3DMark score for RTX 2080 Ti leaks

[asim1999]

Sources:

https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1036261478695952384

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-rtx-2080-ti-3dmark-score-allegedly-leaks-35-faster-vs-1080-ti/

 

The 2080 Ti achieved a score of 12825

 

 

Quote

With that being said, if this Time Spy graphics score is accurate then the RTX 2080 Ti has managed to outpace the GTX 1080 Ti Founder’s Edition by almost exactly 35%, which scores around 9500 points at stock clock speeds. By comparison, the GTX 1080 Ti outperformed the GTX 980 Ti by 79%in the same test when it came out last year.

 

This means that either Turing is running into some form of bottlenecking issue here, or folks might want to start seriously taming their expectations for the green team’s new $1200 card. We certainly hope it’s the former. Although realistically speaking, only a few days ago NVIDIA confirmed that the RTX 2080 Ti will be between 35-45% faster than the GTX 1080 Ti depending on the scenario, so 35% is certainly within the margin the company had laid out.

I think that we should wait for final drivers to be released and reviews to come out, as that could extend the score further.

If it is indeed only a 35% jump, then i might as well get a used 1080 Ti

[oh,hi there]

well,wait for the nvidia drivers

[Void Master]

You forgot ray tracing

[MMKing]

The 1080Ti did not come out last year. The 1000 series is by far the longest running generation in a very long time, the 1080Ti came out over 2 years ago.

[Lurick]

1 minute ago, MMKing said:

The 1080Ti did not come out last year. The 1000 series is by far the longest running generation in a very long time, the 1080Ti came out over 2 years ago.

GTX 1080Ti launched March of 2017 which was, last year

[.Apex.]

so Luke's prediction was right.. the reason they're releasing the RTX 2080 Ti, is because the 2080 alone is not gonna make GTX 1080 Ti users upgrade.

 

if the Ray tracing and DLSS sucks shit, then this generation is seriously a fail, sky high prices and mediocre performance upgrade.

[Delicieuxz]

So, 1.5 years after the 1080 Ti's release, people can pay 70% more than a 1080 Ti's MSRP for a performance increase of just 35% more than the 1080 Ti.

 

That isn't an attractive deal at all. Even if the 2080 Ti released at the same time as the 1080 Ti, it would make no sense to purchase it. And even if the 2080 Ti had a 70% performance increase over the 1080 Ti to go with the 70% increase in cost, it still wouldn't make sense.

 

A 70% performance increase with a 35% price increase might make sense, though that would still be an extreme generational price-to-performance increase.

 

The 1080 Ti had around a 70% performance increase over the 980 Ti, and had an MSRP of just 7.14% ($50) more than the 980 Ti's.

[MMKing]

10 minutes ago, Lurick said:

GTX 1080Ti launched March of 2017 which was, last year

My mistake, i was thinking of the 10 series in general.

[Lurick]

Just now, MMKing said:

My mistake, i was thinking of the 10 series in general.

Yah, the 1080 was released back in 2016 but they didn't release the Ti model until 7 or 8 months later.

[Delicieuxz]

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

You're paying for more than that.  10 years of RND tax, raytracing, and more.  The point of them isn't purely that performance gain.

That doesn't explain the radical price hike and low performance gain, IMO. I think this is actually the Nvidia's greed, crypto-mining aftermath, and no competition tax.

[MMKing]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

You're paying for more than that.  10 years of RND tax, raytracing, and more.  The point of them isn't purely that performance gain.

I'm sure a few people will have quite a lot of fun playing 1080p at 60FPS in their ray traced games for at least 40-50 hours. I think the main issue with the new RTX cards is that they feel there is no alternative. You're paying for Ray Tracing and using it at low frame rate and low resolution (yes, 1080p is low resolution in the context of a 1200USD card) or you are paying for what amounts to no gain at all. 1200USD vs 699USD price tag, 70% added cost for 35% added performance UNLESS you are using Ray Tracing.

