Geforce GTX1180/2080 Speculation thread

[AMDPower]

AMD are competing just fine, so unless Nvidia offer a massive performance jump and/or price a drop, that's not going to change the situation to the point a price adjustment couldn't fix.

Not for long if the rumoured performance numbers for the RTX line-up are correct. It means AMD will have to drop the price of the VEGA64 into the RTX2060 territory.How would that be competing? Its been said before by Gibbo that AMD are barely making any profit on VEGA cards. Their 7nm cards are almost a year away, although all this depends on stellar performance by RTX lineup.

Fixed that for you.

I am AMD fan for almost 20 years and 95% of all my computers are AMD systems but I hate to agree with you, but you are correct. AMD are going to be competing with the GTX 2060 probably with VEGA 64. They going to have to drop the price a LOT but then risk making losses.

 

[G J]

Hotter, uses more power. More expensive. Slower at stock and overclocked over an average of 27 games.

There's people on this forum that say the complete opposite of whats been posted that generally have a pro AMD view and ignore anything postive about Nvidia. Its like they have some kind of agenda to push....

 

[Boomstick777]

Pretty simple.

RX580>GTX1060
Vega56>GTX1070
Vega64>GTX1080

Although that is true, it's almost a criminal offense to post it. Stirs up the hive. To be fair to Nvidia they have the egde in power consumption, but yeah AMD outperform Nvidia at every tier except the GTX 1080 Ti. Just don't ever say it, unless you don't mind the backlash of comments xD

 

[hedgey]

980 was $549, 1080 was $549, 2080 $649? Doesn't seem right. $599 I think.

 

[XeNoNF50]

980 was $549, 1080 was $549, 2080 $649? Doesn't seem right. $599 I think.

People trying to mentally prepare themselves to be bummed so they can be pleasantly surprised when it's the price it is actually supposed to be, or they're ready for it.

 

[bru]

980 was $549, 1080 was $549, 2080 $649? Doesn't seem right. $599 I think.

1080 was $599 and $699 for the founders edition.

Spoiler: 1080 launch

 

[FoxEye]

Although that is true, it's almost a criminal offense to post it. Stirs up the hive. To be fair to Nvidia they have the egde in power consumption, but yeah AMD outperform Nvidia at every tier except the GTX 1080 Ti. Just don't ever say it, unless you don't mind the backlash of comments xD

In what reality is this?

In the reality where Doom w/Vulcan is the only game that exists?

Reviews mostly show the 1080 beating the Vega 64, and the 1080 has been cheaper more often than not than the AMD card.

The bias in some posters is incredible due to the sheer lack of effort to hide it

 

[Killer7xx]

Well if we really go down the speculation route, which I suppose, that is what this thread is for.

GTX 2080 with RTX technology 8GB GDDR6, Faster than a Titan V Price $649
GTX 2070 with RTX technology 8GB GDDR6, performance between a Titan Xp and Titan V Price $499
GTX 2060 without RTX technology 6GB performance between a 1080 and 1080ti Price $350


AMD a year a way and then only matching the 2060 with the 7nm Navi or Vega refresh.


Not a good looking picture from the competition stand point.


It's not going to happen like that, because I really don't trust that latest rumour from the place we all love WCCFtech.

Those price/perf are not really realistic. Titan V is on the same 12nm process is a fat 800mm2 die and costs $3K. There is no way that Turing could be around 300-400mm2 less and have better performance on the same process unless Nvidia made some unprecedented crazy improvement in perf/clock. The Turing Quadro RTX 8000 die is 700mm2 and I can't imagine it will be used for a consumer part, simply because there's no way they can manufacture it in such volume for an xx80 GPU. I expect Nvidia to use it for a prosumer GPU like the Titan V, but not a gaming card.

We will probably see a gaming Titan card with a ~600mm2 die which performs slightly better than a Titan V, and then a later cutdown 2080Ti with the same die and similar performance. GTX 2080 and 2070 will probably be around ~350mm2 in die size and perform around the 1080Ti and 1080 respectively. I know a some people are very hyped based on the Maxwell>Pascal performance uplift, but that was more of a one off due to the massive change in manufacturing process from 28nm to 16nm which allowed more density and a lot faster clocks. 16nm>12nm is not nearly as big of a change.

