Reputator

On 8/23/2018 at 2:47 PM, legend said:

 

You won't be maxing it out if devs start embracing the hardware of the 20x line. A 'low' resolution like 1080P won't save you.

 

If devs don't then yeah, you'll be fine.

LOL what developer would be that dumb?

I really hope when some of you jerks are dying of cancer, your nurses treat you like shit.

1 hour ago, EternallDarkness said:

Can't tell much, but at least it looks like a new world, and as long as they aren't on their way to a casino I'm okay with that. 

Finn, moved by events of Episode VIII, convinces Poe that animal cruelty needs to end and they travel to a fur farming planet to begin their crusade.

Meanwhile Rey is trained by a stack of books for a few minutes and Kylo Ren continues not wondering wtf happened to his Knights.

Remember when that used to be the pre-rendered graphics in 2D games? Seems like ages ago now.

The NO COLLUSION thing is pretty comical at this point.

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

Well damn, he's got me there...

12 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

First benches revealed for 2080:

 

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-gaming-performance-benchmarks-2x-over-gtx-1080-4k/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"DLSS takes advantage of our tensor cores’ ability to use AI. In this case it’s used to develop a neural network that teaches itself how to render a game. It smooths the edges of rendered objects and increases performance."

This sounds similar in premise to AMD's SenseMI technology, doing adaptive optimization and speculative execution, which is definitely something new and interesting in the world of GPUs. Granted, narrowed in focus to the task of anti-aliasing, but hopefully the concept opens up to more rendering tasks in the future. It could have implications for all types of rendering, raytracing or otherwise.

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

7 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Or Hydra.

You sir get an upvote.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3299456/components-graphics/custom-geforce-rtx-2080-and-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-graphics-card-preorders.html

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wait-to-buy-nvidia-geforce-rtx-gpus,37673.html

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/275859-dont-buy-the-ray-traced-hype-around-nvidias-rtx-2080-family

Major publications all over are encouraging people to wait for reviews to see how these cards perform under current workloads (you know, despite the risks to "social decision making" or whatever). I'm glad there's a voice of reason spreading after the hype train. Moral of the story: don't believe smoke and mirrors until you see strong, convincing evidence.

Yeah good luck with that.

3 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

Congressional Republicans are quiet right now, but keep an eye out for the defense that is coming.

 

I beleive it will be a gaslighting masterstroke to rival anything Trump has done.

 

They will argue that even if Trump did break the law, the president can't be indicted for it, so it must not be bad enough to impeach him for....

 

In other words, a complete runaround the entire point of giving Congress the impeachment power. 

"The power to impeach wasn't put in place for Presidents that break the law!"

13 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.

This statement contains a bunch of assumptions about the future you literally can't make. "Remaining top tier" isn't an argument in favor of buying a new graphics card. I don't care how much it titillates your I/O ports.

13 minutes ago, legend said:

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.

No one was disappointed at the performance of the 10 series. Prior to that, we were stuck on 28nm for three generations, so there was some stagnation, albeit out of the hands of any IHV. Aside from you, however, I've not heard anyone lament the stagnation of features though.

13 minutes ago, legend said:

"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."

You have a very utopian-like concept for the role of consumers. Be realistic. Few people have the money to throw away on an investment in the future with very few short-term gains. Most of us aren't venture capitalists. We don't "have to" encourage anything if NVIDIA and the developers fail to give us incentives beyond empty promises. If you think otherwise, I have some snake oil you might be interested in.

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

I did see that post and thought I had addressed it, along with others. I'll will try to clarify though.

 

"Worse performance for the money" is an evaluation based purely on what these cards will do for games the moment they are released. I'm quite deliberately and explicitly making an argument that part of the reason we should get on board beyond the immediate value and and extra bonuses will see in near term is to (1) encourage this hardware developer track further (2) encourage software developers to work out the kinks by providing an audience for them to develop to.

 

Indeed, I have also explicitly stated that a more traditional raster-focused card, as you've suggested as an alternative, would be far more disappointing to me.

 

As far as a trade off, I would be more sympathetic to the argument if these cards preform substantially worse than the 10x line. In fact, if 3rd party reviews reveal that the RTX really takes a meaningful hit compared to the 10x line, I'll be more understanding of people having further hesitation. Depending on the hit, I might wait as well!

 

If they end up still being top of the line raster cards though, I will remain puzzled at any community disappointment. I don't think we can ask for better than maintaining existing parity while introducing a whole new tech. Hitting that parity at all is pretty great.

You'll be confused at any community disappointment if performance remains virtually the same, for the same cost? You GREATLY overestimate how much people care about the potential of raytracing.

Again, purchasing a first generation of an unproven technology because it will encourage the technology to advance isn't the job of consumers. Bring the horse, then you can have the cart. It's not on us to assume the risk, which given the pricing, would indeed be the case for all but the top-end 2080 Ti.

This is a next generation product. New features are nice, but improving the performance of last gen cards is expected. Not a bonus.

2 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I'm not playing semantics, I'm trying to understand the root of where we disagree. If by "price gouging" you purely mean "expensive" then sure, I agree with you! If you mean it's unjustly fair to ask that much, then I do disagree with you and want to know why you think that.

 

This has nothing to do with an "ideal." I'm not using "principle" to mean aspiring to an atheistic ideal. I mean its a fundamental aspect of the mathematical machinery of decision making in populations of agents that affect each other. It would be a categorical mistake to pretend that this dynamic doesn't exist.

