RTX GPUs should see a 35% - 45% improvement in current games over the GTX 10 without DLSS and other RTX enhancements - Tom Peterson

[xg32]

I'm looking at the 2080 ti, and i'm only expecting a 10-15% improvement over the 1080 ti, if it's 35%, it's just a bonus, and i'm happily wrong.

 

Unless they completely shit the bed i'm probably buying whether it's 15% or 35%

[Tech Enthusiast]

4 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

You mean 3d game graphic didn't improve in past decade? 

We got higher resolutions, better textures. All pretty much brute force improvements. And we will keep getting those.

But RT is kinda a different beast here. Yeah.

What is the major improvement you have in mind that I may have missed? Tessellation was the last major improvement I can think about.

 

So basically I am talking new ways of doing stuff that was impossible before, not brute forcing existing stuff to work better due to more horses.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, SolarNova said:

GTX 1080ti $700

 

GTX 2080ti $1200  (GTX 2080 $800)

 

So it's $100 more for slightly better performance and all those new features?  How is that absurd?

[Tech Enthusiast]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So it's $100 more for slightly better performance and all those new features?  How is that absurd?

Some people have a hard time handling more than one variable parameter.

Usually, we just have one variable to think about: More horses to get more fps.

This time around we have three variables to think about: More horses, new cores for DLSS and RT to make those fps look better.

 

Way harder to calculate, as we can't just compare 1:1. 

Pretty sure that is the main reason for the debate. The guys that only see the horses VS the guys that only see the new stuff VS the guys that see the whole picture.

Obviously, all three groups come to very different conclusions about the value. And there is no easy way out of this.

 

Honestly, I kind of enjoy the debate haha. Some very good points from all three camps. There really is very little that is for certain without very in-depth benchmarks, comparisons, tests, showcases... some very interesting weeks ahead of us!

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

Some people have a hard time handling more than one variable parameter.

Usually, we just have one variable to think about: More horses to get more fps.

This time around we have three variables to think about: More horses, new cores for DLSS and RT to make those fps look better.

 

Way harder to calculate, as we can't just compare 1:1. 

Pretty sure that is the main reason for the debate. The guys that only see the horses VS the guys that only see the new stuff VS the guys that see the whole picture.

Obviously, all three groups come to very different conclusions about the value. And there is no easy way out of this.

 

Honestly, I kind of enjoy the debate haha. Some very good points from all three camps. There really is very little that is for certain without very in-depth benchmarks, comparisons, tests, showcases... some very interesting weeks ahead of us!

As far as I am concerned its a new product, it doesn't seem to be replacing he 10 series, I fail to see how making comparison to previous generations is legitimate when those comparisons are ignoring everything else about the card.    It's a bit like the old titan arguments, sure it's really expensive and law of diminishing returns probably kicked in for most buyers at the 1070 mark, but that's it,  it's just another product with more stuff at the top.  People are crying like it's going to set a trend where AMD are suddenly going to start charging the same amount for their vega's.  

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

The numbers don't matter.  Only one thing does.

When your whole life flashes before your eyes, how much of it do you want to not have ray tracing?

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

The numbers don't matter.  Only one thing does.

When your whole life flashes before your eyes, how much of it do you want to not have ray tracing?

I was going to make a joke about the blind...

[Tech Enthusiast]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

As far as I am concerned its a new product, it doesn't seem to be replacing he 10 series, I fail to see how making comparison to previous generations is legitimate when those comparisons are ignoring everything else about the card

3

I am 100% with you on this. I am in the "look at the whole picture" camp.

For me, it is pretty clear that Nvidia just expanded their lineup upwards and made a new luxury class.

 

I do however also understand the other two camps. After all they used the old naming scheme, at least the number part.

It may have been a better idea to change the whole naming scheme and not just the prefix. Maybe people would have other expectations.

 

Well that, or Nvidia could have done a better job at just telling us what the hell they intent the RTX line to be.

 

So yeah, I kind of understand all the three camps, somewhat. It is hard to stay neutral tho, as most people try to shove you into one of the three camps, even if you are not. 

[Dylanc1500]

54 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I was going to make a joke about the blind...

I don't think they'd see it fly over their heads...

