrid rendering approach with partial real time Ray Tracing and partial rasterization and only barely getting 1080p 60fps High or UItra on the $1000 GPU seems like a huge step backwards and not forwards.

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

I'm gonna be incredibly disssapointed if this turns out to be the case as there's really no point launching the RTX series and pushing it so hard if not every single GPU in the lineup supports it.

The $1200 card is running 1080p30 with RT on in Shadow of the Tomb Raider. I'd rather they not waste die space and drive the price way up for something no one is going to be able to use on their 60 series and lower cards. Hell 2070 and 2080 probably shouldn't have had it either.

[SteveGrabowski0]

5 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

This is pretty much what I was thinking ^^^.

 

For 1080p 60fps I think buying a $200 GPU makes a lot sense if somebody's budget permits it. If somebody wants 1440p 120-144 fps then I think a $400-500 GPU would be a good idea if their budget permit it.

 

But going from needing only a $200 GPU for rasterized 1080p 60fps High or Ultra to a Hybrid rendering approach with partial real time Ray Tracing and partial rasterization and only barely getting 1080p 60fps High or UItra on the $1000 GPU seems like a huge step backwards and not forwards.

There is no such thing as a $1000 RTX 2080 Ti. They're $1200. Just like there was no such thing as the mythical $380 GTX 1070 at launch, they were all $450.

[bowrilla]

8 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

If i am a paying customer then Nvidia should be the one dealing with it and bending over backwards to give me what I want. Not the other way around

Ehm, no. NVIDIA just needs to look for what the mass market wants and don't need to care what some other people want. They work closely together with developers and get their demands so those devs can develope games the way they want. If you don't like that package, go get a different package. There's no damn way of pleasing everyone. Deal with it. You as an individual are not king …

 

8 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

What i wanted was substantially increased performance at the same resolution and graphics settings as the previous gen cards

That's exactly what you've got. Don't aim for the 2080Ti but a 2080 and you're still getting more performance compared to a 1080Ti at the same settings. No need to activate RTX. 

 

10 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Ideally at some point within the next 5 years I'd like to see a $200 GPU which can handle 4K 60fps at High Settings. AMD is actually try to make something like that a reality with Navi whilst Nvidia is finding new ways of selling slighly nicer looking 1080p 60fps

Well, then wait for AMD's take instead of complaining? It's not like as if there was no option for you at the market to game on high end settings.

 

11 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Nvidia's philosophy is to provide the best looking experience no matter the cost to framerate. AMD's approach is more towards great framerate with good looking visuals

Well, again, then wait for AMD's take.

 

11 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

They can create a fake version of Ray Tracing using Rasterization and it looks great. See the new Spider Man game on PS4 Pro for how amazing looking fake Ray Tracing looks on an RX 470 class of graphics hardware

I do have the impression that you don't have any real idea on how ray tracing actually works, because "fake" ray tracing (whatever you mean by that since there's not a way to fake ray tracing via rasterization) is not possible. You might be referring to imitating the effect of bouncing off light sources but that will have a huge impact on performance since you will need more rendering passes for every reflection or create more and more and more complex shader programs – and probably add new shader types as well.

 

14 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I play at 1080p Ultra and High. I do care about Graphics but I want above 60fps and severely sacificing visuals to get 60fps is not what I want to do

Excuse me but … you neither need a 1080 Ti for that or ANY RTX card. A 1070 does that job or just hop on and get a 1080. It will give you what you want.

 

15 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

The last time I had to severely compromise how a game looked to be even remotely playable was when i decided I had enough of my Nvidia card and upgraded to my current AMD card

That kind of contradicts with your previous statement AMD was interested in FPS instead of NVIDIA's approach on quality

 

16 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Yes but it's still out of reach for most people. If a 1080Ti cost $300 instead of $700 then I might be inclined to consider buying it and I would say that it's accessible. But at $500-700 USD I can't reasonably purchase a 1080Ti or even a 1080

So what you're actually saying is: I can't afford the technology I want and need for my personal and individual requirements and therefore the companies are bad. That's like complaining about not being able to afford a mansion or a super sports car.

