3DMark Time Spy results alledgedly from RTX 2080 appear in database

[RobbinM]

In 3DMarks database a couple of entries have appeared. The RTX is not mentioned by name, but looking at the specs of the card, it is plausible that it is the new RTX 2080.

The specs include 8GB of VRAM and 14GBit/s memory speeds, that points towards the RTX 2080 or 2070.

 

The card scores 10.030 points in the 3DMark graphics test, 10.100 points in the Time Spy benchmark.

That makes the card a little faster than a GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition, that scores around 9.400 points in the same test.

Compared to the GTX 1080 that scores around 7.200 points, the card tested to be around 40% faster. nVidia previously claimed the card to be 50% faster.

 

This news is loosely translated from tweakers.net

 

---------------------------My Thoughts

If this is really the GTX2080 remains to be seen, but we at least have a possible glimpse of the actual performance of the card.

How the RTX 2080 Ti will perform, remains a guessing game.

I surely like the new cooler of these cards, it will most likely perform a lot better than previous FE coolers.

Now this can also be a downside, because it can mean that the card automatically overclocks to a higher speeds respective to previous Founders Edition cards, so overclocking headroom may decrease with swapping out coolers, in comparison to previous series.

That these coolers will be a lot quieter is good news for everybody. We may actually see some 3rd party manufacturers have to step up their cooling game because of the performance of this new design.

Also, people who have engineered their airflow to incorporate the exhaust flow of their current Founders Edition like coolers, may have to redesign their airflow directivity, or add more exhaust fans to keep the inside of their PC from heating up.

What do you think, if these results are the GTX 2080, are you sold on it or are you now even more eager to know how the RTX 2080 Ti will perform?

 

[ARikozuM]

I care very little for synthetics, so I'll be waiting for independent gaming benchmarks. 

 

Also, only 8GB of VRAM... Give us 12GB. 

[DrMacintosh]

Meanwhile, everyone else is just fine with their current GPUs and don't need to spend $1,000 just to get some fancy light bois

[rcmaehl]

25 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I care very little for synthetics, so I'll be waiting for independent gaming benchmarks. 

 

Also, only 8GB of VRAM... Give us 12GB. 

If I can't load the ENTIRETY of ALL Skyrim texture mods I don't want it. It's supposed to be a HIGH END card

[Hurican7]

The performance differential compared to the 10 series seems acceptable for enthusiasts who have larger budgets, but for the rest of us the cost added from the ray tracing tech doesn't seem worth it yet. It seems worth waiting to adopt ray tracing until 2nd or 3rd gen ray tracing cards are released , at least for those of us with modest budgets.

[I-r0k]

8gb??!! WHY!!!!????

[RobbinM]

7 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

If I can't load the ENTIRETY of Skyrim texture mods I don't want it. It's supposed to be a HIGH END card

So you are going to get one of the new Quadro's?

Up to 96GB of VRAM enough for you?

[rcmaehl]

9 minutes ago, RobbinM said:

So you are going to get one of the new Quadro's?

Up to 96GB of VRAM enough for you?

Yes, I've stolen obtained several kidneys and will be selling them shortly

[samcool55]

I know this is an unpopulair opinion but i will keep saying it until i am proven wrong but the low amount of VRAM on nvidia cards is part of planned obsolescence.

Like, a damn RX 470/RX 480 shipped with 8GB which is clearly not even in the same league as a 2080, but for some AMD believes that the rx 480 sort of needs 8gb and is able to fully utilize it while nvidia thinks a damn RTX 2080 can get away with the same amount...

 

Like, it can't. 8GB is not enough long-term. It might be fine for 1-2 years but don't forget, it's a high-end card (at least it's priced like one), not your average 200-300 dollar card the average gamer buys.

 

The GPU can handle high-res textures, it can handle high resolutions, the GPU will keep up, but that 8GB is going to cause issues faster than you imagine.

I won't be surprised if the RTX 2080 starts bumping into VRAM issues before a replacement is launched with more VRAM.

[RobbinM]

Don't forget compression.

nVidia has been compressing textures for a while.

Compression on 10 series cards have been enough to make a 3GB 10-series card handle like a 4GB 9 series.

11GB on 20 series may compare to 12 or 13GB on 10-series. I would be surprised if they haven't improved on compression, especially with the tensor cores.

[RobbinM]

9 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

Yes, I've stolen obtained several kidneys and will be selling them shortly

I don't think that posting about black market stuff is appropriate.

[paddy-stone]

40% faster - 200% more expensive /s

 

[Coaxialgamer]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

I care very little for synthetics, so I'll be waiting for independent gaming benchmarks. 

 

Also, only 8GB of VRAM... Give us 12GB. 

Not possible on a 256 bit card . And that's all nvidia's going to give us ; 384 bit is for the high end , and only it ( or 192bit ) allows for 12GB . The next realistic step up would be 16GB , and nvidia won't be giving us that , especially since it would be more than the titan V , which is supposedly their flagship.