[xAcid9]

12 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

We got higher resolutions, better textures. All pretty much brute force improvements. And we will keep getting those.

But RT is kinda a different beast here. Yeah.

What is the major improvement you have in mind that I may have missed? Tessellation was the last major improvement I can think about.

 

So basically I am talking new ways of doing stuff that was impossible before, not brute forcing existing stuff to work better due to more horses.

What you mean brute force improvement? 

I'm thinking things like PBR, TAA, VXAO, not to mention massive improvement in draw calls, culling and multi-threading compare to DX9.

[juri-han]

wow nvidia is banking on RT to sell this card.... something people will try for a week and turn off for better performance, AMD's 7nm navi card coming out this year got a whole lot more interesting long as they match the "35-45%" bump and for half the price just with no RTing tacked on hmmmm 

[Lathlaer]

22 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

What you mean brute force improvement? 

I'm thinking things like PBR, TAA, VXAO, not to mention massive improvement in draw calls, culling and multi-threading compare to DX9.

I think he meant the graphical improvements as a correlation to the hardware side. Much like higher resolution or raw fps, there is nothing special about handling TAA or VXAO hardware-wise - you only need a more powerful card to handle the fps drop better.

 

Meanwhile you could increase the raw power of 1080ti by 50% and it will still be much worse at handling ray tracing than the 2080ti.

[xAcid9]

57 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

Meanwhile you could increase the raw power of 1080ti by 50% and it will still be much worse at handling ray tracing than the 2080ti.

Until someone code it to be able to use on existing hardwares like Physx?

[Lathlaer]

33 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Until someone code it to be able to use on existing hardwares like Physx?

No one claims that existing hardware isn't able to utilise ray tracing - it's just so impractical that it might as well not exist. 1080ti can be used to RT but due to the way RT works it's just destroyed by the new generation of GPU. If 2080ti can barely hold a fully RT game in 1080p, what does it say about a GPU that is 10x worse in this task?

 

And since the new generation is coming and it's rather safe to assume that the one after it will also have similar architecture, it's more practical for game devs to optimize the code so that cards like 2070 can use it more efficiently rather than ensure that aging hardware is better at it,

 

By the time RT will be an all around feature, Pascal will be too old for anyone to bother with it. Resources will be spent to ensure that next gen mid range GPUs with the right architecture can handle RT and not some old hardware that doesn't even have the right cores for it. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, xAcid9 said:

Until someone code it to be able to use on existing hardwares like Physx?

yes but no but yes but no,  From what I've seen RT cores are to GPU what GPU is to CPU.  So Yes you can do whatever you want on any of the cores, but choose the wrong processor and it will take so long it may as well not be capable.  Just like trying to run 4K on a CPU instead of a GPU,  trying to raytrace without specialized cores (from any company) just isn't going to happen.    

[Dylanc1500]

18 hours ago, SolarNova said:

Ok im just going to post the past price points of high end cards.

 

The arguments being made are absurd. yes its a bigger core, yes it has new features . yes yes. Thats irrelivant, every past new series has somthing over the older, that doesnt mean each one has had a price hike over the last and most certianly not to this extent. Observe.

 

7800 GTX $600

8800 GTX $650 (ultra $830)

GTX 280 $650

GTX 480 $500

GTX 580 $500

GTX 680 $500

GTX 780ti $700

GTX 980ti $650

GTX 1080ti $700

 

GTX 2080ti $1200  (GTX 2080 $800)

 

Facts, figures, they dont lie. These are historical facts. Each card listed was placed to replace the prior both in terms of performance and price point. With AMD's lack of high end perfomance with the 200 series vs the GTX 700 series, there was a price hike back up to around that of pre GTX 200 series.

Now the 2080ti comes and people make the excuse, "well its a Titan", ok exclude it fom the list if you must, and use the 2080 as the replacment for the 1080ti, Itis still a $100 MSRP price hike.

So far word from Nvidia is the 2080 is 35-45% faster than the 1080, since its the manufacture is saying it, asume at most 35% over the 1080. The 1080ti is 'atleast' 30% faster than the 1080. So, from Nvidia,  they are effectivly saying the 2080 is 5% faster than the 1080ti.

So your ok with paying $100 for 5%? 5%, thats 5 fps if you can run a game at 100 fps with a 1080ti. And your ok defending that ?

