AbsolutSurgen

NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti & 2080 Benchmarks Coming Soon, Cards Already in The Hands of a Lucky Few

"Word has reached us that reviewers returning from Gamescom are going to be able to start testing the new toys straight away. NVIDIA’s reviewer’s briefing is taking place tomorrow where the company is expected to hand over a working driver to reviewers, so it’s likely they could begin running benchmarks no later than this weekend.

It’s still not clear when exactly the NDA will lift and reviews are allowed to go live, but with a working driver benchmarks are bound to start leaking online. Even though full reviews may be a week or two off, you can expect to get a very a good idea of how the RTX 2080 Ti and RTX 2080 perform much sooner. As always, stay tuned for more."

7 hours ago, legend said:

 

No, it's still a perfectly fine analogy because the reasoning you're using is still the same faulty reasoning. "Well my individual contribution doesn't matter on it's own" is bad reasoning. Populations where agents adopt this reasoning do worse than populations who don't. This is a well studied dynamic both within game theory and psychology. The reasoning you described is bad and you should throw it away as fast as possible!

Economic theory suggests people act in their own self interest, and make purchases that increase their utility.  As a classic prisoner's dilemma, game theory suggests that the majority people don't act in the way you suggest.  If I had a way of influencing the collective and somehow convincing a critical mass of people to, as a group, make a different choice, then perhaps it would be rational to spend money in this way.

7 hours ago, legend said:

 

2. No, this is not a permissible response to the hypothetical. Decisions you, and others, make now, can have long term ramifications. In the hypothetical I gave you, failing to support the card causes a failure in further development, thereby causing a failure of developers delivering the gains you're hoping to find the in future.

 

You realize that by conceding the hypothetical you're not conceding to my entire claim, right? There are lots of further nuances we can discuss, but we must first establish common ground on some fundamental properties, because at this point I'm worried that there a vast gulf between us that will otherwise prevent any further progress in the discussion. I really didn't think this would be a controversial hypothetical.

Decisions the collective makes, can influence the future.  Each individuals decision has an extremely small marginal impact, that makes them, individually, virtually irrelevant.  Given that my choices don't influence the collective, I recognize that they have a negligible impact on future development gains. Given the high marginal cost of making this purchase, it is in my rational best interest to make a choice based on my expected short-term marginal gains.  If I somehow could collude with several million other people to make an irrational decision, that would be different.  But, I don't know how to do that.

7 hours ago, legend said:

 

Operating under the assumption that these are random frivolous innovations unless you see results immediately is a bad assumption.

Operating under the assumption that ray tracing is the panacea for game graphics before it can be demonstrated, in real games, is a reach.

You obviously have a lot more confidence in ray tracing's viability than I do. 

Does ray tracing have the potential to produce better results than rasterization?  Yes, but I don't know how significant they are in real world games.

When can those better results be done without unacceptable reductions in frame rate and resolution?  I have no idea.  Maybe today.  Maybe 3 years from now. Maybe 50 years from now.  Maybe never.

31 minutes ago, legend said:

 

By this same reasoning, voting is pointless, because your single vote wont matter. This thinking really worked out well for us in 2016.

 

To be clear, no this scenario is in no way even remotely comparable in *significance* of voting or not voting in 2016. But the reasoning is very much the same and wrong for the same reasons.

 

The only rational decision is whether buying the card and supporting it helps to usher in a future you want. I'm happy to debate that point. In fact, depending on what independent reviews reveal, I could very much change my tune! But pretending that our decisions have no impact on the future or that we shouldn't consider the future effects of what our purchasing decisions cause is a non-starter.

 

My vote in an election is essentially free, a 2080TI costs $1,200.  That's not a particularly good analogy.

31 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Let me paint a hypothetical to try and gain grounding on how we can go about discussing this, because I feel like the same things are just being said on either side of this discussion and none of us are making progress.

 

Suppose at release it is as you described: parity performance and the initial ray-tracing and DL-enhanced games provide modest performance boosts. Now for the hypothetical suppose there are two possible futures.

 

In one, only Vic and Stepee buy the cards and no one else in the world does. Because it's a massive failure, Nvidia goes back to making pure raster cards in response.

 

In another future, the cards are a major success, developers continue to work on software that exploits the architecture, and in another year and half, we start seeing cards that even running on this initial 20x line look even better than what devs could do at the start and further down the road we get cards that can do even greater things.

