PC Nvidia Gamescon Confrence Today - 2080 series to be announced

[Brick]

Too much negativity! I hope these cards turn out great and are worth purchasing so I can finally get off my ass and upgrade! 

[Spork3245]

19 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

That is a really reasonable concern! 

 

18 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Nvidia stubbornly sticking with Gsync would indeed be awful.

 

It’d be totally fine if they stuck with GSync for monitors and display port, especially since HDMI VRR =/= Freesync. I am highly concerned about HDMI 2.1 compliance on future cards, however, especially since these cards really should have been 2.1 compliant given that nVidia was the first to adopt 2.0b compliancy to give 4k 60hz HDR to PC.

[legend]

7 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

 

It’d be totally fine if they stuck with GSync for monitors and display port, especially since HDMI VRR =/= Freesync. I am highly concerned about HDMI 2.1 compliance on future cards, however, especially since these cards really should have been 2.1 compliant given that nVidia was the first to adopt 2.0b compliancy to give 4k 60hz HDR to PC.

 

It's perfectly fine for Gsync to coexist with 2.1 VRR, but it seems completely pointless for it to do so if they have 2.1 VRR, so I'm more worried about them exclusively supporting Gsync for VRR.

 

As we found in other discussion, you don't need to be fully 2.1 compliant to support 2.1 VRR, so lack of full 2.1 support is at least not a blocker for that. Although if you wanted other 2.1 features, then yeah, that might be an issue.

[Spork3245]

4 minutes ago, legend said:

 

It's perfectly fine for Gsync to coexist with 2.1 VRR, but it seems completely pointless for it to do so if they have 2.1 VRR, so I'm more worried about them exclusively supporting Gsync for VRR.

 

As we found in other discussion, you don't need to be fully 2.1 compliant to support 2.1 VRR, so lack of full 2.1 support is at least not a blocker for that. Although if you wanted other 2.1 features, then yeah, that might be an issue.

 

Gsync is technically superior to Freesync (no clue about 2.1’s VRR, but it’s likely the same case) as it’s a hardware solution vs a software solution, but it’s by an indecipherable amount that requires a 600fps camera to capture the difference - though that fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a millisecond will certainly be nVidia’s reasoning for keeping it around, at least on monitors.  The issue is also that we don’t know if monitors will adopt 2.1 VRR as they are primarily display port and I’m unaware of any VRR standards upcoming to DP.

To your other point, I would highly doubt that nVidia has included a 2.0b-2.1 hybrid HDMI out on the 20xx series like MS did on the XboneX and Samsung did on the Q9 without making a huge deal about it (both MS and Samsung made a bunch of noise about their inclusion... and this is nVidia we’re talking about!  )

[legend]

5 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Gsync is technically superior to Freesync (no clue about 2.1’s VRR, but it’s likely the same case) as it’s a hardware solution vs a software solution, but it’s by an indecipherable amount that requires a 600fps camera to capture the difference - though that fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a millisecond will certainly be nVidia’s reasoning for keeping it around, at least on monitors.  The issue is also that we don’t know if monitors will adopt 2.1 VRR as they are primarily display port and I’m unaware of any VRR standards upcoming to DP.

To your other point, I would highly doubt that nVidia has included a 2.0b-2.1 hybrid HDMI out on the 20xx series like MS did on the XboneX and Samsung did on the Q9 without making a huge deal about it (both MS and Samsung made a bunch of noise about their inclusion... and this is nVidia we’re talking about!  )

 

I suppose they could maybe then make a case for the time being for sticking with Gsync for monitors since there is no standard, while supporting 2.1's VRR for TVs. Still would be ridiculous though because requiring such special hardware is a terrible plan and I really wish they would do away with it.

[Spork3245]

2 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I suppose they could maybe then make a case for the time being for sticking with Gsync for monitors since there is no standard, while supporting 2.1's VRR for TVs. Still would be ridiculous though because requiring such special hardware is a terrible plan and I really wish they would do away with it.

 

I’m by no means arguing in favor of GSync.  

[Reputator]

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.

[Remarkableriots]

6 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  

I would if I could afford it but those cards are way out of my budget.

[legend]

3 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

I would if I could afford it but those cards are way out of my budget.

 

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  

[Remarkableriots]

3 minutes 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  

Definitely glad this is happening since it would eventually reach the lower end cards hopefully. Maybe in a few years I could build a new PC.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

6 minutes 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 love PC gaming. I can afford it. 

 

Doesn't mean I'm willing to throw away t hat much money, though.

[legend]

7 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I love PC gaming. I can afford it. 

 

Doesn't mean I'm willing to throw away t hat much money, though.