 

Historicaly, at the price point of the previous generations primary flagship card (+/- $50) the new gen has a not insignificant performance bump of 25% 'atleast'

The 2080 (if u think the 2080ti should be forgiven the price due to "its a Titan") is, untill actual user benchmarks arrive, around 5% faster than the 1080ti for atleast a $100 bump.

 

These are the facts and figures im using here, please do correct me if im wrong here. really.  Feel free to nit pick, ill adjust the figures, im sure the results will be the same, but im open to being proven wrong.

 

 

I apologize for the long response. There are some things I would like to make things a bit clearer so people can get a better picture. MSRP at their respective launch dates (Inflation adjustment as of September 3, 2018).

 

Geforce 6 series like others before it, is a handful. I'll start there since it is when the introduced SLI.

April 14, 2004 6800: $299 (~$400.80); May 4, 2004 (AGP) June 28, 2004 (PCIe) 6800 GT: $399 (531.73); May 4, 2004 (AGP) June 28, 2004 (PCIe) 6800 Ultra: $499 (~$665.00); May 4, 2004 6800 Ultra Extreme: $?????

7 Series

June 22, 2005 7800 GTX (256MB): $599 (~$776.10), November 14, 2005 7800 GTX (512MB): $699 (~$891.46), with the 7900 GTX refresh March 9, 2006: $499 (~$629.38).

8 Series

November 8, 2006 8800 GTX: $649 (~$811.67), with the 8800 Ultra May 2, 2007: $829 (~$1004.64)

9 Series

April 1, 2008 9800 GTX: $299 (~$350.75), with the 9800 GTX+ July 16, 2008: $229 (~$262.36)

200 Series

June 17, 2008 GTX 280: $649 (~$747.44), with the GTX 285 January 15, 2009: ~$399 (~$476.22)

400 Series

March 26, 2010 GTX 480: $499 (~$577.82), No refreshes or higher tiered option of the GTX 480

500 Series

November 9, 2010 GTX 580: $499 (~$574.72), No refreshes or higher tiered option of the GTX 580

600 Series

March 22, 2012 GTX 680: $499 (~$548.19), No refreshes or higher tiered option of the GTX 680

"700 Series"

February 21, 2013 GTX TITAN: $999 (~$1084.37); May 23, 2013 GTX 780: $649 (~$702.11); November 7, 2013 GTX 780 Ti: $699 (~$755.79); February 18, 2014 GTX TITAN Black $999 (~$1072.29)

"900 Series"

September 18, 2014 GTX 980: $549 (~$581.23); March 17, 2015 GTX TITAN X: $999 (~$1066.22); June 1, 2015 GTX 980 Ti: $649 (~$685.36)

"10 Series"

May 27, 2016 GTX 1080: $599 (~$628.37); August 2, 2016 TITAN X: $1200 (~$1255.59); March 5, 2017 GTX 1080 Ti: $699; March 6, 2017 TITAN Xp: $1200; April 20, 2017 GTX 1080 (refresh) $499; November 2, 2017 GTX 1070 Ti: $449

"20 Series"

September 20, 2018 RTX 2080: $699; September 20, 2018 RTX 2080 Ti: $999

 

They have made line up changes with every series since the 600 series. So that isn't unexpected if it is the case. Over the years there has only been three series that hadn't had line-ups changed across the series, that being 400, 500, 600 series. So it is quite hard to make direct comparisons without taking into consideration of what was available at specific moments in time, especially when you may have prices move around when one product is released or replaced.

 

We can't make definitive statements about performance until the release of the cards, 17 days from now. You shouldn't take any leaks at face value as they can be manipulated, one way or the other.

 

We don't know the value of the products until they are released, and even then value will be hard to gauge because there is new hardware and feature sets that will be available that may or may not be taken advantage of for different specific use cases. Like always, people should wait for benchmarks that gauge their specific use-case and workload and then make the decision on whether or not it is worth it to you based off the price available to that person. People need to wait until launch. The only people that shouldn't wait are the people that just want the product regardless and find enough value based off what has been released so far and don't have expectations of whats to come.

 

Anyways, I hope it gives some food for thought. I hope I didn't come off brash. If I did I apologize, as it was not my intention.

