PC Nvidia Gamescon Confrence Today - 2080 series to be announced

[cusideabelincoln]

This is pretty good considering they're still basically on the same node.  It's a little faster than I initially expected, plus they also managed to cram Tensor and RT cores which aren't even being used in any of these reviews yet.  I understand why they cost this much now, but there's no way I can pay that premium.  I won't even think about upgrading until I can get 2080 Ti-level rasterization performance for under $500.  The rest of my system is begging for an upgrade too.

[Spork3245]

26 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

Depends on what monitor you have today...

 

One that isn’t compatible with current video cards due to everything now being DVI-D.

The 9xx nVidia series is the last with DVI-I, and the Digital to Analog converters are absolute garbage.

[legend]

19 minutes ago, cusideabelincoln said:

This is pretty good considering they're still basically on the same node.  It's a little faster than I initially expected, plus they also managed to cram Tensor and RT cores which aren't even being used in any of these reviews yet.

 

Right, this is the critical piece to bear in mind. On just regular classic rasterization, you're getting a bump. But you're also getting a shit ton more of really exciting stuff that will simply take a little time to trickle out rather than being there right out of the gate (if nothing else but because of waiting for MS to release an DX update).

 

If you want practical 4K, you can't look at these stats and be disappointed, because current results don't tell the full story: they're not using the innovative systems (DLSS) Nvidia has provided to address that.

 

If you want to wait for real world analysis of the new stuff, that's completely reasonable, but you really shouldn't be evaluating this card on the pure classic rasterization only being a fairly typical bump.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

Wtf? The Ti is still under or barely above 60fps on most current (big) titles in 4k...? BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

 

Not all that surprising.  If current gen games can barely manage that, you can bet next gen games won't.

 

Still might be good for 4k 30fps though for future titles.  I'll wait to see what the consoles offer by comparison.

[Spork3245]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Not all that surprising.  If current gen games can barely manage that, you can bet next gen games won't.

 

Still might be good for 4k 30fps though for future titles.  I'll wait to see what the consoles offer by comparison.

 

Next gen isn't happening for ~2 years when PS5/Xbox-whatever releases. Current gen = now til 2020/2021. If 4k 30fps is acceptable, might as well save money and get an Xbone X  

[crispy4000]

I usually buy 1 card per gen.  So I look at it from that angle. This gen is winding down.

[Spork3245]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

I usually buy 1 card per gen.  So I look at it from that angle.

 

What "gen" are you referencing? We're technically on the same gen as the 7xx series graphics-wise.

[crispy4000]

1 minute ago, Spork3245 said:

What "gen" are you referencing? We're technically on the same gen as the 7xx series.

 

Console generations.

[Spork3245]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

 

Console generations.

 

Then yea, we're on the same gen as the 7xx series as that released around the same time as the PS4/Xbone  

[crispy4000]

8 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Next gen isn't happening for ~2 years when PS5/Xbox-whatever releases. Current gen = now til 2020/2021. If 4k 30fps is acceptable, might as well save money and get an Xbone X  

To that edit: Buying a $500 console for 2, maybe 3 years of use isn't saving money in my book.  You might as well just get the low end RX card.  Or better yet, put that money in the bank until price cuts or something better worth spending it on.

[Mr.Vic20]

There is definitely value in skipping this generation of cards simply due to pricing. I like what Nvidia is trying to accomplish but they are pricing this generation out of the market for most people. 

[Nokt]

2080 is pretty much on par with the 1080ti. May as well save a few hundred and get a 1080ti instead. May just wait until the generation of cards too as the 1080 isn't under performing in any sense at 1440p.

[Mr.Vic20]

Just now, Nokt said:

2080 is pretty much on par with the 1080ti. May as well save a few hundred and get a 1080ti instead. May just wait until the generation of cards too as the 1080 isn't under performing in any sense at 1440p.

That's the toughest part of all of this. IF DLSS gains traction, the the 2080 will be work its price (maybe?) but without that feature, there is the 1080ti, selling for 250-300 less and has essentially the same performance. That's a tough sell, at least for early adopters. 

