NVidia Geforce RTX 2080 confirmed up to 2x GTX 1080 performance. Evidence for 2080 ti as well.

[Lathlaer]

28 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

I suspected as much. So the real value is the darker, shorter one not the other one. And that is kinda misleading...

You do realize that the darker one is also with AA on right?

 

So tell me now this: if you had the option to turn on a version of AA that will not cause as big of a performance hit as TAA, why wouldn't you choose it instead? You insist on calling it shit for some reason, I don't know why actually.

 

And that "real" darker green is still higher by 40-60% by the way.

 

What this graph shows is that the new GPU is 40-60% stronger than the previous one in 4k in apples to apples comparison AND gives you additional tech in some games to push that advantage even further when you use AA.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, Lathlaer said:

Yeah sure but I'm arguing bottom line here and real world applications.

 

Answer me this: why would someone who has a 1080 or a 1080ti be concerned about a) 1080p b) 1440p performance? It is widely acknowledged that these cards offer enough for those resolution. Meaning, someone with those two cards has absolutely no reason to upgrade if all they do is play 1440p. They already have cards that give them possibilty to max the performance.

 

4k is so important because it's the only mainstream resolution that has not been widely acknowledged as conquered.

 

Who should be interested in 2080 or 2080ti?

 

a) people with 4k monitors

b) people with 1440p monitors who use DSR to improve the visuals beyond the native monitor

c) people with 3440x1440 ultrawides (see above)

d) people interested in ray tracing technology

 

That graph is for those 4 kind of people. If someone has 1440p monitor and a 1080ti or a 1080 they don't need an upgrade unless they want to push their system further - in which case all those things that Adored disregards (memory bandwith) are essential. 

 

They see that 2080 smokes 1080 in 4k, do you think they care that the % of advantage is lower in a resolution they are not interested in playing? Should they be also concerned about 1080p because it's even lower there?  

Maybe someone with a 144hz 1080/1440p monitor. 

[Okjoek]

Waiting for reviews and benchmarks.

[Prox1ma]

I will wait for the reviews and benchmarks, though I won't be getting one anyway. It seems nVidia will be pushing Ray tracing onto game developers, something that AMD was never able to do. Pascal will hold strong for a few more years, but after that it would be obsolete once games start using this.

[TahoeDust]

If 2080ti outperforms 1080ti by 25% or more at 3440x1440, I'll give them my money.

[Mihle]

The Nvidia graph is so biased and like the best possible situation.... 4k.... HDR.... 

[Humbug]

I think it's the performance in non ray-tracing applications that is going to sell these GPUs.

Turning Ray Tracing on seems to make the 2080ti into a 1080p 60fps graphics card. Something that with ray tracing switched off a R9 290 or GTX 970 can do. So this would be worthwhile only if turning it on makes a night and day difference in image quality, but the accounts we are hearing suggest that this is certainly not the case. And that's the 2080ti, the 2080 and 2070 will be slower still.

 

So it's good that Nvidia is starting to introduce dedicated ray tracing hardware in their GPUs, but I question the decision of selling the GTX 2xxx series based on Ray Tracing technology. It's going to be another 2-3 generation of GPUs from AMD/Nvidia before it's running at the perfromance levels which make it worthwhile for the visual pay-off. Again I am glad we are getting this tech. But don't think they should have used it as the USP. Should have relied on traditional metrics, and also told us that this is the start of a revolution in lighting...

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, Humbug said:

So this would be worthwhile only if turning it on makes a night and day difference in image quality,

If eye reflections at 1080p mean night and day...then I guess.

 

Its pretty minimal. It does look better but 4k vs 1080 alone, even if you crank down the graphics, is night and day

[Lathlaer]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

Its pretty minimal. It does look better but 4k vs 1080 alone, even if you crank down the graphics, is night and day

Agreed, 4k vs. 1080p is a no-brainer but if 2080ti managed 60fps in 1440p then quite frankly I'd be interested.