 

On a side note , when are these cards scheduled to launch anyway ?

[SolarNova]

So, if im reading this right and this is indeed a score from a 2080...

 

Then the 2080, the highest end card that doesnt cost an extortionate amount, even if it is still overpriced, is only about 7% faster than a 1080ti in synthetics, where performance differences are usualy exagerated.....not impressed.

 

Now if its a 2070,  then its more acceptable.

[Coaxialgamer]

38 minutes ago, RobbinM said:

Don't forget compression.

nVidia has been compressing textures for a while.

Compression on 10 series cards have been enough to make a 3GB 10-series card handle like a 4GB 9 series.

11GB on 20 series may compare to 12 or 13GB on 10-series. I would be surprised if they haven't improved on compression, especially with the tensor cores.

Why exactly would the tensor cores help with compression ? Plus , compression only helps if you can compress the data in the first place. A lot of stuff is fundamentally not compressible.

[Coaxialgamer]

3 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

So, if im reading this right and this is indeed a score from a 2080...

 

Then the 2080, the highest end card that doesnt cost an extortionate amount, even if it is still overpriced, is only about 7% faster than a 1080ti in synthetics, where performance differences are usualy exagerated.....not impressed.

 

Now if its a 2070,  then its more acceptable.

I mean , that's perfectly in line with the historical per generation gains we've been seeing for years now . The 980 was 5-10% faster than the 780ti , the 1080 was 10% faster than the 980ti , etc

[SolarNova]

Yes but those generations also had a proper higher teir card at a reasonable price for those that wanted the next level of performance.

As things stand there is no higher teir card for the average joe above the 2080, as the 2080ti is currently priced like a Titan.

 

By placing the 2080ti where it is price wise (basscialy a Titan), Nvidia have removed a tier of card, thus the 2080 only being 7% faster than the 1080ti is dissapointing as thats the best your gunna get without having to sell a kidney for the 2080Titan.

[PlayStation 2]

looks like it won't run emulation with msaa /s

[pzspah]

I paid $450 for my MSI SeaHawk 1080 last november, 40% isn't going to make me want to spend what the RTX cards cost. Nor is raytracing, it doesn't do much for the strategy and milsims that I play.

[RobbinM]

24 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Why exactly would the tensor cores help with compression ? Plus , compression only helps if you can compress the data in the first place. A lot of stuff is fundamentally not compressible.

Your statement is correct. Some data is not to be compressed.

The first answer to your question: Tensor cores can relieve the main GPU of the compression task.

 

How tensor cores could be able to further help compute compression:

IF there is more data to be compressed.

That means that current GPU's are not fast enough to compress all the data that could be compressed.

- Tensor cores can use machine learning to do faster compression https://hackernoon.com/using-ai-to-super-compress-images-5a948cf09489

This means that Tensor core would need less time to compress, have time left over to compress some more data.

OR:

- Tensor core can use more advanced algorithm for compression, using higher compression ratio and use less memory.

 

Ideally, it would be able to do all three:

- Relieve GPU of compression task

- Compress more data

- Use higher compression ratio

[S w a t s o n]

I wondered to myself how fast the 2080 and 2080ti would be if that massive die was all cuda cores, probably amounting to double the cuda cores currently on turing. Then again if you're gonna use up some die space for dedicated RT and Tensor cores, may as well do it when the competition can't compete. If Nvidia had to compete with AMD on sheer shader performance we might not be seeing RTX but just faster cards. Interesting to think about, since I really think raytracing as a technology in general is amazing but who doesnt want raw powah?

[pas008]

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

I wondered to myself how fast the 2080 and 2080ti would be if that massive die was all cuda cores, probably amounting to double the cuda cores currently on turing. Then again if you're gonna use up some die space for dedicated RT and Tensor cores, may as well do it when the competition can't compete. If Nvidia had to compete with AMD on sheer shader performance we might not be seeing RTX but just faster cards. Interesting to think about, since I really think raytracing as a technology in general is amazing but who doesnt want raw powah?

but looks like we are getting 20 to 30 % more raw powah

in cuda and tenors doing work to relief cuda on other tasks along with faster memory

[Froody129]

So the 1080ti is still better value. A good cooler makes a difference from reference 

[ne0tic]

2 hours ago, Hurican7 said:

The performance differential compared to the 10 series seems acceptable for enthusiasts who have larger budgets, but for the rest of us the cost added from the ray tracing tech doesn't seem worth it yet. It seems worth waiting to adopt ray tracing until 2nd or 3rd gen ray tracing cards are released , at least for those of us with modest budgets.

And it's maybe worth it for those like me that are rocking a GTX 960 and want an upgrade.

[pas008]

9 minutes ago, ne0tic said:

And it's maybe worth it for those like me that are rocking a GTX 960 and want an upgrade.

what? even on 1k series

20% more cuda?

faster memory

 

pascal was huge jump on performance with same kinda jump (believe slightly more) in specs from maxwell