 

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.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I'm still on a 980 and I'm not convinced I need to drop a grand on a new GPU.

 

The price gouging sucks. Fuck off, Nvidia. 

[legend]

1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I'm still on a 980 and I'm not convinced I need to drop a grand on a new GPU.

 

The price gouging sucks. Fuck off, Nvidia. 

 

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?

[Reputator]

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.

[legend]

1 minute ago, Reputator said:

 

Consumers are not investors.

 

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

[CastlevaniaNut18]

2 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?

I don't care to get into a semantics argument, but the pricing is fucking ridiculous. 

[Reputator]

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.

[Remarkableriots]

5 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I'm still on a 980 and I'm not convinced I need to drop a grand on a new GPU.

 

The price gouging sucks. Fuck off, Nvidia. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06XXVVQYH/?tag=dt-incontent-btn-20

This would probably be a decent upgrade I would imagine? What do you think @Mr.Vic20?

[Mr.Vic20]

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. 

[Mr.Vic20]

1 minute ago, Remarkableriots said:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06XXVVQYH/?tag=dt-incontent-btn-20

This would probably be a decent upgrade I would imagine? What do you think @Mr.Vic20?

Yup, that's a great price! PULL THE TRIGGER! 

[Reputator]

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.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

2 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06XXVVQYH/?tag=dt-incontent-btn-20

This would probably be a decent upgrade I would imagine? What do you think @Mr.Vic20?

 

Just now, Mr.Vic20 said:

Yup, that's a great price! PULL THE TRIGGER! 

I might have used part of my bonus check on Folio Society, so I'm not in a position to drop several hundred at the moment. Books are a more worthwhile investment, anyway, IMO. 

 

It's sad, but a 1080 ti may be my next card. I just don't think I can stomach dropping a grand on a card that'll be outdated in a few years. 

[legend]

3 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I don't care to get into a semantics argument, but the pricing is fucking ridiculous. 

 

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.

 

2 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

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.

 

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.

 

2 minutes ago, Reputator said:

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

 

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

[Mr.Vic20]

1 minute ago, Reputator said:

 

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

Yup, we'll have to see what the actual benchmarks show, but ray tracing on anything south of the 2080ti (and possibly on it as well!)sounds like a pipe dream. I do hold out hope that each of these cards will be respectable, non RTX cards though. 

Just now, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

 

I might have used part of my bonus check on Folio Society, so I'm not in a position to drop several hundred at the moment. Books are a more worthwhile investment, anyway, IMO. 

 

It's sad, but a 1080 ti may be my next card. I just don't think I can stomach dropping a grand on a card that'll be outdated in a few years. 

Honestly, the 1080ti is a beautiful card! You'll be happy for years to come with it while Nvidia prepares their apology tour card series, the 21xxs! 

[Remarkableriots]

2 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

 

I might have used part of my bonus check on Folio Society, so I'm not in a position to drop several hundred at the moment. Books are a more worthwhile investment, anyway, IMO. 

 

It's sad, but a 1080 ti may be my next card. I just don't think I can stomach dropping a grand on a card that'll be outdated in a few years. 

The prices could drop even more so I hope you get a great deal!

[Reputator]

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.

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

 

Honestly, the 1080ti is a beautiful card! You'll be happy for years to come with it while Nvidia prepares their apology tour card series, the 21xxs! 

You think it'll be a worthwhile upgrade over my 980 at 1440p? I don't really have any intent to move to 4k anytime soon.

[Mr.Vic20]

Just now, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

You think it'll be a worthwhile upgrade over my 980 at 1440p? I don't really have any intent to move to 4k anytime soon.

Absolutely! at 1440P a 1080ti will have very long legs! Considering console replacements aren't likely to pop up until 2020, you'll get 2-3 years out of such a purchase. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

1 minute ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

Absolutely! at 1440P a 1080ti will have very long legs! Considering console replacements aren't likely to pop up until 2020, you'll get 2-3 years out of such a purchase. 

Thanks. I may take that route when I'm ready to upgrade. I want to by the end of the year, if I can buckle down and stop buying books and baseball stuff.

 

My 980 has given me some great service over the last 4 years. I can never thank you enough.

[legend]

10 minutes ago, Reputator 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 development track further; and (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.

[Mr.Vic20]

Just now, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Thanks. I may take that route when I'm ready to upgrade. I want to by the end of the year, if I can buckle down and stop buying books and baseball stuff.

 

My 980 has given me some great service over the last 4 years. I can never thank you enough.

Just keep those doctors from killing us sister, that's thanks enough! 

[Reputator]

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.

[legend]

13 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

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.

 

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)

 

Quote

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.

 

"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."

[Reputator]

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.