 

 

I wasn't ignoring anything. If you think you provided a salient point that I have not read nor considered, please point it out.

9 hours ago, Reputator said:

 

This is only true if you look at the flagship card.

 

If you're looking at the 2080 and 2070, you're actually getting worse performance for the money compared to the GTX 10 series. Tensor cores and RT cores are costing not just consumers more money, but a large part of the die space that could have been given to more substantial gains in traditional game performance. Actually around half the die space (more if you count INT32) based on the block diagram showed in the presentation.

 

That isn't a trade-off most gamers would have chosen, if they in fact had a choice on the matter. None of the new portions of the Turing architecture have any proven benefit for gamers, aside from sketchy demos and some vague promises.

2 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

My take is that while its easy to say Nvidia is simply greedy, I would argue that its a combination of greed and genuine nerd ambition! These cards are jam packed with some seriously crazy tech, even if we just see them like a yearly refresh of a cellphone or tablet. They simply are not, these things are becoming like high end sports cars. I'm not suggesting that 1,200.00 is a reasonable price for a consumer GPU, but I would bet that selling the 2080ti anywhere below 950 would probably be a cash lost for Nvidia, per unit. 

The 2080 Ti gives you more performance at least, but that's not the case for the 2080 or 2070 based on specifications.

Just now, legend said:

 

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

No, consumers don't spend money purely based on an ideal. Telling people they need to buy these cards, whether or not they get their money's worth out of it, because it will encourage worthwhile products later literally makes no sense.

3 minutes ago, legend said:

 

It's expensive, yes. And that price can hurt, yes which is why I can understand if someone just doesn't feel comfortable spending that much. Why is it price gouging though?

If you weren't ignoring my earlier responses you'd already know.

5 minutes ago, legend said:

 

There's gradations to this. If you're already on something like a 1080Ti I understand not wanting to drop cash on it all over again. What I don't understand is a lack of excitement for these cards. What are people wanting Nvidia to do otherwise? Making big, but important, changes like this isn't going to be cheap but I can't think of anything better to encourage.

 

A regular upgrade to a standard raster card at the same price range as the last set is not exciting and I'd be quite disappointed to continue to be stuck in that zone.

 

But if we don't want to be stuck there, we have to put our money on the future we want to see.

Consumers are not investors.

5 hours ago, legend said:

Beyond the silliness of the company's hype machine, I think we should also praise the whole company. They ultimately are deciding to make this large business decision to push the market forward.

 

It comes down to this: if you want the market to embrace this change, then we should be okay with paying the cost of getting us there.

 

Here's a world that would suck IMO: the market doesn't embrace the new cards and so Nvidia goes back to only pushing on raster and it takes far longer to get to this next world of architecture both because Nvidia has stopped focusing on it and because developers have no audience to justify working on the software end.

 

All things considered this is a commendable job to maintain top-end parity on their top end cards for raster, and introduce a whole lot more. I don't think we can really ask for better than that and so if we want to see more of this, we should reward the company for trying to do it.

 

 

This is an occasion where Vic's compulsion to buy the newest greatest hardware really would be better if adopted by more people  

Sorry, I'm a bit too cynical for all that. A push forward? Sure. To a future NVIDIA controls. This is yet another attempt to stack the deck against would-be competitors, seeding the software landscape to grow in their favor. This is not some altruistic quest for the next frontier, and NVIDIA assumes no risk in implementing these unproven technologies with their market dominance. They can offer stagnant advances in performance, throw in some features that currently amount to marketing hyperbole, and stick consumers with the bill. And they are.

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.

This is only true if you look at the flagship card.

If you're looking at the 2080 and 2070, you're actually getting worse performance for the money compared to the GTX 10 series. Tensor cores and RT cores are costing not just consumers more money, but a large part of the die space that could have been given to more substantial gains in traditional game performance. Actually around half the die space (more if you count INT32) based on the block diagram showed in the presentation.

That isn't a trade-off most gamers would have chosen, if they in fact had a choice on the matter. None of the new portions of the Turing architecture have any proven benefit for gamers, aside from sketchy demos and some vague promises.

14 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

My, unproven take, is that the 2080ti is likely to perform at or around the speed of the Titan V in non RTX games. In RTX games, I suspect, I'll have to down shift from 4K to 1440P to pick up the use of this new feature. So I guess it will be time to truly put to the test the concept of "Prettier pixels" vs resolution. 

Maybe that's why NVIDIA announced a new form of AA (adaptive temporal) just before this launch!

13 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The Shadow of the Tomb Raider demo ran at 30-50 fps at 1080p.

LOLra Croft

Worse than PhysX.

27 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Wonder what's going to be a worthwhile upgrade from my 980. I want to do it sometime relatively soon, I just don't want to break the bank. Just because I can technically afford something, doesn't meant I want to throw away that much money on something that'll devalue that fast.

Just wait for reviews to come out for this next generation. That will be crucial to any sort of decision making.

5 hours ago, Massdriver said:

 

My guess is 2020 and 2021 will be some of the most interesting and competitive GPU years we have ever seen.

Oh yeah. It's gonna be the most exciting time in graphics since the late 90s.

13 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

That will be the 2060 or 2060 Ti  

Or $400? You lower middle class bastards better start getting rich!