 

18 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Because Nvidia made the choice to put Ray Tracing cores and Tensor Cores in their GPUs instead of substantially increasing cuda core count.

 

At the very least if they wanted to sell Ray Tracing then they should have imho sold the 2080Ti, 2080 and 2070 alongside Rasterization focussed 1170, 1180 and 1180Ti so that people who care about ray tracing could buy the RTX cards and people who want better performance could buy the GTX cards

Nobody is being punished here. You're just making that up. Nobody is being forced to buy a RTX card. Just get a 1080 or 1080 Ti if that's what you want. There will be 2060 and below cards … just not with hardware raytracing. So what's your point?

 

20 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

So basically 2060 and below would likely only get performance increase from more cuda cores and potentially higher clockspeeds

Since framerates haven been shown by NVIDIA (though not benchmarked officially yet) the new generation is looking to be faster per core. So where's your point?

[Curufinwe_wins]

Hey guys... nvidia is actually pushing the market forward. Unlike their competitor. Stop bitching that they haven't managed to literally blow your mind every generation when they are the one actually improving.

 

Also look. I understand a lot of people dont WANT to spend that much on a GPU. But the honest to goodness truth is that almost everyone has a ludicrously amount of financial waste in their lives that over the course of 2-6 months would easily cover the difference in price between a 200 dollars GPU and a 500-800 dollar one. Classic example being people who eat out or go to bars, or drink Starbucks. Choosing that those little pleasures is more worthwhile than the better GPU is fine. I wont tell you you NEED to do otherwise. But most beings on this forum (who do not multiply in their brains implicitly, this is a universal failure of human thinking) could afford it.

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, bowrilla said:

Ehm, no. NVIDIA just needs to look for what the mass market wants and don't need to care what some other people want. They work closely together with developers and get their demands so those devs can develope games the way they want. If you don't like that package, go get a different package. There's no damn way of pleasing everyone. Deal with it. You as an individual are not king …

 

That's exactly what you've got. Don't aim for the 2080Ti but a 2080 and you're still getting more performance compared to a 1080Ti at the same settings. No need to activate RTX. 

We have no idea how fast the 2080 actually is compared to the 1080Ti and 1080.

 

Nvidia says without RTX it's about 30-40% faster than the 1080 so it would basically be on par with the 1080Ti. Which is not progress if it costs as much as the 1080Ti does.

1 minute ago, bowrilla said:

Well, then wait for AMD's take instead of complaining? It's not like as if there was no option for you at the market to game on high end settings.

 

Well, again, then wait for AMD's take.

If there was more competition I would have switched away from both AMD and Nvidia a long time ago. No offence to AMD but they're just slow to progress forward and Nvidia isn't interested in progressing forward at all.

1 minute ago, bowrilla said:

I do have the impression that you don't have any real idea on how ray tracing actually works, because "fake" ray tracing (whatever you mean by that since there's not a way to fake ray tracing via rasterization) is not possible. You might be referring to imitating the effect of bouncing off light sources but that will have a huge impact on performance since you will need more rendering passes for every reflection or create more and more and more complex shader programs – and probably add new shader types as well.

 

Excuse me but … you neither need a 1080 Ti for that or ANY RTX card. A 1070 does that job or just hop on and get a 1080. It will give you what you want.

my RX 480 does this job just fine. But I can't game at 4K 60fps because no GPU which is able to perform well enough is affordable.

 

And I want to upgrade to 4K. Being stuck on 1080p is not something I enjoy. I look forward to the day that I can spend a reasonable amount of money to play at 4K 60fps.

1 minute ago, bowrilla said:

That kind of contradicts with your previous statement AMD was interested in FPS instead of NVIDIA's approach on quality

I meant to say that was what I had to do with my Nvidia card and with my current AMD card I don't have to compromise graphics settings to run games at a reasonable framerate. I can have great framerate and great graphics.

