-
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.
8GB vs 11GB another 2080 vs 1080ti q
- Thread starter aoaaron
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 189
I had flashbacks of that Tom's Hardware article reading that line. Do you understand the finite nature of money and concept of budgets? If OP was willing to pay extra for the 2080 Ti and had the funds available to do so, he wouldn't be discussing these options.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,636
- Location
- London
I have a 1080 and game at 1440p. Shadow of War (or what ever it's called) is about the only game that has saturated my grandmother on my 1080.
Usually at 1440p vram is not over 4Gb.
---
Edit
I meant GPU!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,636
- Location
- London
The 1080ti is based on tech take came out in 2016. I know as stated earlier in thread where my money would go if buying new.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2017
- Posts
- 9,743
- Location
- Beds
That game is out of order and wants a talking to.
Yeh, there aren't many games that reach that level of vram useage @ 1080P, still something to consider though.
It definitely made my mind up that my next card will have greater than 8GB.
Probably a s/h 1080 Ti in a couple of years.
The Turing cards are not that different though than 2016 tech....
DLSS features exist today, just upscale 3200x1800 to 4K. Same performance, and possibly better visuals than upscaling 2560x1440 to 4K like Turing does. And you do not expect also from Nvidia to implement this on the games some time in the future.
As for Ray Tracing they are weak even for 1080p let alone higher resolutions. So a card that cannot do 2560x1440/3440x1440 Ray Tracing at respectable fps (80+) is as good as non existent feature.
And that leaves only the price.... So a GTX1080Ti is better than an RTX2080, and the RTX2080Ti has a stupid price tag of +100% for just 30% more perf.
Maybe next year gen, when there is a die shrink it could be better situation, but not now.
And I bet you, the RTX cards going to have the highest depreciation in 12 months, than any other card since the 8800GTX/GTS.
Maxwell lost 50% of their value over 4 years. Those Turing will lose more than 50% in just 1 year.
I love the way NVidia has made people think around £600 for a last gen GPU is a bargain....
I dont see it as a bargain, I see it as the lesser evil.
Also why should generation matter, you pay more simply because its "newer"?
I pay for performance not how new the tech is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,636
- Location
- London
The performance is nearly like for like and should over the long term favour the 2080 + RT + DLSS. If buying new and coming from a GPU where it is WORTH the upgrade I would still be buying a 2080 over the 1080ti.
Anyone with a 1070ti/1080 or 1080ti it is not worth upgrading to the 2000 series.
1070 maybe*
At 4k resolution maybe*
Anything less definitely.
(But not at these crazy prices.)
We are at the end of the day discussing the difference between a 1080ti and 2080. I personally feel it's worth spending the extra £130. But that's just me.
It's always just a personal choice at the end of the day. As you say, forget the 2080 if you already have a 1080Ti. Pointless sidegrade. At 4K, the 2080Ti certainly has appeal with all the power at its disposal, but it's genuinely appalling value. Has there EVER been such a poor value/performance card, outside of the Titans maybe? Not to my recollection. Yes it's a great card... you can't really say anything bad about it (RTX features aside which are as yet unproven)... it's really just the price and value which is the problem. It doesn't matter if you can easily afford one or not, that doesn't change the value argument.
Buying new, coming from a much older GPU, again at 4K the 2080Ti is compelling, but the 2080 still does a mighty fine job at that res... and it obviously depends what games you intend to play and how eager you are to play at Ultra settings without compromise (and what that's worth to you). Even at 4K, when buying new, the 2080 is the better value option and is no slouch.
The 2080 also does have more potential future proofing than the 1080Ti (as a 'buy new' option). The 2080 has room to grow... driver maturation alone should see to that. The 1080Ti is as good as it's ever going to get... but so may the 2080, who knows? In the long run, both the 2080 and 1080Ti could forever be neck and neck with nothing to separate them, but if one is going to pull ahead, it will only be the 2080. Worth the extra? Well that's a subjective question, no definitive answer. I'd just go with my gut personally... I don't think there's a wrong way to go.
Last edited:
The 2080 is based on tech that’s just been released...and yet it’s no faster...
Your point?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
This ^^
If you already have a 1080ti the 2080 isn't a viable upgrade but if you have are trying to decide which of the two to get grab the 2080. The 2080's performance will gradually pull ahead of the 1080ti's so if you want the card to last as long as possible buy from the newer range.
