Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 50 per cent faster than GTX 1080

[HEXUS]

Basking in the Gigarays.

Read more.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

A few things about the figures. Pascal had some issues with HDR,which means a GTX1080 can lose 10% to 15% of its performance unlike a Vega64 and it looks like a software issue:

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-07/...dia-geforce/2/

Edit!!

Also Wolfenstein II is DX12/Vulkan so that indicates async compute now works properly on Nvidia cards. That is the bigger deal about the figures. That means we are more likely to see DX12/Vulkan games on PC now.

[Iota]

There you go. Finally, some hard-and-fast numbers on what makes RTX 2080, and the rest of the RTX line, a better gaming GPU than its predecessor. The numbers are better than a high-level perusal of the spec sheet would suggest.

Don't believe it, I'll wait until we see some actual real world benchmarks not provided by a marketing team.

Is 50 per cent enough of a performance hike in your opinion, especially when one factors in the matching 50 per cent pricing hike? We look forward to hearing your thoughts. Fire away.

No. Normally you'll get the previous generations top performance for the same or a lower price point, not a massive price hike. Nvidia is not endearing themselves to me, not with the price hike.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Oh,sneaky,Nvidia,sneaky and quite clever too.

Wolfenstein uses FP16 for certain effects and Pascal lacks decent FP16 performance which Turing will have!!

Edit!!

Having said that I would hope its quicker than a GTX1080TI at that price!!

[kompukare]

No. Normally you'll get the previous generations top performance for the same or a lower price point, not a massive price hike. Nvidia is not endearing themselves to me, not with the price hike.

Indeed because otherwise a high-end GPU (or any GPU) would cost £10,000s.
There used to be someone who compiled what they called a Voodoo Point rating where the original Voodoo 2 scored 1 point. Think a HD7970GHz was around 400 so if perf/price hadn't changed that would have been $80,000 and we'd be over £100k by now.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

LOL,full HDR test suite!!

[DevDrake]

LOL,full HDR test suite!!

Now, you cannot call yourself a true gamer without 120Hz panel, can you?
So those cards are trash, way bellow of the true gamer expectations...

[Tunnah]

Some of the things I'd trust over anything Nvidia marketing says:


My Mam when she says "if you tell the truth I won't be mad"
My niece/nephew about anything, anything at all. Lying little sods.
My missus when she mumbles while telling me the price of something.
The dog when it won't look at me.
A fart while ill.
And of course, any single word that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth.

[Troopa]

for this money we should be getting 4k at 144hz!

[plexabit]

I don't want to say "I told you so" yet, but I'm cautiously optimistic about these numbers. They're better than two 1080's in SLI, that's for sure.

[LSG501]

Oh how I love graphs that have no actual real numbers and just use product A was 1.0, product B was able to do it at 2.1....

Well the base number used makes a huge difference here, product A could (it's likely not obviously) do it at 1fps, to get 2.1 on product B would be 2.1fps, which is hardly anything to write home about.

Having said that, considering how much Nvidia are going to price gouge us on the 2080 I would hope it is faster, and by quite a substantial margin too.

[philehidiot]

Sorry but:
a) I want to see Vega next to this due to the FP16 stuff.
b) No, I believe this only when I see independent figures. Why are they not out? If they have cards for demo, they should be able to release cards for review even if they're under embargo for a bit.
c) This still DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE PRICE. The generational improvement is supposed to come at a similar price to the previous generation. Otherwise every time a base level car got better you'd be paying twice as much. The whole point is to bring newer tech down to a point which is affordable. Not to palm off massive R&D costs onto the consumer and act like you've not been making a hilarious profit for the past few years to fund it.
d) This is clearly a semi-scam to sell of their last gen cards because people will see these prices as unrealistic and default to buying their massive overstock but without the benefit of reduced prices for buying last gen stock. All you get is last gen stock at the same prices and the new gen tiered above it. This is not how the market works. Games get more demanding over time and GPU tech keeps up - paying a certain price gets you a certain frame rate basically.
e) This release is Nvidia trying to justify the price in the face of such negative reaction and it WON'T FLY. The cards improve in performance over time, yes. That's expected. The relative cost of the card remains similar. That's how the market works and saying it perfoms better is not an excuse. It should perform better. And if they had confidence that this performance increase was justifying the cost then they'd have sent them out for review and allowed publishing. This hasn't happened, they're cherry picking the games, cherry picking the cards used for comparison and trying to get a load of preorders in over a long time before any reliable data comes out. This smells. Badly. The profit they'll be making out of the people most likely to be disappointed is huge.

I may be wrong, I am open to being wrong but when you have 3rd party cards on display, a load of cards running in a load of systems and so on then you should be able to allow some independent benchmarks, even if they are only on games with APIs etc that you have optimised for. I will not be touching ANY of this until I see real reviews and I strongly suggest no one else does anyway. A performance bump is what happens with a generational improvement. The percentage they're quoting is quite reasonable given the timeframe between releases. It does not justify the price and takes people like me totally out of high end PC gaming to the point where I'm feeling the pull of the console for the first time since my PSP.

[philehidiot]

Oh how I love graphs that have no actual real numbers and just use product A was 1.0, product B was able to do it at 2.1....

Well the base number used makes a huge difference here, product A could (it's likely not obviously) do it at 1fps, to get 2.1 on product B would be 2.1fps, which is hardly anything to write home about.

Having said that, considering how much Nvidia are going to price gouge us on the 2080 I would hope it is faster, and by quite a substantial margin too.

This is the company that just created an entire new metric by which they're measuring performance. The marketing [sorry but I can't not use a swear word here] is strong with this release. I'm genuinely cross. I was hoping to get back into gaming properly after years of hanging on with an old card and Nvidia do this.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Reviews are out September 14th:

https://videocardz.com/77696/exclusi...tors-day-leaks

[LSG501]

Reviews are out September 14th:

https://videocardz.com/77696/exclusi...tors-day-leaks

So we've got another 3 weeks of this 'marketing' then....oh joy....

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So we've got another 3 weeks of this 'marketing' then....oh joy....

Certain members of the tech press have warned gamers "to eat their words" and to make sure they accept the price increases.



Most people are complaining how much more the cards cost,not they will be faster or have shiny new tech.

Even 50% faster at 50% more cost,is not great as price/performance has stagnated.