1 minute ago, bowrilla said:

So what you're actually saying is: I can't afford the technology I want and need for my personal and individual requirements and therefore the companies are bad.

Umm no?

1 minute ago, bowrilla said:

That's like complaining about not being able to afford a mansion or a super sports car.

What I want is 4K 60fps for $200 or less. It's unreasonable to expect to pay $1000-1200 for a GPU just to do 1080p 60fps Ray Tracing.

 

Even if they were able to do 4K 60fps Ray Tracing for $1000-1200 I would still find it unreasonable.

1 minute ago, bowrilla said:

 

Nobody is being punished here. You're just making that up. Nobody is being forced to buy a RTX card. Just get a 1080 or 1080 Ti if that's what you want. There will be 2060 and below cards … just not with hardware raytracing. So what's your point?

In the end consumers who don't care about Ray Tracing suffer as they now have to deal with worse performance increases because non RTX performance isn't a lot better than the previous gen from what Nvidia has told us.

1 minute ago, bowrilla said:

Since framerates haven been shown by NVIDIA (though not benchmarked officially yet) the new generation is looking to be faster per core. So where's your point?

My point is that for non RTX cards the improvement is miniscule for this generation. So gamers do suffer.

[thorhammerz]

40 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

If i am a paying customer then Nvidia should be the one dealing with it and bending over backwards to give me what I want. Not the other way around.

That is only true only if the customer has an option (for the relevant market segment)... oh wait .

[bowrilla]

3 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Quote

So what you're actually saying is: I can't afford the technology I want and need for my personal and individual requirements and therefore the companies are bad.

Umm no?

Quote

That's like complaining about not being able to afford a mansion or a super sports car.

What I want is 4K 60fps for $200 or less. It's unreasonable to expect to pay $1000-1200 for a GPU just to do 1080p 60fps Ray Tracing.

 

Even if they were able to do 4K 60fps Ray Tracing for $1000-1200 I would still find it unreasonable.

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what you're doing. You want 4k 60fps for the money of 1080p and barely 60fps. What you want is not possible at this point. $200 is like 1050 level. Even a 1060 has some issues on demanding titles to hit 60fps on 1080p with high/ultra settings and it's about $100 more. You just don't have a point here. The pricing is most likely very much reasonable if you take research and development, production, marketing and so on into account. What you mean is that those prices aren't justifiable for you which is totaly fine. 

 

8 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

In the end consumers who don't care about Ray Tracing suffer as they now have to deal with worse performance increases because non RTX performance isn't a lot better than the previous gen from what Nvidia has told us.

No, they don't suffer. Suffering would indicate they'd be worse off. They're not. People who don't care or can't afford cutting edge technology can still buy the same stuff they could buy 3 month ago. NVIDIA will release lower end cards just without raytracing since it wouldn't make any sense on those cards. So they will be cheaper and still be faster since the new GDDR6 memory alone comes with improved performance. Tensor cores won't do anything performancewise if the game doesn't make use of it. Where is your point that budget-oriented gamers or those who aren't interested in ray tracing would suffer in any way?

[PCGuy_5960]

Let's be honest, does this even matter?

 

We've seen ray tracing in action in BFV. A 2080 Ti could barely run the game at a stable 60FPS at 1080p with RTX enabled, with a 2060 you would probably have to drop your resolution to 720p or even lower to get decent FPS with ray tracing and I'm pretty sure that 1080p max settings looks better than 480p with RTX.

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, bowrilla said:

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what you're doing. You want 4k 60fps for the money of 1080p and barely 60fps. What you want is not possible at this point. $200 is like 1050 level.

In the UK it's GTX 1060 and RX 580 level and 1080p 60fps is easily achievable on those cards.

$100 would be GTX 1050 level.