 

Claiming that these are the only possible futures is of course absurd. It could also be that the cards never really enable a lot more and what we see at the start is all we get. But I want to make sure we can at least agree that in this absurd scenario, it would be better if people got on board at the start despite things not being only modest improvements out of the gate for limited games. If we cannot agree on that, then we've got a much bigger bridge to cross.

 

If we can agree on that though, then it means we've reach common ground on a couple sticking points that seem to keep coming up. Those being that

1. encouraging other's behavior is an important element of decision making; and 

2. that long term results are important factors beyond what we'll see immediately out of the gate.

 

And if we can get beyond that, then we can move on to what I think are the far more relevant points. Those being things like "how likely is it that this architectural shift is important to gaming?" "How likely are Nvidia and developers to change strategy if the cards don't sell well?" "What level of current raster performance is an acceptable tradeoff for future gains?" etc.

1.  My decision  to buy a card (or not buy a card) has no practical effect on encouraging behavior from anyone

2.  Long term results don't mean anything on my short term decision.  I can but a card later, once those benefits become evident

I don't know if the architectural decision on GeForce 20-Series cards are a good decision, or a disastrous diversion.  I've been hearing about ray tracing for 30-years (and had a friend playing with it in high school -- and I've been out of high school for a long time).  I remember this from that era:

The only way I know if these are the right architectural decisions and are worthy of my hard earned $$$, are whether my experiences are better TODAY.  When the software is there, there is a rationale decision to be made about buying hardware.  These aren't consoles where, in the past at least, you could justify the purchase in knowing that there would be 5-7 years of fixed hardware.  Graphics cards are on an 18-month generation upgrade cadence.

In a similar way, I actually believe that VR is the future -- but I thank god I haven't bought a headset, because there isn't enough good software to justify a purchase.  It would be sitting in the corner of my office gathering dust.  And when I do buy the hardware, I know that it will be significantly better than I would have otherwise bought.

I spend too much money in a frivolous manner on stuff that actually makes a difference to me.  $1,200 is a big number, but not ridiculous, I just spent $500 for a one day outing for the family to ride roller coasters.  But I won't spend money to encourage NVidia to randomly innovate -- unless those innovations bring me tangible gaming benefits.

If in a month, these cards are setting the world on fire with "OMG AWESOME" graphics, I'll be first in line to buy one.  But to be honest, I really don't expect that to happen.  

Manchester United iin 2018:

Bring us Zidane!

Hands on: Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti review

"Early verdict

Whether you’re a PC gamer who was waiting in the wings for a more powerful graphics card or you truly believe in Nvidia’s vision of a ray traced future, the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti is already looking like the world’s most powerful graphics card in the world regardless.

That said, you shouldn’t automatically jump on the pre-order button.

We still have a plenty of unanswered questions about power consumption, when we’ll actually see the lower-priced versions and their shortcomings, new multi-card SLI compatibility and, of course, benchmarking them. Be sure to keep your eyes locked to TechRadar, as it won’t be long before we fully review this new heir to rule the kingdom of graphics cards.

Nvidia Turing could really shake things up in the world of the best graphics cards"

15 minutes ago, Brick said:

The pricing sucks even more for me as a Canadian because of our weaker dollar. Can't even blame cryptocurrency miners for that price. 

As a Canadian who is currently lucky enough to be earning $USD .  I can only say.  Pray for higher oil prices.

1 hour ago, legend said:

 

And in those cases I don't begrudge anyone for not willing to pay the huge cost. But anyone who loves games and can otherwise swing high-end card costs should be willing to support this.

 

And everyone else should be glad this happening  

I am willing to pay the cost for things that provide a tangible benefit for my gaming experience.  What benefits would I get from these cards?  If it results in marginally better shadows, at the cost of significantly lower framerate and resolution -- that's something I can't support.  But, I'll wait for the hands-on reviews to see how it performs on games.

1 hour ago, legend said:

 

Irrelevant. The fact that you should encourage what you want to see more of is a basic principle of all social decision making.

Fact:  Nvidia won't change any of their decisions if I (alone) decide to not buy a video card.  Not one single developer will decide to make (or not make) software decisions based on me buying a video card.  Other people buying cards is completely independent of me buying a video card.  Therefore, my choice to buying a video card has no influence on the future of "ray tracing".  The only rational decision (economically speaking) on whether to upgrade my card is whether the RTX-20 series provides tangible benefits to my gaming experience.

36 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Lets be precise: I'll be confused at the community disappointment if performance on conventional games remains top tier, while providing a major advance in architecture that will yield some improvements now, and ultimately much greater ones.