[SolarNova]

2 hours ago, Dylanc1500 said:

SNIP

Anyways, I hope it gives some food for thought. I hope I didn't come off brash. If I did I apologize, as it was not my intention.

Appreciate the respectful response.

Based on you post iv reconsidered my opinion on the 2080 non ti.

It is imo a logical option for those who are running any GPU that is NOT a 1080ti. However I do not think it an improvement over the 1080ti which, if some people are to be beloved, is its primary competitor due to the 2080ti 'being a Titan'.

 

So I’ll take those adjusted figures for inflation as accurate and use them.

If we take a top end card from each series at inflated prices, so we take out the outliers like the Titans and their predecessor equivalents like the 'ultras'. We also ignore the 9000 series as it really wasn’t an 'new' series, and their price reflects that, also using those figures would actually 'help' my point, and i want to be as generous as possible here.

 

So.

6800 GT PCie

7800 GTX 512 PCie

8800 GTX

GTX 280

GTX 480

GTX 580

GTX 680

GTX 780ti

GTX 980ti

GTX 1080ti.

 

Average cost $772 including inflation adjustments.

Each of these selected cards had a good improvement over their predecessor, 20% or more, usually a lot more.

So, let’s put the 2080ti in and compare.

 

Latest 'leak' performance suggests its 35% faster than the 1080ti, that’s good and as it should be. It is however priced at $1200, supposedly non founders is meant to be $1000 but nowhere has it listed at that price. We can take both figures however for arguments sake.

 

At $1000 that’s $228 over inflation adjusted expect value. At $1200 is $428 over. 30% and 55% to high respectively.

If ones opinion is that the 2080ti is a Titan, then let consider it an outlier and look at the 2080 as if it where the 2080ti.

 

2080 is set at $800 MSRP , or $700 for non founders, again same as above, we can use both prices.

At these prices its much more acceptable tbh when compared to past prices when inflation is taken into account and prices averaged. ($772) The $800 price point being only £28 more expensive, and at the $700 point being $72 cheaper than expected.

That all sounds good until you look at the 'likely' performance of the 2080, is it 20%+ faster than the 1080ti (remember we are assuming the 2080 is in fact the 2080ti and the 2080ti is the Titan).

From Nvidia they say it is 35-45% faster than their previous cards. Since its the manufacturer saying this, lets take 35% for the 2080 over the 1080 (non ti)

The 1080 is at least 30% slower than the 1080ti. So...

The 2080 is only 5% faster than the 1080ti going by that, and availabe leaks like the timespy score (10,030 vs 9,508)

 

If the 2080 is indeed this close to the 1080ti perf, close enough to be within OC potential performance fluctuations, and IF it indeed comes out available at $700 price point, then its 'sensibleness' depends on how the 1080ti prices change if at all, as both the 2080 and 1080ti will be situated in the same position both in price and performance.

 

This then leaves a gap in the 2000 series line up. Where is the 1080ti's successor? It isn’t the 2080ti, whether you excuse its price due to it 'being a Titan' or not, its price point is to high to be considered the new consumer grade card top performer like past series cards. Its priced more akin to an 'ultra' or 'Titan', and the 2080 so far doesn’t look to perform much better than a 1080ti.

 

I do hope I’m wrong, I HOPE the 2080 is at least 20%, hell even 15% would be good (though somewhat disappointing based on past improvements), faster than the 1080ti, but it just doesn’t seem like it will be based on what Nvidia has said, and the leaked figures for the 2080ti and 2080 so far.

[ltguy]

On 9/2/2018 at 3:44 AM, mr moose said:

In Australia the 2080 is the same price as the 1080ti, performs a little better and has all the new tech goodies.  Not exactly double speak. 

First, Australia pricing is its  own thing, not relevant.

 

Second. 1080 ti has 3584 cuda cores. 2080 has 2994 cuda cores. 1080ti msrp $699. 2080 msrp $799. Still double speak. Exactly!

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, ltguy said:

First, Australia pricing is its  own thing, not relevant.

 

Second. 1080 ti has 3584 cuda cores. 2080 has 2994 cuda cores. 1080ti msrp $699. 2080 msrp $799. Still double speak. Exactly!

first: It would appear that price difference is thee same in the US so very relevant.