1 minute ago, bowrilla said:

Even a 1060 has some issues on demanding titles to hit 60fps on 1080p with high/ultra settings

Only in unoptimized games. Optimized games run at 60fps with no difficulty. In some cases I can even run slightly older AAA titles at 1080p Ultra and get consistently close to 120fps on my RX 480 8GB

1 minute ago, bowrilla said:

You just don't have a point here. The pricing is most likely very much reasonable if you take research and development, production, marketing and so on into account. What you mean is that those prices aren't justifiable for you which is totaly fine. 

The profit Nvidia makes from consumers GPUs is huge. They wouldn't be in business if it wasn't highly profitable for them.

 

the x60 class of Nvidia GPUs generate some of their least profit per gpu sold but it generates substantial amounts of revenue through large sales numbers.

 

They could make a GTX 1070 cost $300 or even $250 if they really wanted. But that's not in their best interest regarding their excessive profit margins.

[Arika]

44 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Nvidia isn't interested in progressing forward at all.

Apparently pushing into previously impossible levels of quality is "not progressing"

 

Quote

What I want is 4K 60fps for $200 or less. It's unreasonable to expect to pay $1000-1200 for a GPU just to do 1080p 60fps Ray Tracing.

lolwot, It's also (massively) unreasonable to expect to pay $200 or less for 4k@60. I want a 4 bedroom house on 5 acres with gigabit internet and cheap electricity rates for $150k but that too would be unreasonable. you seem to have an unrealistic expectation as to what you think these things should cost because you want it

 

anyone that buys it just for ray tracing is an idiot. you buy it for it's power to run your games at high resolutions and/or frame rates, then, if they want to use ray tracing in games that support it then they will drop it down to 1080p in the games that they care about

 

49 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

In the end consumers who don't care about Ray Tracing suffer as they now have to deal with worse performance increases because non RTX performance isn't a lot better than the previous gen from what Nvidia has told us.

 

My point is that for non RTX cards the improvement is miniscule for this generation. So gamers do suffer.

Except that the performance increase is on par with the last 6 generations

 

https://www.techspot.com/article/1191-nvidia-geforce-six-generations-tested/

 

in most cases there was a 25-40% increase over the previous generation's flagship card.

 

while i do agree that the price is a bit steep, it's brand new, previously unseen tech. No company would pour money and resources into R&D for something like ray-tracing to end up saying "hey, here's this really expensive stuff for free"

 

Given Nvidia's track record of confusing additional product launches, they might even release a GTX 2080/2080ti without any of the RTX stuff.

 

37 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

They could make a GTX 1070 cost $300 or even $250 if they really wanted. But that's not in their best interest regarding their excessive profit margins.

where are you getting these numbers from? for someone with a very apparent anti-Nvidia bias, this should be the last thing you would want them to do. If they sold the 1070 for 250 then AMD have absolutely no answer to it at that price point and would push them out of the GPU market completely giving NVidia the monopoly.

[Void Master]

What will happen to amd cards then ?

How somebody will game on them ?

 

[Void Master]

If all titles will support ray tracing ?

[Mooshi]

How many people with a 960/1060  care about ray tracing?

[Arika]

4 minutes ago, Void Master said:

What will happen to amd cards then ?

How somebody will game on them ?

 

 

3 minutes ago, Void Master said:

If all titles will support ray tracing ?

you seem to not understand what ray tracing is.

 

AMD cards will still work, you just wouldn't turn RT on (until AMD implement their own variant of the technology), it's like turning on/off anti-aliasing or shadows. it's not forced

[jsjones008]

4 hours ago, AskTJ said:

Yeah, it's literally in the name.

 

GTX 2060. Not RTX 2060.

Came to say this. It's the GTX 2060. Therefore, no ray-tracing.

[PlayStation 2]

This article seems more like senseless complaining rather than genuine disappointment.

Literally everyone was bitching about the 2070 and above having the early adopter's fee, "forcing" those to pay more for features that they probably won't use, and here we are complaining that the 2060 probably won't feature the ray-tracing shit, when it's a mid-range card meant to be priced decently for the majority of rig builders.

