Makes you wonder how Pascal and Vega and all other earlier cards will cope when RayTracing is on
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Geforce GTX1180/2080 Speculation thread
- Thread starter Tommy_Here
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 746
- Location
- Somerset England
And Pedoflops.....
That isn't an apples to apples comparison, the 20 series is tested with RT.
Put it this way, Turing is an iteration of Pascal with more cuda cores. Worst case scenario is it performance the same per core and per clock. There is a 30% bump at the lower bound, probably 40% at least
Makes you wonder how Pascal and Vega and all other earlier cards will cope when RayTracing is on
Pretty sure you can just turn them options off
from what i can gather this stuffs going to be added later as a patch to many titles, with the option to enable it if your hardware supports it... Not even Nvidia will gimp their old products at the expense of putting one over AMD, well yeah they would, but not that blatantly obvious, or would they? Anyhow, it doesnt bode well for the 2080ti, when its dipping to 30fps in that new Tomb Raider game @ 1080p, highest fps i see it hit was like 78fps or something...
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 769
Personally think that is very optimistic but we shall see.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 1,785
- Location
- Cardiff-ish, Wales
Won't that be just when Ray Tracing is enabled? We need to know what the FPS is with RT turned off...
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,236
- Location
- Scotland
While you are probably right, how can you know the CUDA cores are the same as the ones on Pascal? If the 2080 is to beat the 1080Ti it will need to be a fair bit more efficient per core or a significantly higher clock. Only then would it come close to justifying the price.
I could happily play Tomb Raider games at 30 fps in truth. Twitch shooters not so much but G-Sync does a decent job of keeping everything smooth. And if it is too much of a frame hog, I can always turn it off also. Not like it is compulsoryPretty sure you can just turn them options off
Anyhow, it doesnt bode well for the 2080ti, when its dipping to 30fps in that new Tomb Raider game @ 1080p, highest fps i see it hit was like 78fps or something...
It is not optimistic, it is simple math
Umm not buying it, supposedly Turing has Hardware dedicated to the Raytracing stuff, if they enabled that stuff the rest of the GPU picks up the rasterization slack... imho Turing is basically Pascal with Raytracing hardware bolted on and a small bump in perf...
I reckon the whole things going to be a massive disappointment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
I could happily play Tomb Raider games at 30 fps in truth. Twitch shooters not so much but G-Sync does a decent job of keeping everything smooth. And if it is too much of a frame hog, I can always turn it off also. Not like it is compulsory
Ewww..... 30 fps vs 60 is so noticeable though.
Except 30% doesn't cover the price increases...
The cynical part of me half thinks Nvidia are pushing GIGARAYS!!! because AMD were using Mega Rays to describe Vega's ray tracing performance in Unity back in March and Giga > Mega
It is but for something like TR, I don't mind.
I could happily play Tomb Raider games at 30 fps in truth. Twitch shooters not so much but G-Sync does a decent job of keeping everything smooth. And if it is too much of a frame hog, I can always turn it off also. Not like it is compulsory
Can honestly say the games they demoed yesterday dont really interest me, however should they lob that fancy RTX stuff into Division 2, or a decent ARPG or MMORPG then im all over it
however shadows is generally the first thing that gets turned off on most raiding PC's as its notoriously bad for FPS with tons of people on screen at once.But i play a lot on my Xbox now, and 30fps doesnt bother me at all either. But your also correct, you can switch this stuff off, but would suck to have to do that if you just weighed out £1100+ for a card designed to make use of that stuff, kinda defeats the purpose of the card itself
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 769
Well your simple maths tells me that a 30-40% performance increase isn't worth the 70% price increase.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 769
I've got a PS4 for that. 165hz all the way!
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 8,485
given that when these prices (in the uk) were announced the £ was at a hell of a low ($1.25/6 i think)
assuming it picks up again do you think NV will re-evaluate its RRP in blighty and therefore pressure 3rd party cards / retailers to do the same?
right now one of the things grinding my gears is the terrible conversion rate we are getting.
No way i am going down to 30fps even if the eye candy is nice (for most games) i would rather had it off and have 4k/60
assuming it picks up again do you think NV will re-evaluate its RRP in blighty and therefore pressure 3rd party cards / retailers to do the same?
right now one of the things grinding my gears is the terrible conversion rate we are getting.
No way i am going down to 30fps even if the eye candy is nice (for most games) i would rather had it off and have 4k/60
Thats what i thought, but surely the Rest of the card picks up the Rasterization parts of the rendering, if you turn off RTX features, hopefully you'll get better FPS, but then that defeats the purpose of buying a card designed to use those features that you just turned off???