 

The argument goes that in the future Ray Tracing will be more relevant, but we don't live in the future. If we did live in the future, not only would Ray Tracing be better... but we would have better cards as well. Further more, every single product pays for the research & development cost, including the 2080Ti... but not excluding the 1080Ti. Why does the argument justify a 70% price premium to the 2080Ti?

 

Nvidia's margins are ramping out of control. In 2014 they had a total revenue of 4.7 billion, with a profit of 631 million. In 2017 their total revenue increased 206% to 9.7 billion while their profit increased 482% to 3.05 billion. Don't misunderstand me, i understand Nvidia doing this, what i don't understand is people defending the price tag.

[Madgemade]

Not that surprising only 35%. But it's a shame about the prices. Inexcusable profiteering, but what I don't get is why. Raytracing is great but 60FPS 1080p on only ti model?

Pricing is sure to improve because right now Vega has been falling a lot as is actually competitive for the first time in a year. If Turing is 2x Vega 64 price... Which the 2080 ti is right now then that's going to be a problem for Nvidia because you could get 2x Vega 64 for 70% of ONE 2080 ti and get more FPS in the few xfire supported title + better compute performance. For people who play only Battlefield this could make sense as xfire vega gets 100fps at 4k vs 60fps for the 1080ti so maybe 80 or 90fps for 2080ti but more cost and no way raytracing is of any use at 4k we know that already.

 

Although I think Nvidia know that few will buy the Vega even if it is better in a few situations so they are going to get a lot of cash. Hopefully when their next gen comes out in 2019 its priced a little better or forced to be by Navi/Vega 20.

[MMKing]

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because the costs of RND, a new memory type being implemented, and more is going to stack.  Companies will not pay for it themselves.  What I don't understand is why people are failing to see that.  Pascal did not cost as much to develop as this did, and any company will do this.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong for them to do it, but I'm saying that's why they're doing it.  It has nothing to do with their value as a company it has to do with them wanting their money back for all the money they just spent to bring people these cards.  Even AMD did it with Vega cards.

I'm not sure what you're on about, no one is calling for free graphics cards. But these prices are not 100 or 200USD higher than the last generation, the 2080Ti is launching at a price point 500USD higher than the 1080Ti, thats only 50USD less than the 980 MSRP. Also, i want a citation regarding the development cost of Pascal and Turing, since you seem so sure that Pascal was cheaper to develop.

 

The development of Turing did not start 10 years ago, and only now have they finally been able to reap the fruits of their labor after 10 years of literally nothing coming out of the ''Turing lab''. The development process of Turing has been sold for 10 years in the form of the 400 series, 500, 600, 700, 900 and the current 10 series of GPUs.

 

Do you think it reasonable Nvidia release the 3080Ti for a 70% premium over the 2080Ti? 2040USD? They have to pay for years of development, and lets be realistic, one or two parts of the GPU will probably be new technology.

[Master Disaster]

12825.....

 

[Drak3]

20 minutes ago, Madgemade said:

. But it's a shame about the prices. Inexcusable profiteering, but what I don't get is why

The RTX cards include new technology in the form of Tensor cores, RT cores, and GDDR6. The die is somewhere around twice the size of the previous corrolated product. It's unreasonable to assume that there wouldn't have been a price increase of some form, whether it be a straight price increase (like this) or Nvidia shifting the product stack up and adding an x90 category.

[Taf the Ghost]

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2080886

 

From the Top 100 list, but high OC'd 1080 Ti level. 

 

The Turing generation still looks a lot like just Pascal with faster memory & bigger dies.

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2080886

 

From the Top 100 list, but high OC'd 1080 Ti level. 

 

The Turing generation still looks a lot like just Pascal with faster memory & bigger dies.

Which is something I speculated over a month ago, Turing is nothing but Pascal with a dumbed down Tensor core bolted on for RTX & GDDR6.

[SupremeGOAT]

15 hours ago, syn2112 said:

so Luke's prediction was right.. the reason they're releasing the RTX 2080 Ti, is because the 2080 alone is not gonna make GTX 1080 Ti users upgrade.

 

if the Ray tracing and DLSS sucks shit, then this generation is seriously a fail, sky high prices and mediocre performance upgrade.