It wasn't that long ago that people were saying grab the 980ti instead of the 1070 to save a few quid as performance was very similar but as we see in new games like Forza Horizon 4 the 1070 has a substantial lead over the 980ti, That's not due to the 1070 being faster it's due to the driver team focusing less and less on maximising Maxwell's performance, It may even be fixed in the next driver update, my guess is that'll depend on how much flak Nvidia get over it, Nvidia's driver team aren't interested in squeezing every ounce of performance out of the older cards, we saw it with Kepler and we are starting to see it with Maxwell, Pascal's next so if you want a card to last 4 or 5 years get the newest as soon after it releases as possible.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
That's a fallacy,
8gb's is only 8gb's just like 4gb's is only 4gb's. With the Fury cards people were saying 4gb's of HBM is like 6gb's of GDDR5, it's not. However, I think 8 gb's is plenty, At worst you may find that in some games you need to drop a resource heavy setting by one. In Rise of the Tomb Raider those of us with a Fury card had to drop the texture setting down by one. The visual difference was imperceptible, I remember putting side by side images in a thread on this forum for comparison and it made no difference.
I just looked and I still have the pictures.
I don't think going with the 8 gb card will negatively impact your experience, Going for the older gen card may do a few years down the road.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,062
Exactly this^
I don't understand why some class potential future performance as "on a promise"(unless they own old GPU's
) when we've seen this happen multiple times now. I think it's a combination of focusing less on old gpu's, older gen cards already being pretty optimised anyway, but also simply down to optimising a new architecture too.Around £750 to spend (don't mind spending the extra over an old Ti), 2080 is a good choice. As good as an old Ti, potentially quite a bit faster in future, lower power consumption, RT to at least have a play with as new games are release....all enthusiasts do really want to see that, right? .
And even some current games are much faster with the 2080 (Wolfenstein 2 for example)
Last edited:
The only reason I bough the Giga 1080ti (moving from a 980 to play at 1440p) is because I am already stretching an extra £80 which I will have to find, I just can't excuse £250 extra. I just don't have the extra, and don't think it is worth it, if you told me for £250 extra I get the 2080ti I would probably save up.
DLSS is just TMAA. Raytracing is a long way off. 2080 is a weak card for raytracing.
Another thing about DLSS - it'll always be slower than no AA. And if you're 4k, you shouldn't have AA on, period. So, its for 1440p and lower.
in all other things, 2080 is 1% faster on average than a 1080ti. for £120 more.
£699 is actually MSRP adjusted for VAT. But that MSRP needs to drop. it's a pointless card atm.
the 2070 will be another pointless card. slower than 1080ti for £699? lol.
the 2070 *should* be £499 since the non-FE MSRP is $499. I doubt we will ever see that price. Not before 2019 for sure.
Another thing about DLSS - it'll always be slower than no AA. And if you're 4k, you shouldn't have AA on, period. So, its for 1440p and lower.
in all other things, 2080 is 1% faster on average than a 1080ti. for £120 more.
£699 is actually MSRP adjusted for VAT. But that MSRP needs to drop. it's a pointless card atm.
the 2070 will be another pointless card. slower than 1080ti for £699? lol.
the 2070 *should* be £499 since the non-FE MSRP is $499. I doubt we will ever see that price. Not before 2019 for sure.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,636
- Location
- London
My point is it's a two year old architecture. For £130 if one is not on a budget to me it's worth the extra to be on a architecture which Nvidia has built for the future.
We still do not know how RT and DLSS is going to perform in reality.
What the OP should really be doing is waiting it out to see how the initial few games fair which use RT and DLSS etc...
BF5 for example is not a long way off.
That depends from game to game. Some games like Final Fantasy 15 have jaggies and shimmering galore even at 4k unfortunately. Then there are others where the aliasing is so little that it looks better switched off than using say TAA which then blurs things a little.
Talk of TAA, it is not same in every game and the quality of it depends on how well it is implemented for the said game by the developers.
What I do is test games with or without any AA and see which I like before starting to play.
That's what people said about 1280x1024, and 1440x900, and 1920x1080, et al.
Did they? I don't remember reading anything like that. Until 4K we have always needed AA. Even now we will still need it in many titles imo, but at least there are some games now it can be played without
That said, we do need to remember that this stuff is subjective. Many people are happy gaming on a 1080p monitor for example and cannot see or appreciate the difference to 4K, where as I even easily see the difference from 1440p like day and night.