I think we'll see Navi less than a year from now, 1H 2019 or early 2H with the mid range cards and then big Navi in late 2019/early 2020. Big Navi with 4096 cores should be competitive with the 2080 at the very least since 7nm will be a massive advantage for AMD. The key for AMD is to get the cards released on time, before Nvidia can jump to 7nm as well.

 

[bru]

Price wise, their is nothing in it at the 1060/580 tier, Nvidia favour by a good chunk at the 1070ti/Vega 56 tier and AMD are a bit ahead at the 1080/Vega64 tier.
As for performance, I think it depends on what games your looking at as both sides excel in certain titles.
Power wise, 120/180, 180/210, 180/295 unfortunately no contest NVidia is better.

My basket at Overclockers UK:

• 1 x PowerColor Radeon RX 580 Red Dragon V2 8192MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card= £239.99
• 1 x Zotac GeForce GTX 1060 Mini 6144MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card= £239.99
• 1 x Gigabyte Radeon RX VEGA 56 Gaming OC 8GB HBM2 PCI-Express Graphics Card= £469.99
• 1 x Palit GeForce GTX 1070Ti Dual X2 8192MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card= £398.99
• 1 x PowerColor Radeon RX VEGA 64 Red Devil 8GB HBM2 PCI-Express Graphics Card= £449.99
• 1 x Inno3D GeForce GTX 1080 iChill Air Boss X4 8192MB GDDR5X PCI-Express Graphics Card (C108V4-2SDN-P6DN= £469.99

Total: £2,280.64 (includes shipping: £11.70)​

​

 

[Rroff]

In what reality is this?

In the reality where Doom w/Vulcan is the only game that exists?

Reviews mostly show the 1080 beating the Vega 64, and the 1080 has been cheaper more often than not than the AMD card.

The bias in some posters is incredible due to the sheer lack of effort to hide it

For a long time the Vega cards were a clean £100 or more more expensive than the equivalent nVidia cards regardless. Quickly flicking through a couple of different roundups that use 50 different games Vega 56 is in a bit of an odd position as it varies a lot in competitiveness against the closest nVidia cards in some cases chasing the 1080 in other cases trailing the 1070 while the 1080 and Vega 64 are largely pretty even - in more than half the tests within 5% of each other with the 1070ti often surprisingly close behind.

Nothing even comes close to the 1080ti though - from a quick averaging up it is more than 40% faster than anything else overall.

EDIT: Fury X with latest drivers is a curious one - in around half of cases it is competing with the 1070 but in the other half it is trailing behind a fair bit and in some cases falling down quite badly - I'm guessing due to being VRAM limited but doesn't seem to be entirely the case as its holding up at 4K in some cases and not in others - maybe due to the tricks used to manage memory working in some cases and not others.

 

[Nexus18]

Sadly, I reckon even the 2060 will even make vega 64 look poor I can see the 2060 being the new "970/bang per buck/go to" GPU.

Personally, I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed they went with the vega 64 deals in the last week come 20xx announcement/release.

Sad state of affairs all round as I would much rather stick to AMD for the better:

- HDR performance (although 20xx could sort this out)
- adaptive/free sync support (20xx could also sort this but unlikely given that even 10xx could support free/adaptive sync if nvidia wanted)
- better drivers all round, feature, UI wise as well as performance

But nvidia is just better when it comes to the hardware side of things "overall".

Saying that, I'll be keeping my eye on the MM as I can see a lot of people selling their 1080/ti's soon

 

[TNA]

Lower your voice, the red army will be here soon enough.

Fixed that for you.

Lol

 

[Beren]

I want to believe, but Gibbo has been dropping some big as hints to keep the hype from going massive.

I can totally believe that going to 12nm is going to give about a 7-10% performance boost to Nvidia from the 16nm... We just don't know what performance gains the architecture is going to provide.