Hold your filthy tongue mongrel lest you condemn your own soul! Beyond the perception of mortal thought lies the transcendental entity of RAY TRACING! For over a millennia the prophecy of the TENSOR CORE  and its limitless power were foretold! For you, a mere plankter in the ocean of humanity to question ABSOLUTE POWER is blasphemous! Prostrate yourself before the Nvidia building (located in Santa Clara, California) and recompense for your profane denigrations! GAZE UPON THE SHINY CAR IN BATTLEFIELD V AND URINATE! FOR THAT IS MERE GLIMPSE OF WHAT IS TO COME! whoa are they of little faith for surely they shall suffer...amen... 

[Coaxialgamer]

34 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because the costs of RND, a new memory type being implemented, and more is going to stack.  Companies will not pay for it themselves.  What I don't understand is why people are failing to see that.  Pascal did not cost as much to develop as this did, and any company will do this.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong for them to do it, but I'm saying that's why they're doing it.  It has nothing to do with their value as a company it has to do with them wanting their money back for all the money they just spent to bring people these cards.  Even AMD did it with Vega cards.

Oh come on . First of all , we both know that nvidia will see that money back 10x . Nvidia is so prevalent in the market that they could charge half as much and still make lots of money . Their profit margins have been through the roof ever since maxwell came out , and it's not like they're charging rock-bottom prices on these parts either .

Sure , R&D costs are high , and these are large chips, but these are mass market products . They can distribute the costs . It's not like the HCC xeons intel sells ONLY to enterprise segments.

And ultimately , you have no idea if it even did cost more to develop than maxwell or pascal , no numbers have been published . A lot of the tech was shared between turing and volta anyway, plus the SM is likely taken out of pascal , and while it was on the burner for 10 years most architectures also spend many years on R&D as well . For all we know the first 5 years were spent on the drawing board.

 

The only reason we are seeing these insane prices is because AMD doesn't have sh*t to sell.

[Taf the Ghost]

7 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Which is something I speculated over a month ago, Turing is nothing but Pascal with a dumbed down Tensor core bolted on for RTX & GDDR6.

Which is fine, but Nvidia wants everyone to pay for new hardware that simply won't be useful. Which is probably what all of the consternation is about. (Or maybe Pascal was too good from the die shrink.)

[Princess Luna]

"You're not paying for more performance, you're paying for Ray Tracing"

 

Well if we come down to this, all you gotta do is ask yourself if you want to play at native 4k with a 1080 Ti or play 1080p with fancy Ray Tracing on, and "DLSS" which is still 1080p just the newest fancy anti-aliasing, keep in mind even the 2080 Ti seems to be struggling with Ray Tracing features.

 

I do want Ray Tracing and whatever to become the norm but this will take another 3 years at least and by then we'll be overflood with 7nm GPUs and even Intel in the game.

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Right now ya, but if you wait 2-3 years if it catches on you might have a use...or like 6-8 if it doesn't.  I don't see this series going over well at all for Nvidia.

Turing won't make sense until Ampere on 7nm. Once the power comes down and the clocks come up, the added hardware units will make sense.

 

However, Nvidia is selling their Professional products as Gaming GPUs and forcing new tech to make them seem like they are useful. I don't have an issue with the RT cores, but the stuff like DLSS looks so much like finding a solution to a problem that didn't exist, using hardware that it doesn't look like it'll work well with. While also not just Price Tier replacing parts. 

 

Only place that it looks like has improved, is if you want to move into 4K gaming. Maybe. We'll see what the 1080 Ti vs 2080 looks like.

[Mira Yurizaki]

I know there's the saying "You're only as good as you're last run," but let's stop to think about this: what was the trend in high end video card generational performance jumps over the years?

 

GeForce GTX 980 Ti vs 780 Ti: About 50%+ average.

GeForce GTX 680 vs. 780: About 30%+ average.

GeForce GTX 680 vs 580: About 40%+ average.

