3DMark score for RTX 2080 Ti leaks

[mr moose]

Just now, SolarNova said:

9800 GTX.

it was basicaly a 8800GTX and came very close the 200 series launch. While it was cheap, any1 coming from a 8800GTX wouod have been crying.

But did it seriously under perform to the point you would notice if you weren't told what GPU was in the machine?

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

I'm not looking for raw performance as much as I'm looking at memory performance on Navi, Turing, and Vega 20.  And, I'd rather not buy a 2 grand plus quadro for pro work.  But, I'm waiting until next year to weight options for that.  I have a 1080 right now, and it mostly performs fine in Maya.  But, the memory isn't that amazing for some of the tasks in that.  As I said, if you're on pascal and you're only looking at raw performance then Turing might not be for you.  But, that's also not the primary focus of the cards.

Turing is the result of Nvidia having complete command of a market that has to buy from them to get upgrades. RayTracing tech has been on the horizon for a while, and high-end gamers are going to be subsidizing the new technology this generation. Which really points to, I think, a lot of the consternation with these release. Nvidia was talking new tech, but their actual market only cares about direct performance uplift. They dropped the ball on pushing both at the same time.

[Taf the Ghost]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I would say anyone who has pre ordered is doing so mainly on faith or they don't actually care how the card performs, they want the latest and that's what they'll get. 

 

But lets be real here for a minute, of all the GPUs released over the last 2 decades, is there one that was so bad you would have regretted buying it on release?  I don't think there is, sure there are some that are 5% slower and some that where maybe 10% more expensive, but over the course of 2 years ownership I haven't seen a top end card be such a bad buy. 

Some people bought the Vega FE for a gaming card. I still don't know why. 

 

If we're going back 2 Decades, 3Dfx purchasers might have something to complain about. Also, wasn't there some problems with the 400-series drivers bricking some setups? And I'm sure the AMD Flamethrower purchasers weren't always the happiest with the leaf blower. Though you are generally correct that you'll normally be fine.

[SolarNova]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But did it seriously under perform to the point you would notice if you weren't told what GPU was in the machine?

No, and due to the price being so low it wasnt a problem. BUT becouse it was techinicaly a new series, it was dissapointing.

The comparison the the 2000 series is that the 2080 is dissapointing being roughly the same perofmance to the 1080ti (going by current info) but this time it is not significantly cheaper. So its kinda worse really.

 

Anyway in the end the only people i think that will/are really dissapointed are those running a 1080ti and want more, cuz they aint getting it ..well unless they effectivly by a Titan (2080ti).

 

I for one am running a highly OC'ed 780 classi thats getting rather long in the tooh, so im keeping an eye on the 1080ti used market, if i can ill grab 2 for cheap

 

[jasonc_01]

7 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Turing is the result of Nvidia having complete command of a market that has to buy from them to get upgrades. RayTracing tech has been on the horizon for a while, and high-end gamers are going to be subsidizing the new technology this generation. Which really points to, I think, a lot of the consternation with these release. Nvidia was talking new tech, but their actual market only cares about direct performance uplift. They dropped the ball on pushing both at the same time.

I don't think they dropped the ball, the just released a product. A product into a market where there is a massive vacuum for a new product period. To me its a marriage of Pascal on the 12nm node and volta tensor cores, rt cores could be tensor cores for all we know. 

 

No competition, so why not pump up the  ROI?

[jasonc_01]

3 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

so im keeping an eye on the 1080ti used market, if i can ill grab 2 for cheap

 

been thinking the same, grab a second 1080ti founders and wait.

[Brooksie359]

On 9/2/2018 at 3:28 PM, MMKing said:

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.

I think the problem is if you want the extra raw performance for 4k to be able to push more than 60 fps then you might still pay the 1200 dollar price tag because that is how much it costs. If those extra frames are worth that much it you then you pay it regardless if it makes pure price to performance sense. I mean if you think about high end gaming it has never been about having the best price to performance but rather to have the best performance. 35% is a tangible difference in performance that some will be willing to pay for. Or there are some who just like new tech and want it for the new features and 8th e added performance is just a bonus. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Some people bought the Vega FE for a gaming card. I still don't know why. 

Wouldn't that be like buying firepro for gaming?

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

If we're going back 2 Decades, 3Dfx purchasers might have something to complain about. Also, wasn't there some problems with the 400-series drivers bricking some setups? And I'm sure the AMD Flamethrower purchasers weren't always the happiest with the leaf blower. Though you are generally correct that you'll normally be fine.