 

I don't think I'm overestimating anything. The stagnation of raster-based tech is immediately apparent. Both of the last two generations have yielded many people being disappointed at the graphical progress being made. That's because we're running out of room for what we can do with conventional tech. We need to change it up or it's really going to stagnate. 

 

And it's not just raytracing. Having strong DL capabilities on board is going to have ramifications for gaming beyond their up-resing for limited rays (or resolution in general). This tech is moving faster than I would have expected, but with hardware like this, there are some important ways in which DL can be useful for gaming and gaming graphics. For example, by making intentional physically-based animation. (A tech important not just to the resulting actors in the game, but the whole animation pipeline being streamlined)

 

 

"It's not on us" isn't a useful way to frame things. No one is "obligated" to do anything ever, so nothing is ever "on someone" to do. It's a simple question of "does supporting this encourage the future I want to see?"  If you do not think this line of tech is useful, that it doesn't represent a future we should want to see, then we can have that discussion, because we may disagree. But it's simply true that you have to encourage what you want to see more of independent of any "obligation" or who it's "on."

It is not simply true that we should support cards that lean into ray tracing.   If we learn that these cards somehow provide much better performance, than I expect, on "rasterized" games.  Or the ray traced games look significantly better than the SotTR demo indicated.  Or, whatever, we should all go out and buy these cards,

However, if a 2080 performs only marginally better than a 2-year old 1080, and costs hundreds more, it doesn't make much sense for anyone to buy one before there is software available that justifies the experience.

10 minutes ago, Chest_Rockwell said:

Given Nvidia's recent announcement, it sounds like I better start saving now. I probably will just keep an eye out for a 1070 if they start to go down in price a bit. Would that enable me to bump up to a 1440p monitor down the road?

There are lots of great deal on 10-series cards right now.  I saw a 1080Ti on amazon for $530 this morning.

A 1070 works very well at 1440p on current games.

Ensure that the operating team makes good business decisions.

The Ace Combat games are always fun -- even if their stories are always terrible.

The lack of love for Forza Horizon 4 is disappointing

I tip 20% at restaurants where there is wait staff.

I tip ~ 33% to the barber

I don't tip fast food (including pizza pickup)

I don't currently have food delivered in (too many allergies in my family) -- but I used to tip 10% (on top of the delivery fee)

Hands-on with the Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti and real-time ray traced gaming

"For these first-gen RTX GPUs then real-time ray tracing looks more like a proof of concept than something that will become in any way mainstream this generation. But it does give us a tantalising glimpse as to what the future of all our gameworlds is going to look like. And they’re going to look stunning… once they can top 60fps at 1080p."

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

This is my take as well and frankly, I'm okay with it. They're doing an enormous shift in architecture and developers are just now starting to use it. It's not going to super high performance on the new stuff immediately. As long as it's not a losing proposition in standard pure raster methods (meaning slower than existing GTX cards), there's really not a trade off. Maybe if AMD was able to compete and was pushing out even better raster cards there'd be a trade off to consider. But there's not. It's still going to be the fastest raster card on the market and introduces a whole new world of rendering with wildly a different architecture.

 

I think we *should* be rewarding Nvidia for this. Despite being king, they haven't rested on their laurels. They've put in the work to start the next generation of graphics and are pulling it off. People shrugging off what they've done is odd to me.

I buy gaming hardware for the present (and near future) -- recognizing that new hardware is never more than 18-24 months away.

I only care about wildly different architectures if they bring tangible benefits.  If these cards bring games in the near term to new levels of graphical fidelity, then I'll pick one up.  If they bring marginal fidelity, at significantly lower framerates -- then I'll wait.

At this point, I have no idea what these cards can do.  Nor, what they will do with games in the near term (12-18 months).

Amen @Mr.Vic20.

Raytracing explained: Nvidia, Microsoft lead the way in revolutionizing gaming graphics

A link to raytracing 101.  

Should we be worried?  An RTX-2080Ti isn't hitting 60 fps -- at 1080p.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider’s NVIDIA RTX Gamescom Demo Isn’t Great, But Developers Aren’t Worried

"Several websites, including IGN (whose captured footage is available in the embed below) and PCGamesHardware, were able to capture footage of the Gamescom 2018 Shadow of the Tomb Raider demo running on the new RTX 2080Ti GPU with raytraced shadows enabled.