 

Second:  It's not official of course, but slightly faster is slightly faster regardless of the hardware:

https://videocardz.com/77763/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-3dmark-timespy-result-leaks-out

 

As I keep saying to everyone, you should not be making absolute statements about these products until you have absolute data, that goes both ways.

 

 

 

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, SolarNova said:

Appreciate the respectful response.

Based on you post iv reconsidered my opinion on the 2080 non ti.

It is imo a logical option for those who are running any GPU that is NOT a 1080ti. However I do not think it an improvement over the 1080ti which, if some people are to be beloved, is its primary competitor due to the 2080ti 'being a Titan'.

 

So I’ll take those adjusted figures for inflation as accurate and use them.

If we take a top end card from each series at inflated prices, so we take out the outliers like the Titans and their predecessor equivalents like the 'ultras'. We also ignore the 9000 series as it really wasn’t an 'new' series, and their price reflects that, also using those figures would actually 'help' my point, and i want to be as generous as possible here.

 

So.

6800 GT PCie

7800 GTX 512 PCie

8800 GTX

GTX 280

GTX 480

GTX 580

GTX 680

GTX 780ti

GTX 980ti

GTX 1080ti.

 

Average cost $772 including inflation adjustments.

Each of these selected cards had a good improvement over their predecessor, 20% or more, usually a lot more.

So, let’s put the 2080ti in and compare.

 

Latest 'leak' performance suggests its 35% faster than the 1080ti, that’s good and as it should be. It is however priced at $1200, supposedly non founders is meant to be $1000 but nowhere has it listed at that price. We can take both figures however for arguments sake.

 

At $1000 that’s $228 over inflation adjusted expect value. At $1200 is $428 over. 30% and 55% to high respectively.

If ones opinion is that the 2080ti is a Titan, then let consider it an outlier and look at the 2080 as if it where the 2080ti.

 

2080 is set at $800 MSRP , or $700 for non founders, again same as above, we can use both prices.

At these prices its much more acceptable tbh when compared to past prices when inflation is taken into account and prices averaged. ($772) The $800 price point being only £28 more expensive, and at the $700 point being $72 cheaper than expected.

That all sounds good until you look at the 'likely' performance of the 2080, is it 20%+ faster than the 1080ti (remember we are assuming the 2080 is in fact the 2080ti and the 2080ti is the Titan).

From Nvidia they say it is 35-45% faster than their previous cards. Since its the manufacturer saying this, lets take 35% for the 2080 over the 1080 (non ti)

The 1080 is at least 30% slower than the 1080ti. So...

The 2080 is only 5% faster than the 1080ti going by that, and availabe leaks like the timespy score (10,030 vs 9,508)

 

If the 2080 is indeed this close to the 1080ti perf, close enough to be within OC potential performance fluctuations, and IF it indeed comes out available at $700 price point, then its 'sensibleness' depends on how the 1080ti prices change if at all, as both the 2080 and 1080ti will be situated in the same position both in price and performance.

 

This then leaves a gap in the 2000 series line up. Where is the 1080ti's successor? It isn’t the 2080ti, whether you excuse its price due to it 'being a Titan' or not, its price point is to high to be considered the new consumer grade card top performer like past series cards. Its priced more akin to an 'ultra' or 'Titan', and the 2080 so far doesn’t look to perform much better than a 1080ti.

 

I do hope I’m wrong, I HOPE the 2080 is at least 20%, hell even 15% would be good (though somewhat disappointing based on past improvements), faster than the 1080ti, but it just doesn’t seem like it will be based on what Nvidia has said, and the leaked figures for the 2080ti and 2080 so far.

See this is where the problem lies. If you think 5% increase plus the added benefit of dlss and raytracing is a significant improvement or if you don't determines if it is worth it or not. With dlss the gap between the 1080ti and the 2080 is likely to be much more than 5% with the added benefit that it supports raytracing. If you don't care for the new features that cost alot of the area and as a result alot of added manufacturing cost then yeah you probably won't like the new series of gpus. 

[leadeater]

13 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

See this is where the problem lies. If you think 5% increase plus the added benefit of dlss and raytracing is a significant improvement or if you don't determines if it is worth it or not. With dlss the gap between the 1080ti and the 2080 is likely to be much more than 5% with the added benefit that it supports raytracing. If you don't care for the new features that cost alot of the area and as a result alot of added manufacturing cost then yeah you probably won't like the new series of gpus. 