[JoostinOnline]

Not at all surprising. It's a generation too early at least. I also wouldn't be surprised if this gets dropped, just like the "big feature" of most generations (PhysX, SLI, etc).

 

PS: You should change "hinted at the fact" to "hinted at the possibility".

[Sauron]

As disappointing as that may be, consider this: if the top end model can barely handle 1080p with raytracing enabled, how do you think a midrange card would fare? There's not much point in including it if you'll only get 720p 30 out of it.

[Bcat00]

Really now, a budget card expecting to run a brand new feature that devours even the higher end cards is asking too much.

 

Its like having a crying baby demanding something that their parent can't offer them due to their limitations

[S w a t s o n]

People saying it can barely handle 1080p are basing this on extremely early builds of games with RTX basically shoehorned in. Exodus releases in February, BFV runs 1080p at 60FPS but 4k at 30FPS, which if you think about it is not how 1080p to 4k scales usually, it's 4x the pixels. This is partly because the ray tracing implementation on BFV doesn't even use the RT cores yet. It's super, super unoptimized and yet running the entire game plus the raytracing at 4x the workload only resulted in a halving of performance. Shadow of the Tomb Raider wont even have RTX on launch but you're taking alpha/beta gameplay numbers to mean anything.

How about we wait to see numbers after release when RTX is actually fully implemented. I do agree that 2060 just wont be fast/large enough to include RT cores but then is it technically Turing? Will it have tensor cores for DLSS, that is the interesting question

[PlayStation 2]

4 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

People saying it can barely handle 1080p are basing this on extremely early builds of games with RTX basically shoehorned in. Exodus releases in February, BFV runs 1080p at 60FPS but 4k at 30FPS, which if you think about it is not how 1080p to 4k scales usually, it's 4x the pixels. This is partly because the ray tracing implementation on BFV doesn't even use the RT cores yet. It's super, super unoptimized and yet running the entire game plus the raytracing at 4x the workload only resulted in a halving of performance. Shadow of the Tomb Raider wont even have RTX on launch but you're taking alpha/beta gameplay numbers to mean anything.

How about we wait to see numbers after release when RTX is actually fully implemented. I do agree that 2060 just wont be fast/large enough to include RT cores but then is it technically Turing? Will it have tensor cores for DLSS, that is the interesting question

Honestly, even when I saw the very early reported numbers for BFV with ray-tracing, I was still immensely impressed as a whole.

Apparently DICE only got a hold of the RTX shit a couple of weeks before the RTX announcement.

[S w a t s o n]

2 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Honestly, even when I saw the very early reported numbers for BFV with ray-tracing, I was still immensely impressed as a whole.

Apparently DICE only got a hold of the RTX shit a couple of weeks before the RTX announcement.

The 2080ti at least, they were using titan V's to develop RTX before then which is why the current RTX implementation only uses tensor cores, interesting note is that BFV is not using the tensor cores for AI denoising, they built a custom temporal solution. Once they offload the raytracing from the tensor cores to RT cores they could then implement DLSS and AI denoising.

[Tech Enthusiast]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Hostile and agressive much?

 

If i am a paying customer then Nvidia should be the one dealing with it and bending over backwards to give me what I want. Not the other way around.

3

Entitled much?

Why would a company change THEIR RnD and products because of you?

You either buy it, or you don't. Considering they are sold out, I would say their market research team did a pretty good job.

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

What i wanted was substantially increased performance at the same resolution and graphics settings as the previous gen cards.

2

Yes, you wanted that. It seems like 35-60% are not substantially for you. So NVidia did not deliver on what you wanted, but they did deliver what others wanted.

Again, sold out -> means something.

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Ideally at some point within the next 5 years I'd like to see a $200 GPU which can handle 4K 60fps at High Settings. AMD is actually try to make something like that a reality with Navi

2

Great. Id love to buy that magical GPU.