GeForce GTX 580 vs 480: About 20-30%+ average

 

And looking back over various other high-end reviews in NVIDIA's history, it's been floating around 30%-40% on average. Sometimes a game or two becomes the outlier and spikes up to 50% or more (I found one instance where performance jumped up by 90%). So basically... NVIDIA just had a couple of good runs in the last generation.

 

You can't really expect the performance jumps between the 700 and 900 and the 900 and 10 series to happen all the time. Otherwise, can I expect AMD, whenever they jump off the Zen architecture, to do the same 100%+ improvements like Zen did over Bulldozer?

 

EDIT: Okay, the only thing I can see that people would be upset about is the pricing. That I can get by. But on a hardware progression level, this is average.

[Master Disaster]

21 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Which is fine, but Nvidia wants everyone to pay for new hardware that simply won't be useful. Which is probably what all of the consternation is about. (Or maybe Pascal was too good from the die shrink.)

Honestly this is RTGs fault.... Hear me out.....

 

So we all know that Nvidia is now about as far ahead of RTG in the 'arms race's as Intel was ahead of AMD when we had Core Vs Excavator. At this point RTG aren't even a serious competitor to anything above the upper middle tier of cards.

 

The problem with this situation is it's given Nvidia time to spend billions and multiple years developing ray tracing technology. If RTG were more of a threat you can bet your ass Jen Shun wouldn't have spent the last 10 years developing something no one asked for and, let's be real here, might end up flopping entirely and being a huge failure and right now we wouldn't be getting a product that makes very little sense.

 

Thanks RTG/AMD, thanks a lot.

[Delicieuxz]

17 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I know there's the saying "You're only as good as you're last run," but let's stop to think about this: what was the trend in high end video card generational performance jumps over the years?

 

GeForce GTX 980 Ti vs 780 Ti: About 50%+ average.

GeForce GTX 680 vs. 780: About 30%+ average.

GeForce GTX 680 vs 580: About 40%+ average.

GeForce GTX 580 vs 480: About 20-30%+ average

 

And looking back over various other high-end reviews in NVIDIA's history, it's been floating around 30%-40% on average. Sometimes a game or two becomes the outlier and spikes up to 50% or more (I found one instance where performance jumped up by 90%). So basically... NVIDIA just had a couple of good runs in the last generation.

 

You can't really expect the performance jumps between the 700 and 900 and the 900 and 10 series to happen all the time. Otherwise, can I expect AMD, whenever they jump off the Zen architecture, to do the same 100%+ improvements like Zen did over Bulldozer?

 

EDIT: Okay, the only thing I can see that people would be upset about is the pricing. That I can get by. But on a hardware progression level, this is average.

You left out the GTX 980 Ti -> GTX 1080 Ti performance increase, which, if added to the list, would make the GTX 2080 Ti performance increase below average.

 

And like you edited in, it's the price that goes with the meagre performance gain that makes the whole thing stink so badly. And people with RTX 2070s and 2080s shouldn't be paying for a ray-tracing ability that will perform so badly for them they won't use it. And how many people that spend $700 - 1200 USD on a GPU play games at 1080p, or sub 60 FPS? Ray-tracing is not serving many, if any people this generation. So, the prices for what are likely effectively non ray-tracing GPUs (beyond a few minutes of initial novelty before it gets turned off) are way out of line, IMO.

 

11 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Honestly this is RTGs fault.... Hear me out.....

 

So we all know that Nvidia is now about as far ahead of RTG in the 'arms race's as Intel was ahead of AMD when we had Core Vs Excavator. At this point RTG aren't even a serious competitor to anything above the upper middle tier of cards.

 

The problem with this situation is it's given Nvidia time to spend billions and multiple years developing ray tracing technology. If RTG were more of a threat you can bet your ass Jen Shun wouldn't have spent the last 10 years developing something no one asked for and, let's be real here, might end up flopping entirely and being a huge failure and right now we wouldn't be getting a product that makes very little sense.

 

Thanks RTG/AMD, thanks a lot.

AMD screwed up in their GPU planning, but responsibility for crummy and corrupt Nvidia practices firstly rests with Nvidia.