[Spork3245]

39 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

To that edit: Buying a $500 console for 2, maybe 3 years of use isn't saving money in my book.  You might as well just get the low end RX card.  Or better yet, put that money in the bank until price cuts or something better worth spending it on.

 

Except for the XboneX I got for $450 will run games at 4k better than that low-end AMD RX card... So... I don't understand the argument you're trying to make here?

 

EDIT: My comment about the XboneX is if you're spending $1000+ on a 2080 Ti with the goal of 4k 30fps... like... why even bother with the Ti model at that point? The goal of spending the cash for the Ti should be for 4k 60fps.

[legend]

47 minutes ago, Nokt said:

2080 is pretty much on par with the 1080ti. May as well save a few hundred and get a 1080ti instead. May just wait until the generation of cards too as the 1080 isn't under performing in any sense at 1440p.

 

It is not on par with the 1080Ti. The 2080 is far ahead. The problem, though, is the ways its ahead won't start appearing until later this year, and you don't know what the adoption rate of those features is at the moment.

 

If you were looking for a 4K card and would pay the price of the 2080 if it provided that, I would not get the 1080Ti now. The 2080 very well may be what you're looking for, but you should wait it a bit to see how adoption in the wild goes first. It would be a shame in that scenario to get a 1080Ti now, only to find out that indeed the 2080 is what you wanted if you just waited a bit longer.

 

[crispy4000]

58 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Except for the XboneX I got for $450 will run games at 4k better than that low-end AMD RX card... So... I don't understand the argument you're trying to make here?

 

AMD?  Aren't we talking Nvidia?

Oh, I see, I didn't specify RTX.  Stupid gfx lingo.
 

58 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

EDIT: My comment about the XboneX is if you're spending $1000+ on a 2080 Ti with the goal of 4k 30fps... like... why even bother with the Ti model at that point? The goal of spending the cash for the Ti should be for 4k 60fps.

The TI card makes sense if you're wanting to spend $1000+ for:

- 4k 60fps for new games in the next ~2 years.
- 4k 30fps for next-gen games.
- Option to play at lower res/fps if you really want raytracing.

That's the investment.  My biggest issue with it is the price.  Unlike the X, you should be able to use it for next-gen games.

[Mr.Vic20]

 

Not sure if this was posted in this thread yet, but it gives an example of the FPS gains with DLSS vs TAA. Its not perfect, and I noticed that in a few of the higher action scenes that the benefits became overall negligible. That said, its still quite impressive and seemed to deliver quite the performance boost. 

[Mr.Vic20]

This look like a nice deal for though balking at the new 20xx series prices!

 

https://www.pcgamer.com/get-an-evga-gtx-1070-for-dollar350/?utm_content=buffer16f63&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer-pcgamertw

 

$350.00 for a 1070

 

 

[legend]

25 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

 

Not sure if this was posted in this thread yet, but it gives an example of the FPS gains with DLSS vs TAA. Its not perfect, and I noticed that in a few of the higher action scenes that the benefits became overall negligible. That said, its still quite impressive and seemed to deliver quite the performance boost. 

 

Is this 4K base with DLSS "AA" from super sampling from something even higher; or is it 1400P rastered with DLSS upscaling to 4K? Nvidia talked about both ways you can use the tech.

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

AMD?  Aren't we talking Nvidia?

Oh, I see, I didn't specify RTX.  Stupid gfx lingo.
 

The TI card makes sense if you're wanting to spend $1000+ for:

- 4k 60fps for new games in the next ~2 years.
- 4k 30fps for next-gen games.
- Option to play at lower res/fps if you really want raytracing.

That's the investment.  My biggest issue with it is the price.  Unlike the X, you should be able to use it for next-gen games.

 

 

 

... Did you even read any of my posts? The issue is that it's not and/or barely achieving 4k/60 on current games. Your first reply to me you even quoted me as saying it's still under or barely above 60fps at 4k.  

[crispy4000]

6 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

... Did you even read any of my posts? The issue is that it's not and/or barely achieving 4k.60. Your first reply to me you even quoted me as saying it's still under or barely above 60fps at 4k.  

 

Of course I'm reading, lol.