And while we wait for that to happen, we have to pick from the available options over wishful thinking, right?

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

whilst Nvidia is finding new ways of selling slighly nicer looking 1080p 60fps.

1

If you want to bash team green with blatant statements, you should do a better research to not look stupid. Enlisted did 90-130fps with RT in 4k.

As with every new tech, there will be other options and not just ALL IN or OFF.

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Nvidia's philosophy is to provide the best looking experience no matter the cost to framerate. AMD's approach is more towards great framerate with good looking visuals.

1

Well, that is why options are great. You can buy AMD because you like their approach, others can buy Nvidia because they like high FPS at maxed settings.

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Respectfully, I think the RTX vs Rasterization is nothing like Windows vs macOS and Linux argument.

 

You brought up "poor" devs having to do stuff for a minority. So that is exactly what Linux is.

Linux needs a different client, RT needs a few clicks in the engine (at least for the basic functions). Also, it is not about RTX vs the world at all, because RTX is just an implementation of something AMD had a part in.

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

They can create a fake version of Ray Tracing using Rasterization and it looks great. See the new Spider Man game on PS4 Pro for how amazing looking fake Ray Tracing looks on an RX 470 class of graphics hardware.

1

No. Just no. It is nowhere near RT.

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

I play at 1080p Ultra and High. I do care about Graphics but I want above 60fps and severely sacificing visuals to get 60fps is not what I want to do. 

1

You realize RT is exactly the opposite of what you describe here, no?

It increases visuals. And at 1080p you would easily do 60fps, no matter how high you set it or any other option for that matter.

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

The last time I had to severely compromise how a game looked to be even remotely playable was the day i decided I had enough of my Nvidia card.

Yes but it's still out of reach for most people. If a 1080Ti cost $300 instead of $700 then I might be inclined to consider buying it and I would say that it's accessible. But at $500-700 USD I can't reasonably purchase a 1080Ti or even a 1080.

2

Why are you even caring about a 1k+ GPU if you are not even willing to pay more than 300$ for a 1080ti ?!

You are clearly waiting for something that is not available for a while. Of course i would LOVE to see that kinda performance for that kinda money. Hell, I would buy 2 or 3.

I don't think a Ferrari is accessible as well, but I don't act entitled enough to flame the company for not making it cheaper, so I am willing to buy it.

 

But just like with magical AMD drivers and software making servers obsolete,.. we will have to wait until this magical GPU is up for sale. 

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Because Nvidia made the choice to put Ray Tracing cores and Tensor Cores in their GPUs instead of substantially increasing cuda core count.

 

Exactly, it is their choice. 

But it does not HURT anyone. At worst it is a new option that you chose to not use.

Since when do added option hurt anyone, seriously. They could just as well not release a GPU for another year and wait if AMD ever catches up for all we know.

But they did not.

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

 

At the very least if they wanted to sell Ray Tracing then they should have imho sold the 2080Ti, 2080 and 2070 alongside Rasterization focussed 1170, 1180 and 1180Ti so that people who care about ray tracing could buy the RTX cards and people who want better performance could buy the GTX cards.

1

All things point to exactly that. It is actually exactly the topic you created. This topic.

It is all about GPUs that don't have RT. And from your own words, id take that you are not in the market for anything above 2060 anyways. So you are getting exactly what you wanted but still complain. A 2060 will most likely just have more Cuda cores and be exactly the card you wanted. And you will be spared from any new technology that you never asked for. You won't have to endure RT or DLSS and can push those 60fps on your 1080p screen.

 

It sure sounds like complaining for the sake of complaining.

Let other peoples with differend "demands" have some fun as well, ok? 

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Probably not since that requires Tensor Cores.

So basically 2060 and below would likely only get performance increase from more cuda cores and potentially higher clockspeeds.

Nothing pointing to that, but it is possible. I personally guess they will include some tensor cores either way and just leave RT out, but i don't have any idea how expensive those Tensors are and if they even fit a xx60 budget.