Geforce GTX1180/2080 Speculation thread

D.P. · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:25

Boomstick777 said:
Things are starting to come out now. This is what I am seeing around the tinterweb, whether it's true or not I wouldn't like to say xD

People are suggesting Volta was a failure (Poor Volta), design / yields. Absolute mess. Not suitable for gaming / profits..

Nvidia in panic, made Pascal revision* strapped on some ray tracking stuff and charged us almost double the price for the privilege.

Knowing their fan base would lap it up anyway.

Meanwhile trying to tie up journos with very long NDA's, and lock in vendors to restrict advertising of competitors.

Nvidia in absolute panic mode.

This whole guff about 10 years in the making and all the focus on ray tracing is to distract from being not much faster than current Pascal.

At launch, no FPS / game performance mentioned. Just guff about ray tracing. No comparison to existing cards in a traditional sense. For the first time.

Interesting stuff.

Intel plz come and save the DGPU space...

This is such BS. Volta was never really intense for gaming, and it's yields were provabky decent since Nvidia could release a Titan Volta when they had no need do.

Moreover, you can't just strap on a whole new concept like Ray tracing. that was planned and designed years ago.

If Nvidia really had a problem with Turing then they would have scrapped Ray tracing and focused on performance/fixing things.

Stop listeblis to wild conspiracy theories

Rroff · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:26

Yup complete and utter BS.

Volta was never coming to GeForce - even the product page for Titan V states: "NVIDIA’s supercomputing GPU architecture is now here for your PC"

Gibbo · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:28

D.P. said:
Thecuda cores aren't the same, they will have some improvements, but they don't need that many improvements to see the performance difference since the number of cores increased. Similarly the bump in memory bandwidth will help as well.

Don't forget, this is basically 2 (smaller) generations ahead of Pascal, but stuck on a similar process.

Them sticking with 12nm gives them better production as now 12nm is tried and tested process for them.

Moving to 10nm or lower right now would just create big shortages like Pascal and how Intel are currently facing.

They simply don’t want a situation again like Pascal where they cannot meet demand.

Sticking with 12nm now they have it sussed is better for them as this time round supply is much better from day 1, people won’t be waiting for months!

WYNIR0 · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:28

Gregster said:
It is a short term offer. I would buy now if I was in your shoes.

Ta, but I'm still not convinced I need to jump. Potentially happy to stick at 1080 for now until good performance at 4k drops to a sensible price. Either that or wait for another offer to come along.

Zeed · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:28

Boomstick777 said:
Things are starting to come out now. This is what I am seeing around the tinterweb, whether it's true or not I wouldn't like to say xD

People are suggesting Volta was a failure (Poor Volta), design / yields. Absolute mess. Not suitable for gaming / profits..

Nvidia in panic, made Pascal revision* strapped on some ray tracking stuff and charged us almost double the price for the privilege.

Knowing their fan base would lap it up anyway.

Meanwhile trying to tie up journos with very long NDA's, and lock in vendors to restrict advertising of competitors.

Nvidia in absolute panic mode.

This whole guff about 10 years in the making and all the focus on ray tracing is to distract from being not much faster than current Pascal.

At launch, no FPS / game performance mentioned. Just guff about ray tracing. No comparison to existing cards in a traditional sense. For the first time.

Interesting stuff.

Intel plz come and save the DGPU space...

Not sure where you get them chemicals from but spare me some

D.P. · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:29

Nvidia are listing 21 games with RTX

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-is-listing-21-games-with-rtx-support.html

I believe there have only been 4 DX12 games rrleaare this year's, and probably and 21 in total. Seems like RTX has already won over developers.

Panos · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:36

D.P. said:
This is such BS. Volta was never really intense for gaming, and it's yields were provabky decent since Nvidia could release a Titan Volta when they had no need do.

The yields/profit argument @Boomstick777 mentioned is valid mate.
Titan V came at $3000 pricetag, and was barely faster than the GTX1080Ti FE. Let alone the GTX1080Ti factory overclocked monsters.
And $3000 card won't sell at many as an $800 card.

