RTX Cards Are a Tech Demo and We Haven't Gone Anywhere for Gamers or Performance per Dollar over Pascal

[Max_Settings]

So as I am sure you have seen, the Nvidia RTX benchmarks are out. And as many of you know, the RTX 2080 is more or less a 1080 ti, if not slightly faster, and the 2080 ti is more or less a Titan V. Well that's great, except here's the thing, due to their prices, we really haven't gone anywhere for gamers. Now if you don't do compute and don't care about RTX, it makes very little sense to go from Pascal to RTX. Reason being is sure a 2080 performs like a 1080 ti, but it costs what a 1080 ti did. So, therefore, have we really gone anywhere in pure gaming performance per dollar? Not really. The 2080 ti is the only RTX card that makes somewhat sense to me as the ultra-premium card for those who have the money and don't care about pure value. RTX at it's current pricing is nothing more than a tech demo for RTX and for those doing compute. For pure gamers it is not any real gain in performance per dollar over Pascal. So honestly I am going to say my prediction that RTX isn't much faster than Pascal is true. I am also going to assume the 2070 is going to be 1080 fast, but once again it costs what a 1080 did. For those of you who are interested in a 2080, go look at what people are trying to offload 1080 tis for, they can be had around $600, which is a lot cheaper than a RTX 2080. If Nvidia brings pricing back down as they did later on in the life of Pascal, and the 2080 ti is ~$800 and the 2080 is ~$600, then they would make sense and be a good value, but at the time being their performance per dollar over Pascal has not changed nearly at all.

 

[PlayStation 2]

I don't really know what Nvidia was shooting for with this launch. They aren't competing with anyone, because Vega's a fucking joke in the high end market. Why not release the card when it's ready rather than rush it out the door with none of the new features available?

[flibberdipper]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

I don't really know what Nvidia was shooting for with this launch. They aren't competing with anyone, because Vega's a fucking joke in the high end market. Why not release the card when it's ready rather than rush it out the door with none of the new features available?

"we gotta be first man we can't let those AMD scumbags beat us something something"

[DVA]

I very recently bought my 1080ti in suspects the 2080 would be its equivalent in everything besides the entire ray tracing aspect. With pre-orders everywhere and the price tag of the ti version it just wasn't worth my time waiting on the benchmarks and I pulled the trigger. I actually got my 1080ti for $526 from a guy who needed some money. Original receipt and packaging with it. 

 

back to the topic though: I feel if the 2080ti would have been priced at your suggested $800 than I would have spent the extra money for the assurance of its longevity. However, seeing as how I basically got the 2080 equivalent, I am very happy. 

 

I do agree with you that we haven't really gone anywhere in terms of talking about gamers and what value we get. Gamers, when playing online, don't care about ray tracing, they care about FPS and smooth buttery gameplay. Shadows and lights just get in the way. 

 

 

[Max_Settings]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

I don't really know what Nvidia was shooting for with this launch. They aren't competing with anyone, because Vega's a fucking joke in the high end market. Why not release the card when it's ready rather than rush it out the door with none of the new features available?

The reason why is they know people are getting impatient for new cards and they know AMD isn't going to release anything until they do because they are already getting destroyed in the high end. AMD can't release a high end product after Vega without knowing where Nvidia is with Turing.

[Sakkura]

Yeah this has been my expectation for a while now, that Turing wouldn't do anything for performance per dollar in regular games. And raytracing, well, it remains to be seen if that's enough of a reason to go with the new stuff. If a 2080 struggles with raytracing at 1440p then I'd say definitely not. Who wants to pay that kind of money for a 1080p card...

[Guest]

The master plan? Offload excess Pascal stock, if people want RTX, let 'em pay the early adopter tax.

[Max_Settings]

Just now, Densetsu said:

The master plan? Offload excess Pascal stock, if people want RTX, let 'em pay the early adopter tax.

Yeah basically. They knew AMD wouldn’t do anything until after Turing came out too. Here’s the thing. As soon as AMD releases something that matches Turing for around the same price, Nvidia is going price drop RTX cards probably back down to regular pricing. Same thing we saw with Pascal. But judging by how long it took AMD with Vega, we might be a while.

[Peskanova]

Or maybe they just throw this rtx to test implementation and lower the next gpu production cost because like titan V , nvidia can do better cards but not cheaper (or same price).

 

Edit: And well.. if amd keeps his promise and throw a  new gpu with 1080 performance at 1060 price it will rip off  any gtx/rtx 60/70 series

 

Its a high price bump between 1440p 144hz and 4k 144hz , like 2k or more? (the dif between monitors + cards) like linus said , 1440p 144hz will be the mainstream for a few years

 

Edit 2 : U can buy a 1440p pc for 1300+500 on monitor , and for 4k 144hz? = 2k pc or more plus almost 2k for a screen?

[bleedblue]

I guess we'll have to wait for AMD to come out with their Ryzen's GPU counterpart, Navi (or maybe intel's graphics solution who knows) for NVIDIA to release something worthwhile.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going hunting for used 1070's.