I was a 3dfx buyer. But yes some annoyances and design issues.

2 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

No, and due to the price being so low it wasnt a problem. BUT becouse it was techinicaly a new series, it was dissapointing.

The comparison the the 2000 series is that the 2080 is dissapointing being roughly the same perofmance (going by current info) but this time it is not significantly cheaper. So its kinda worse really.

 

Anyway in the end the only people i think that will/are really dissapointed are those running a 1080ti and want more, cuz they aint getting it ..well unless they effectivly by a Titan (2080ti).

 

I for one am running a highly OC'ed 780 classi thats getting rather long in the tooh, so im keeping an eye on the 1080ti used market, if i can ill grab 2 for cheap

 

My point really is that if you buy any one of these 20 series, it in all likelihood is not going to be so bad that you'll swear of PC gaming.  I think even those who preordered the Vega's probably didn't regret it.

[imreloadin]

Wow, only 20% faster than my current 1080 Ti. Gonna wait a few generations on this one...

[Brooksie359]

On 9/2/2018 at 4:18 PM, Princess Cadence said:

"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.

The extra price allows you to do both. You can do 4k with better performance and get the added benefit of raytracing and dlss. And dlss is at 4k so idk what you are talking about. 

[Taf the Ghost]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Wouldn't that be like buying firepro for gaming?

I was a 3dfx buyer. But yes some annoyances and design issues.

My point really is that if you buy any one of these 20 series, it in all likelihood is not going to be so bad that you'll swear of PC gaming.  I think even those who preordered the Vega's probably didn't regret it.

It's hard to explain how amazing the Voodoo line actually was. It's too bad 3Dfx shot themselves in the foot so seriously. 

[Taf the Ghost]

35 minutes ago, jasonc_01 said:

I don't think they dropped the ball, the just released a product. A product into a market where there is a massive vacuum for a new product period. To me its a marriage of Pascal on the 12nm node and volta tensor cores, rt cores could be tensor cores for all we know. 

 

No competition, so why not pump up the  ROI?

I'm not faulting Nvidia for what they're doing. 7nm isn't ready, so they were going to need a second generation on 16nm. (12nm is just 16nm with the ability for bigger dies.) So the approach of putting new tech (that won't really work until at least the next node shrink) makes perfect sense, especially since there will be a performance uplift. However, unless you're a leading-edge buyer, you're looking at subsidizing Nvidia's R&D of technology that you'll have to buy again before it's useful.

 

Which is why Nvidia spending all of that time talking about Ray Tracing and not enough talking about the fun new performance uplift was a marketing mistake. These will still sell, though I imagine it'll be a while before they drop huge volume on them. The 2060 is still months off, which is the one that actually matters.

[Brooksie359]

23 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

And how many of those things cost the user 25% more for less actual performance once they're enabled?

 

The reason I drew more comparisons to VR is because that's what it's closest too, it costs the user more money than the alternative and once enabled kills performance.

 

Ray Tracing will end up like VR & 3D, a niche feature that very few people enjoy on a regular basis. The cards aren't ready yet and the developers certainly aren't.

 

To get these things to succeed you gotta make them mainstream and exactly how many casuals do you see gaming on their 4K TVs at 1080p whilst getting below 60fps because the game looks ever so slightly more pretty?

What makes you say developers aren't ready? There are already games utilizing the tech out of the gate and large ones at that. Most of the developers had expressed their excitement over the new technology and how they have been waiting for the ability to implement it for a long time. I think there will be many games that support it in the future because it isn't as hard to implement as the faking of shadows and reflections they use currently. 

[jasonc_01]

13 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Didn't Nvidia say this series has been in development for 10 years while they were pushing out other cards, though?  I wouldn't say it is the result of their market control, but more of a side project they have been working on for years and trying to push development in a new direction rather than the old.  I'm not saying that's good or bad, but that's what Nvidia is claiming.  AMD could potentially fuck them in the market next year with Navi by pushing out 7nm monster cards, but that's still a strong maybe since AMD won't say more than that.

I'd probably take that statement with a grain of salt. Its probably more that tensor cores and or RT cores (may be one and the same) were a 10 year development. Not turing itself, or that Tensor cores were a 10 year development that have allowed for ray tracing to be possible in real time. Either way its a lot of half truths and semantics.   