I did think that shifting from 16nm to 7nm on Vega was going to make a bigger difference but I suspect that certain manufacturers already have the 7nm Pro card and that is where the 7-10% is coming from there. I hope I am wrong but suspect we are going to see a Vega refresh that is significantly better on power but only a bit better on speed.

The only thing really going for Navi on 7nm is they could go bigger with the increased density and compete that way.

I think the 2080 is going to comfortably beat the 1080, but I expect it to be still behind the 1080ti. Only a few days left...

 

[AthlonXP1800]

Project Lavina Real-Time Ray Tracing Tech Demo rendered over 300 billions triangles at 25-30fps on a single Quadro RTX 6000 card.

Cant wait for Project Lavina demo release soon after 20 August, will be cool to run it on RTX 2070, RTX 2080, RTX 2080 Ti and RTX Titan.

 

[Silent_Scone]

I know what this demo represents in terms of horse power, but it's a terrible representation visually.

 

[bru]

I know what this demo represents in terms of horse power, but it's a terrible representation visually.

Yup basically it looks pretty mediocre, not helped by youtube I expect, but still not particularly good eye candy.

 

[nashathedog]

EDIT: Fury X with latest drivers is a curious one - in around half of cases it is competing with the 1070 but in the other half it is trailing behind a fair bit and in some cases falling down quite badly - I'm guessing due to being VRAM limited but doesn't seem to be entirely the case as its holding up at 4K in some cases and not in others - maybe due to the tricks used to manage memory working in some cases and not others.

This has always been AMD's Achilles heal, They've suffered from inconsistency for as long as I can remember, They can match their equivalent or beat it in one game and then be 20 frames behind in the next. Plus it doesn't help how Nvidia try to scupper their performance at every turn.

Although that is true, it's almost a criminal offense to post it. Stirs up the hive. To be fair to Nvidia they have the egde in power consumption, but yeah AMD outperform Nvidia at every tier except the GTX 1080 Ti. Just don't ever say it, unless you don't mind the backlash of comments xD

The problem is that's not true, The video linked above shows that while the Vega does better in some games the GTX 1080 wins more often than not. The GTX 1080's faster and it does that while consuming less power. That said everyone's experience will be different as it'll be based on what games they're playing and whether they have a new gen monitor with adaptive sync. For me the Vega's are a better choice as I have a Freesync monitor and the Vega 64 does a good job at 3440x1440. But for someone using a non-adaptive sync monitor the 1080 makes more sense.

 

[five8five]

So kind of like an upside-down race to the bottom?

The problem is the Nvidia have upped prices one tier, and dropped products down one. What happens if you hit the top tier?

Hey, it was my question

Question for you, then.

How many years should it be before 1080 perf should be <£300?

Should this never happen? Should that performance always cost at lease £300, forever and ever, amen?

The current way things work is not how they used to work. You used to get more performance each gen even if you paid the same amount you paid last gen.

How things work in 2018, is that if you want an upgrade, you have to move up a price tier each gen.

The original conversation started with Navi @1080 performance for £250.

I just can't see how that is possible if Navi is released next year. Looking at a competitor site, the V64s (1080 equivalent) are £550-600 which I presume aren't subsidised like the OC cards. Even £300 seems to be a stretch. AMD need to sell cards but also make a decent profit on them so they can be competitive again.

 

[JediFragger]

The original conversation started with Navi @1080 performance for £250.

If AMD state 1080-level then expect 1070 and then you won't be disappointed.

 

[Panos]

There's people on this forum that say the complete opposite of whats been posted that generally have a pro AMD view and ignore anything postive about Nvidia. Its like they have some kind of agenda to push....

Sure we push agenda by pointing that the V64 Strix is the worse performing custom Vega card (hell the reference is better), and all comparison benchmarks between Vega cards do show that, even if overclocked with custom bios.

But I am fool to to even bother, since this forum is full of Nvidia mujaheddin cows, happily wanting to get milked for the cause while giving even their skin for the new Jensens' leather jackets.

Either way as having being taught ancient greek philosophy and reasoning for 10 years at greek school here is the video you should see before you continue brushing under the carpet the facts