The setup worried attendees, however. Running at 1080p resolution, the game couldn’t even stay locked at 60 frames per second and drops were quite noticeable at times. This is all the more worrying considering that Shadow of the Tomb Raider launches in less than a month, though it should be noted that the developers have confirmed how NVIDIA RTX support will only be added at a later date via a patch and could thus be very much a work-in-progress.

Still, the high price of the new GeForce RTX cards coupled with this underwhelming first showcase quickly set off many alarms on the Web’s premiere message boards. However, Elenarie, a DICE developer currently working on Battlefield V and verified on ResetEra, chimed in to reassure worried fans about the performance NVIDIA RTX features will have in the final games.

Quote

I think people will be surprised at how well this will run in their respective final releases. ?

When pressed for more specifics regarding the performance that can be expected in Battlefield V, he replied that it’s too soon to talk about that.

Quote

Sorry, can’t speak about specifics yet. A bit too early. ?

Regardless, his confidence is a melody for those who have already pre-ordered a new GeForce card from the NVIDIA RTX series. Indeed, it would be a massive letdown if such performance turned out to be the same in the final versions of the games, particularly after customers have shelled out $1200 or so.

Stay tuned on Wccftech for reports with more information on all the implementations of NVIDIA RTX technology in upcoming games."

9 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Ray tracing is the new hotness but I feel like it's been around for a while. At least the term has.

Real-time ray tracing is the new hotness.  I remember people doing ray tracing on the Amiga back in the 80s -- but they were very simple images that took an hour to render.

Forza Horizon 4 (PC)

Shadow of the Tomb Raider (PC)

Spider-Man (PS4)

Just Cause 4 (PC)

I will be getting AC: Odyssey (PC)  when I find a good price!

I'll be getting RDR2 (PC) when it comes out next year.

I don't know.  Should I be excited?  Ray tracing looks like the new hotness...  However, I'm still going to play a lot of "traditionally rendered" games.

GTX-1070 -- Launched for $379 in 2016 w/ 5.8 GFlops; RTX 2070 -- launched for $499 in 2018 w/ 6.5 GFlops

GTX-1080 -- Launched for $549 in 2016 w/ 8.2 GFlops; RTX 2080 -- launched for $699 in 2018 w/ 8.9 GFlops

FTX 1080TI -- Launched for $699 in 2017 w/ 10.6 GFlops; RTX 2080TI -- lauched for $999 in 2018 w/ 11.8 GFlops

It will be interesting to see the performance of these cards in games -- however, they cost a LOT more, and are coming out ~2 years later.  They are only marginally faster -- in fact a GTX-1080 might actually be faster than a RTX 2070.

Now for ray tracing, there are some big games that will support it (Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Battlefield V) -- but there doesn't appear to be ubiquitous support.  So, we could be a year away from it becoming something that is supported in most games.  So we may actually be buying these primarily for Xmas 2019 games.

Now, here is where I get into full speculation, not based on fact, but complete theory that may make sense only to me.  This Nvidia generation could be short cycled and only be about 1 year long.

1)  Last gen was extended as Nvidia (and AMD) supported the crypto currency boom

2)  Launch of manufacturing of GDDR6 may have come later than anticipated, delaying the launch

3)  The XX80Ti is launching at the same as the XX80 (it had been launching later and later in each gen for the last 3 gens, and was 10 months later for the 1080Ti)

4)  The 10XX generation lasted over 2 years (ilo the 1.5 year gens from before)

So could a 2180 be out by Xmas 2019?

I was uber excited about these cards earlier today, but after some sober-second thoughts.  I think I may be saving up and waiting for a 2180Ti.

(I could easily flip-flop after reading reviews though...)

The question is ….  How will these cards perform in non-ray tracing tasks?

7 minutes ago, Brick said:

I am so overdue for an upgrade. This will be perfect for me. I'll need a new CPU as well, and maybe a PSU depending on what the demands are, plus whatever else I'll need for an upgrade. 

 

 

I'll finally be able to run some of my games off of medium and low settings, like Battlefield 1, Destiny 2, Battlefront II, and I'll be ready to buy Monster Hunter World, and Battlefield V. 

The power requirements are on their website --  a 2080Ti is about 260W.

GeForce?

Another prediction:

AMD will continue to come out with GPUs 8-12 months after Nvidia that use 50% more power, and don't compete at the mid/high-end on performance

Intel will launch with crappy drivers, offer only mid-range GPUs, and charge more than Nvidia/AMD

And the rest of us will continue to buy Nvidia GPUs to use with our G-Sync monitors, grumble about the price, but be happy that there is a high-performance alternative.

Anime trailer FTL.