[rawrdaysgoby]

2 hours ago, pas008 said:

Why can't i get nvenc less gpu

Or igpu less mainstream cpu 

Or why can't i have less vram card 

Or why should i have to pay for chipset features i don't need

Or why can't i have rgb less newer products

Or why do i have to pay for software features that don't apply to me

Oh wait that's what happens moving forward with tech some are short term some make it long term and some get dropped totally like hddvd

 

And they Have non rt cards 1k and below for now

 

 

Oh shut up. Some of your stupid points aren't even close to being relevant 

[Brooksie359]

12 hours ago, EOZ said:

The biggest insult is that RTX 2080Ti bearly can handle 1080p at not stable 60fps! And it costs 1200$. Imagine what RTX 2080 and RTX 2070 will be.  And new drivers will not fix that becouse performance already is miles to low.

 

 

The battlefield 5 demo wasn't even using the rt cores or the asynchronous compute both of which they said they were working on and should improve performance significantly. How about we stop basing the raytracing performance on unreleased games without the proper optimization in place. 

[Brooksie359]

11 hours ago, EOZ said:

At least FXAA! Seems to be that you have no idea what really max settings means!

Or maybe dlss. You know the feature that is supposed to be better and improved performance. 

[pas008]

1 hour ago, rawrdaysgoby said:

Oh shut up. Some of your stupid points aren't even close to being relevant 

Lol same difference

 

You must be the entitlement gen

[jasonc_01]

2 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I'm not faulting Nvidia for what they're doing. 7nm isn't ready, so they were going to need a second generation on 16nm. (12nm is just 16nm with the ability for bigger dies.) So the approach of putting new tech (that won't really work until at least the next node shrink) makes perfect sense, especially since there will be a performance uplift. However, unless you're a leading-edge buyer, you're looking at subsidizing Nvidia's R&D of technology that you'll have to buy again before it's useful.

 

Which is why Nvidia spending all of that time talking about Ray Tracing and not enough talking about the fun new performance uplift was a marketing mistake. These will still sell, though I imagine it'll be a while before they drop huge volume on them. The 2060 is still months off, which is the one that actually matters.

but with these prices and performance numbers, will the 2060 really even matter. Given the pricing structure thus far a 2060 is looking to be at least $399 for a base model with 3gb of vram,  probably $449+ for the 6gb model. So big question is will it beat a 1070 or 1070ti that currently live in that price space, and will people pay $400 for a lower tier card.

[pas008]

51 minutes ago, jasonc_01 said:

but with these prices and performance numbers, will the 2060 really even matter. Given the pricing structure thus far a 2060 is looking to be at least $399 for a base model with 3gb of vram,  probably $449+ for the 6gb model. So big question is will it beat a 1070 or 1070ti that currently live in that price space, and will people pay $400 for a lower tier card.

Given how many past gens were prices will come down months after unless stock is depleted hold higher longer like anything else

[Tech Enthusiast]

4 hours ago, jasonc_01 said:

been thinking the same, grab a second 1080ti founders and wait.

That is exactly what I would do if I would care for more FPS over better graphics and would not need tensor cores.

The beauty is,... we can both be happy by buying whatever fits best. All without flaming the other guy for a "bad" buy.

[pas008]

5 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

That is exactly what I would do if I would care for more FPS over better graphics and would not need tensor cores.

The beauty is,... we can both be happy by buying whatever fits best. All without flaming the other guy for a "bad" buy.

Funny thing everyone bitching about ray tracing but devs want it

Intel tried with larrabee And nvidia cock blocked them kinda

Many articles out there on the push for rt

And for tensor many devs might want to use that for other shit matrices are used alot in games too

 

 

[FunkmastaFlex]

It's probably worth waiting for the proper finalized drivers to be released before we all shit on it, just give it a few percentages better performance then we can slam nVidia about it.

[pas008]

Just now, FunkmastaFlex said:

It's probably worth waiting for the proper finalized drivers to be released before we all shit on it, just give it a few percentages better performance then we can slam nVidia about it.

Lol entitlement gen too?

Before Maxwell and Pascal we were lucky to get 20%

Now you think you entitled to more?

Hahaha

And people are paying for 10% in cpu area

Such a horrible world of performance increases

[Nowak]

On 9/2/2018 at 4:06 PM, Delicieuxz said:

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.

But but Delicieuxz, how much of your life do you not want to have ray tracing? It'll be worth it, I swear. These checks from Nvidia say so.