RTX could be a very worthy feature upgrade but DLSS seems to be very much not, pure DLSS like any AA technique is worse than actual higher resolution and textures. Comparing 2080 DLSS to 1080 Ti in the context of new features and increased performance I personally don't think is a technically correct thing to do, much like saying a game at 1080p 16x AA is the same as 1440p/1600p (purely example sake), it's just not. Higher or lower frame rate for either configuration just aren't comparable in the traditional sense of talking about performance increase over previous generation.

 

2080 DLSS 1080p performance vs 1080 Ti native 1440p/1600p (or higher) will do more harm than good, compare both at 1080p and then way up visual improvement.

 

DLSS shouldn't get any extra special treatment that other AA techniques don't get.

[pas008]

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

RTX could be a very worthy feature upgrade but DLSS seems to be very much not, pure DLSS like any AA technique is worse than actual higher resolution and textures. Comparing 2080 DLSS to 1080 Ti in the context of new features and increased performance I personally don't think is a technically correct thing to do, much like saying a game at 1080p 16x AA is the same as 1440p/1600p (purely example sake), it's just not. Higher or lower frame rate for either configuration just aren't comparable in the traditional sense of talking about performance increase over previous generation.

 

2080 DLSS 1080p performance vs 1080 Ti native 1440p/1600p (or higher) will do more harm than good, compare both at 1080p and then way up visual improvement.

 

DLSS shouldn't get any extra special treatment that other AA techniques don't get.

did you like new downsampling features too from both couple yrs ago?

[Tech Enthusiast]

52 minutes ago, leadeater said:

DLSS shouldn't get any extra special treatment that other AA techniques don't get.

 

Hmm. I kinda see your point.

Would you really not include it at all, even though the indirect performance gain is huge?

 

In my personal example, I am running a 1440p screen and always have some form of AA on. They all cost about the same performance for the same quality gain. I realize there ARE differences and there ARE objectively better versions, but let's ignore that for a second. The point is, I never go without some form of AA on.

 

Upgrading to RTX allows me to get a top of the line AA experience, with little to zero performance cost.

So this is, in fact, improving my FPS. Yes, I could turn off AA and get the same FPS. But I would lose image quality.

I could also turn off AA and use Upsampling (or however it is called, don't bite me. The thing that calculates more than my 1440p and then downscales it).

That would also increase the quality, but would also cost a lot more horses. Then again, with DLSS running on Tensor cores, what stops me from doing BOTH?

 

So having the option to have a good looking version of AA, without a performance hit is an awesome selling point in my situation. For those that use upsampling, this would not increase FPS directly, true. But it would still increase the visual quality.

 

Kinda like a very measurable graphical improvement.

Something we can't do with RT, as the gain is subjective. But having a solid AA for free is pretty measurable. Even for those that add Upsampling.

Finding good ways to include the new possibilities and features in Reviews will be hard, but kinda important as well. As far as DLSS goes it sure looks like it can be measured.

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

Would you really not include it at all, even though the indirect performance gain is huge?

I'm not saying don't include it just compare it like all new AA algorithms/features of the past, that is what it is after all. If it gives you the image quality improvement you're after and has a lower performance requirement or frame rate reduction of an alternative card or brand then that is a reason to buy it (not a big one) but I wouldn't use that as metric to say the card is more powerful or has more performance than another or last generation. It has a feature which is more efficient but it doesn't make it more powerful.

 

That's really the underlying issue of large technology shifts, there are plenty of products now and coming in the short term that will not meet the frame rate desires of many at the resolution they want to run. Running a game at non native screen resolution always looks much worse after all.

 

DLSS isn't magic, neither was any other AA before it so I just think a bit of realism needs to be applied and we should definitely not start confusing resolutions and their performances with something that is not actually that resolution no matter how effectively the same it is visually, not from a performance and statistical comparison standpoint since they are actually different measurement points.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, pas008 said:

did you like new downsampling features too from both couple yrs ago?

Not really or more correctly I don't use them, I run 2560x1600 so have no reason to use it or have the VRAM to either.