 

1440p + RT vs. 4k without would be much more interesting choice to make.

[Mihle]

5 hours ago, Lathlaer said:

Agreed, 4k vs. 1080p is a no-brainer but if 2080ti managed 60fps in 1440p then quite frankly I'd be interested.

 

1440p + RT vs. 4k without would be much more interesting choice to make.

It won't manage that. At least with the level of RT in the demos. Some RT but less, possibly.

[Brooksie359]

On 8/26/2018 at 9:08 AM, Humbug said:

I think it's the performance in non ray-tracing applications that is going to sell these GPUs.

Turning Ray Tracing on seems to make the 2080ti into a 1080p 60fps graphics card. Something that with ray tracing switched off a R9 290 or GTX 970 can do. So this would be worthwhile only if turning it on makes a night and day difference in image quality, but the accounts we are hearing suggest that this is certainly not the case. And that's the 2080ti, the 2080 and 2070 will be slower still.

 

So it's good that Nvidia is starting to introduce dedicated ray tracing hardware in their GPUs, but I question the decision of selling the GTX 2xxx series based on Ray Tracing technology. It's going to be another 2-3 generation of GPUs from AMD/Nvidia before it's running at the perfromance levels which make it worthwhile for the visual pay-off. Again I am glad we are getting this tech. But don't think they should have used it as the USP. Should have relied on traditional metrics, and also told us that this is the start of a revolution in lighting...

Honestly I may be one of the few outliers but I am excited to play with raytracing even if it's at 1080p with lower fps than what I am accustomed to. It's just an interesting technology and seems like it has the potential to change the visuals of games in the future to be much more real to life than it is currently. I guess this is the enthusiasts in me though that loves playing with new tech and hardware even if it's impractical for the type of gaming I want to do. I mean the bright side of this is that the 2080ti will allow me to play with raytracing when I want to but also play with it off allowing for better framerates and resolutions. 

[Tech Enthusiast]

21 hours ago, Mihle said:

It won't manage that. At least with the level of RT in the demos. Some RT but less, possibly.

The Demo on Enlisted managed 4k 90fps with raytracing on.

Actually, it even hit 110-130fps most of the time.

 

Remember: RT is not just on or off. What we saw up to this point has been the maximum possible stuff. You can tune that down like any other setting.

Here is the link: 

 

[Mihle]

13 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

The Demo on Enlisted managed 4k 90fps with raytracing on.

Actually, it even hit 110-130fps most of the time.

 

Remember: RT is not just on or off. What we saw up to this point has been the maximum possible stuff. You can tune that down like any other setting.

Here is the link: 

 

I know it's just not on and off. The public could have 1% RT and still say the game has RT. My comment was at full or almost full RT. I don't really bsee the point of RT if you only have like 10% RT. Well, I don't see the point getting those GPUs for RT spesifically if that's what you get.

[Amazonsucks]

5 hours ago, Mihle said:

I know it's just not on and off. The public could have 1% RT and still say the game has RT. My comment was at full or almost full RT. I don't really bsee the point of RT if you only have like 10% RT. Well, I don't see the point getting those GPUs for RT spesifically if that's what you get.

Even saying "full" in this context is variable because full in one game is not going to be the same as another.

 

You need to quantify the number of gigarays to have any kind of meaningful performa ce metrics.

[Brooksie359]

9 hours ago, Mihle said:

I know it's just not on and off. The public could have 1% RT and still say the game has RT. My comment was at full or almost full RT. I don't really bsee the point of RT if you only have like 10% RT. Well, I don't see the point getting those GPUs for RT spesifically if that's what you get.

We don't even know how partial raytracing is like and what it can do. I would hold skeptism until we have games that can utilize it and what difference it makes. Maybe if it just does reflections on very reflective surfaces it would make a good bit of difference while not hitting performance quite as bad. 

[Mihle]

5 minutes ago, Arokhantos said:

These are benchmarks from Nvidia take them with a grain of salt.

Grain? More like wheelbarrow.