Same applies to Turing.
If you see the chip IS HUGE. Look at the cooling on those VRMs!!!!!!
376W max power consumption Vega 64 Nitro+ (when truly overclocked all out) doesn't have such cooling on the VRMs.
Hell neither my 295X2 had such VRM cooling!!!!!!!! A card that needed 1000W gold rated PSU to run.

True this is the EVGA one but no other card before had such cooling.

The Turing cards, at least the 12nm generation, are expensive to make because the chip is big and yields are in proportion to the chip size.
GDDR6 ram is cheap, and doesn't cost $200 like the HBM used on the Vega 64.

Unrivaledx21 · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:36

Looking forward to seeing ARK, but I'd imagine it will be quite laggy even with the latest generation of cards.

Zeed · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:36

D.P. said:
Nvidia are listing 21 games with RTX

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-is-listing-21-games-with-rtx-support.html

I believe there have only been 4 DX12 games rrleaare this year's, and probably and 21 in total. Seems like RTX has already won over developers.

I think its how GIMPWORKS are

dont know much about engine development but it seems it is easyer to add raytracing shadows and reflections than build game for dx11 and dx12 as many still have not jumped to W10 and dx12 cards.
If this raytracing works with Dx 11 and they can add it on with not much effort and add NV logo to theirs game title its good.

TBH what NV should do since BF V preorders are aparently crap they should just add BF V to 2080ti for Free at that price tag. Remember that AMD 290x Battlefield 4 edition ??? I had one.
So could be NVidia 280ti limited Battlefield V edition

Not like they will sale truckloads at the price anyway so could have done that

pagepack · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:39

D.P. said:
Nvidia are listing 21 games with RTX

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-is-listing-21-games-with-rtx-support.html

I believe there have only been 4 DX12 games rrleaare this year's, and probably and 21 in total. Seems like RTX has already won over developers.

Game developers are interested in profit, unless consoles can run RT, any port will be patched not designed from the ground up.

Lets remember it will be a tiny minority of cards which will use RT, unless Nvidia are chipping in with money there is very little insentive to spend time and money on it.

Zeed · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:40

Panos said:
The yields/profit argument @Boomstick777 mentioned is valid mate.
Titan V came at $3000 pricetag, and was barely faster than the GTX1080Ti FE. Let alone the GTX1080Ti factory overclocked monsters.
And $3000 card won't sell at many as an $800 card.

Same applies to Turing.
If you see the chip IS HUGE. Look at the cooling on those VRMs!!!!!!
376W max power consumption Vega 64 Nitro+ (when truly overclocked all out) doesn't have such cooling on the VRMs.
Hell neither my 295X2 had such VRM cooling!!!!!!!! A card that needed 1000W gold rated PSU to run.

True this is the EVGA one but no other card before had such cooling.

The Turing cards, at least the 12nm generation, are expensive to make because the chip is big and yields are in proportion to the chip size.
GDDR6 ram is cheap, and doesn't cost $200 like the HBM used on the Vega 64.

So You are saying that having GOOD stock cooling is bad thing ?? Especially when it suppose to be super quiet ?? OKKKKK

AMD should have learned after 290x that good stock cooler makes most important DAY ONE REVIEWS better as they are 9/10 cases on stock cooling and if it sucks the review will be like
Its HOT and LOUD so when someone googles a card b4 buying thats what he will pop up in hes face.

LoadsaMoney · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:43

Panos said:
Nvidia didn't surprised you then?

Lets not forget this one, while everyone was hammering those of us who said that the Ti will be over £1000, wccftech was posting this and was used as "proof".

Hahahah, laughing @ Wccftech not you @LoadsaMoney

You laughed at that post as most of us here

TNA · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:43

Gregster said:
Thanks and I certainly will enjoy RayTracing. You stick to whining and we will both be happy

Lol

Well I can back you up Gregster. Being on 4K for nearly 4 years I have played many games at 30fps and have been perfectly happy doing so. Sure, it might not be quite buttery smooth like 60fps, but it depends on the game. As you say, a game like Tomb Raider is easily enjoyed at 30fps with G-Sync to get all the eye candy.

