Nvidia 30 Series unveiled - RTX 3080 2x faster than 2080 for $699

[SolarNova]

Info in the last 12 or so hours being from Coreteks (twitter) etc is that some AMD partner have commented that AMD RX 6000 line up will have a 16gb $600 card.

Dont know if thats their biggest or smallest, but at $600 AMD could either be targeting the classic X80 price point (slightly above it actually) and thus this could be a 3080 competitor, or an unfortunately more likely scenario is its targeting Nvidias expensive 3070, but with double the VRAM, they may have to lower the price though to maybe $550. This would likely push Nvidia to release those leaked (by Lenovo) 3070ti 16gb models.

 

Would really love to see AMD come out swinging with a massive blow to Nvidia with a $600 3080 competitor, that would really force Nvidia to get back to the historically more reasonable pricing structure. AMD would win over a lot of consumers with that for damn sure. Nvidia would likely respond by release a 3080ti for $700 and drop the 3080 down to ~$500 (and thus also drop the 3070 down also), as they have done in past generations (excluding the 20 series).

 

 

 

 

[dizmo]

7 hours ago, Kilrah said:

The 8GB on my cards has been fully used by games for quite a while, so one could reasonably suspect that 10GB might be tight for titles coming out 2-3 years from now.

 

I would suspect they'd have liked to put more but it's a question of price and availability that prevents it. 

Some games will fill the VRAM regardless if they need to or not. So that's not a very good way to measure it.

[BTGbullseye]

8 hours ago, Kilrah said:

The 8GB on my cards has been fully used by games for quite a while, so one could reasonably suspect that 10GB might be tight for titles coming out 2-3 years from now.

 

I would suspect they'd have liked to put more but it's a question of price and availability that prevents it. 

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think Nvidia has more info on VRAM usage than we do. 

Remember, you can't just look at VRAM usage, see that it's at 8GB and then assume you need 8GB.

The more VRAM you got, the more is used/flushed less frequently. The less you have, the smarter the OS handles its use. 

 

Your GPU might have filled 8GB of VRAM with data, but it might only need 4GB at any given time and the other 4GB is only filled because "I needed those 4GB before and flushing the VRAM is unnecessary if I am not running short". 

In such a scenario, reducing the VRAM from 8GB to 4GB might only result in a very minor performance decrease, if any. 

 

Looking at VRAM usage is pretty meaningless. In order to determine how much VRAM is actually necessary you need to do rather deep analysis of what is stored in the VRAM, not just how much is stored in it. 

Raytracing should also reduce the VRAM requirements significantly, due to not needing light or shadow maps. Both of which like to hog VRAM.

 

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Some games will fill the VRAM regardless if they need to or not. So that's not a very good way to measure it.

Indeed. Poor optimizations shouldn't push hardware changes.

[F.E.A.R.]

 

[TrainFan475]

⠀

[NE0XY]

What's the opinion of the power-connector placement of the FE cards? I was aiming to get one of those but now when I realized it's in the middle of the card I'm leaning more towards an ASUS or something...

[BTGbullseye]

9 minutes ago, NE0XY said:

What's the opinion of the power-connector placement of the FE cards? I was aiming to get one of those but now when I realized it's in the middle of the card I'm leaning more towards an ASUS or something...

It's not quite the middle, but it's less than the 2/3rds mark. It's actually at the end of the PCB, so it physically can't be placed any further along the card, and since they're angled, it shouldn't be as much of an issue.

[NE0XY]

24 minutes ago, BTGbullseye said:

It's not quite the middle, but it's less than the 2/3rds mark. It's actually at the end of the PCB, so it physically can't be placed any further along the card, and since they're angled, it shouldn't be as much of an issue.

If I understand you correctly, the final third of the card after the powerconnectors are just the cooling? 

That would be great news because I'm going to watercool the card, so if it's at the end of the PCB, when watercooled it'll probably be at the end instead 2/3s in?

If that makes sense? 

[BTGbullseye]

2 minutes ago, NE0XY said:

If I understand you correctly, the final third of the card after the powerconnectors are just the cooling? 

That would be great news because I'm going to watercool the card, so if it's at the end of the PCB, when watercooled it'll probably be at the end instead 2/3s in?

If that makes sense? 

1/3rd in. 2/3rds the length of the card. Basically, the end fan is off the end of the PCB, so it can blow the air straight through the cooler. Watercooling should result in an incredibly compact card.

[Kilrah]

Yep, there are photos of the PCB around, it's around the size of an ITX single fan card, everything after that is just cooler.

[NE0XY]

Dayum, 

Hopefully not too small, I have too much space in my CaseLabs case... 

I hope more details regarding waterblocks etc are revealed before launch so I can decide which card to get. 

Thanks