Every game that's been tested is least ballpark 60fps at high/very high/ultra settings, or could be easily be brought there with some minor tweaks and dynamic resolution scaling for heavy sections. 
That's good enough to call it a 4k60 card, IMO.

[Mr.Vic20]

411.63 drivers are up!

 

https://www.nvidia.com/Download/driverResults.aspx/138070/en-us

 

 

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Of course I'm reading, lol.

Every game that's been tested is least ballpark 60fps, or could be easily be brought there with some minor dynamic resolution scaling or tweaks.  It's a 4k60fps card, as far as I'm concerned.

 

It’s not a 4k 60fps card if you’re sacrificing the 4k through dynamic resolution...

[crispy4000]

5 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

It’s not a 4k 60fps card if you’re sacrificing the 4k through dynamic resolution...

Yes, it is, if the moments scaling kicks in aren't frequent.  Or could be easily avoided by reducing other settings marginally.  Which is what looks to be the case.
 

[Spork3245]

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Yes, it is, if the moments scaling kicks in aren't frequent.  Or could be easily avoided by reducing other settings marginally.  Which is what looks to be the case.
 

 

When the average fps is already below 60fps, preeeeeetty sure it’ll be “frequent”.

Also, olo at spending $1k+ to reduce settings.

[Mr.Vic20]

4K is a moving target. almost everything in my library runs in 4K/60 on max settings, but each year we get more ambitious games with more and more bells and whistles. I think its fair to say that we'll be chasing 4K/60+ on ultra settings for several more years, especially after the launch of the next consoles in or around 2020. So maybe think of it this way, with the exception of a hand ful of games, everything to date will run 4K/60 on ultra or damn near so. Once we get DLSS running (which is now slated for TR) even games like TR will bump above 60 on max settings. 

 

I can't stress this enough 4K is really, really hard on hardware. 

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

4K is a moving target. almost everything in my library runs in 4K/60 on max settings, but each year we get more ambitious games with more and more bells and whistles. I think its fair to say that we'll be chasing 4K/60+ on ultra settings for several more years, especially after the launch of the next consoles in or around 2020. So this of it this way, with the exception of a hand ful of games, everything to date will run 4K/60 on ultra or damn near so. Once we get DLSS running (which is now slated for TR) even games like TR will bump above 60 on max settings. 

 

Yea, I mean, it’s almost a 4k/60fps card, but to flat out say that it’s totally a 4k/60fps card and then add “if you turn stuff down” or “use dynamic resolution” is fairly ridiculous.

[crispy4000]

5 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Also, olo at spending $1k+ to reduce settings.

 

Welcome to PC gaming.

 

I mean, fuck, what you do think raytracing is.

[Spork3245]

BTW, I didn’t have time to check the links yet, just saw those posted pics: was FSAA running in those ultra settings or no?

[Spork3245]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

 

Welcome to PC gaming.

 

Been here since 1989. Welcome to not actually having a 4k/60fps card.

[crispy4000]

3 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Yea, I mean, it’s almost a 4k/60fps card, but to flat out say that it’s totally a 4k/60fps card and then add “if you turn stuff down” or “use dynamic resolution” is fairly ridiculous.

How do you think the Xbox One X runs games (close to) 4k30fps?  It's not PC ultra settings, that's for sure.

 

I'll still call that a 4k30 console, the same as I'll call this a 4k60 card.

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

I mean, fuck, what you do think raytracing is.

 

I’ve been saying Ray-Tracing is the future of graphics for like a decade now... so... uhh... what?

[crispy4000]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

 

I’ve been saying Ray-Tracing is the future of graphics for like a decade now... so... uhh... what?

 

At 1080p.  Newfagled rendering techniques and higher resolutions come at a cost.

[Spork3245]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

How do you think the Xbox One X runs games (close to) 4k30fps?  It's not PC ultra settings, that's for sure.

 

I thought AC:O was running at Ultra minus AA?

[Spork3245]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

 

At 1080p.  Newfagled rendering techniques and higher resolutions come at a cost.

 

No shit. RT isn’t being used in any of the benches. Cool red herring, though?