Panos · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:44

Zeed said:
So You are saying that having GOOD stock cooling is bad thing ?? Especially when it suppose to be super quiet ?? OKKKKK

You ignored the fact that the chip is HUGE requiring such cooler, and even Der8auer says that going to need A LOT of power.
If Nvidia was going to do the same mistake with AMD selling it with their standard blower, there was going to be mayhem about the heat and performance of that chip.

Pls think about it.

LoadsaMoney · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:46

I thought this ray tracing was only for the 20 series, so those who don't have an RTX 20 card, will just have the ray tracing option greyed out in the games options, so won't be able to turn it on, as can't do it ?

Panos · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:46

Gregster said:
I really do hope UBI jump on this with TD2, as I am a massive TD fan and still play it when I get time. I am not such a BF fan nowadays but might have to get BFV just because it has RT in.

@KentMan
The Division 2 is AMD title and not Gimpworks one. Which means if they add Ray tracing to the game, it will work on Pascal cards

As RadeonRays 2.0 supports programming for both GCN and CUDA cores.

Rroff · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:46

Panos said:
The yields/profit argument @Boomstick777 mentioned is valid mate.

Nope its a load of BS - yields are as expected for the size of the core on the Titan V and infact way better than should really be feasible with a core that size once 12FF matured - gaming variants based on Volta would ostensibly have been much smaller cores and hence more traditional yield story. Volta was ramped up for commercial supply without any significant yield issues outside of expectations for the size.

But yes the size of the cores for Turing is going to have some cost implications as you won't be getting many from a wafer at those sizes.

But to claim Volta was a disaster due to yields is completely missing what Volta was all about.

Zeed · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:48

Gibbo said:
Them sticking with 12nm gives them better production as now 12nm is tried and tested process for them.

Moving to 10nm or lower right now would just create big shortages like Pascal and how Intel are currently facing.

They simply don’t want a situation again like Pascal where they cannot meet demand.

Sticking with 12nm now they have it sussed is better for them as this time round supply is much better from day 1, people won’t be waiting for months!

TNA said:
Lol

Well I can back you up Gregster. Being on 4K for nearly 4 years I have played many games at 30fps and have been perfectly happy doing so. Sure, it might not be quite buttery smooth like 60fps, but it depends on the game. As you say, a game like Tomb Raider is easily enjoyed at 30fps with G-Sync to get all the eye candy.

Used to play Duke nukem 3d in 240p @ 9fps using virtual memory from hard drive in dos back in 90s on my pc. Could have dreamed about 30fps .

Besides that 24fps is ALL we need for true cinematic expirience hahahahaha

Panos · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:48

Rroff said:
Nope its a load of BS - yields are as expected for the size of the core on the Titan V and infact way better than should really be feasible with a core that size once 12FF matured - gaming variants based on Volta would ostensibly have been much smaller cores and hence more traditional yield story. Volta was ramped up for commercial supply without any significant yield issues outside of expectations for the size.

But yes the size of the cores for Turing is going to have some cost implications as you won't be getting many from a wafer at those sizes.

It is not only the amount you get per waffer but also the bad chips. There is bound to be faulty transistors making whole chips going down the drain.
That raises cost if the chips are big compared to smaller ones.

AdoredTV has a great technical video explaining those things with numbers including waffer sizes, wields etc. It worth watching how production works.

Silent_Scone · 21 Aug 2018 at 13:49

Rroff said:
Nope its a load of BS - yields are as expected for the size of the core on the Titan V and infact way better than should really be feasible with a core that size once 12FF matured - gaming variants based on Volta would ostensibly have been much smaller cores and hence more traditional yield story. Volta was ramped up for commercial supply without any significant yield issues outside of expectations for the size.

But yes the size of the cores for Turing is going to have some cost implications as you won't be getting many from a wafer at those sizes.

But to claim Volta was a disaster due to yields is completely missing what Volta was all about.

You could say it's complete fabrication on fabrication...lol