NVIDIA ‘Ampere’ 8nm Graphics Cards

[HRL]

It didn't matter that TnL had no games because the GPU had a nice generational bump in performance.

However, RTX didn't have a bump in performance. It basically matched Pascal.

At potato resolutions, maybe. At higher res the 2080Ti has way more legs than a 1080Ti.

 

[3t3P]

Nvidia, as always, are deviously clever with marketing, thereby making ray tracing synonymous with RTX when they can be mutually exclusive things.

I suppose without AMD joing the DXR fray at the same time they will be better known/have greater mindshare for hardware based ray tracing.

 

[loonyk]

Pricing MSRP:
1080ti - 699$
2080ti - 999+$
3080ti - 1399+$
you watch

 

[XeNoNF50]

Pricing MSRP:
1080ti - 699$
2080ti - 999+$
3080ti - 1399+$
you watch

I can see it - but at the same time I'm not entirely certain they will be that stupid! Reckon it'll be a smaller increase to 1099+$

 

[varkanoid]

I belive it whist there are still many 2080ti cards over $999 no way will they bring the 3080ti down whilst 2080ti stocks are about. It will be first adopters tax. Sad thing is when the 2080ti's are gone and the 3080ti settles nearer to $1000 everyone will be saying its a good price!

Just to give you some real world terms if I had £1400 and the choice was between a 3080ti and a LG C9 OLED then the TV every time!

 

[CuriousTomCat]

At potato resolutions, maybe. At higher res the 2080Ti has way more legs than a 1080Ti.

The 2080Ti is like a higher tier due to the higher price. They may as well have called it a 1090Ti and kept the 1080Ti at $699.

Normally that $699 would get you a 40% faster card when the next gen comes out. It didn't. There's no performance gain, just a more expensive tier.

 

[4K8KW10]

I’m hoping that the next gen comes on in leaps and bounds for RT but the current crop still do a good job if the devs get it right.

Currently playing the new COD @ 4K/60 with RT and HDR enabled. It looks the bee’s knees TBH.

Have to use a mild OC to keep it at 60Hz granted, but it’s solid as a rock in MP, and pretty damned impressive in SP too.

Admittedly that’s on a 2080Ti and it’s clearly GPU limited. My 2700X doesn’t get anywhere near 100% usage.

Looking forward at seeing AMD’s implementation but if they stick to hardware, Nvidia’s next gen should be flipping fantastic.

Your 2700X cannot get anywhere near 100% usage because the games are not coded to do this.
If game developers do it, most people who have weaker CPUs will start complaining that they cannot play.

 

[malachi]

And I went and purchased an 2070 Super 4 hours ago.

With the high prices of 2080ti etc. I might be sticking to it for a while!

 

[AndreiD]

It all depends on how it's implemented and how it's priced.

IMO it shouldn't be released at all until it has negligible impact on performance for the target resolution of a particular card, without the use of trickery like DLSS

So don't release any new features until they have negligible impact on performance? With that logic no more Anti-Aliasing, no more Ambient Occlusion, no more Screen Space Reflections, no more Subsurface Scattering, no more Tessellation, etc. etc. etc.
All new graphical features came with hefty performance impact, does nobody really remember the first time more advanced AA techniques were starting being used and the performance impact they had?

Why are people even arguing against progress? If you feel like you don't need a feature and a GPU is overpriced to you, just don't buy it.
Though I guess if it was up to some people on here we'd still have early 2000s 3D graphics.

 

[3t3P]

It's true can't remember last time I thought about AA in game and the performance impact it would have.

Also don't often think 'my god this game has bad AA implementation'.

Some patience is required methinks.

 

[ljt]

So don't release any new features until they have negligible impact on performance? With that logic no more Anti-Aliasing, no more Ambient Occlusion, no more Screen Space Reflections, no more Subsurface Scattering, no more Tessellation, etc. etc. etc.
All new graphical features came with hefty performance impact, does nobody really remember the first time more advanced AA techniques were starting being used and the performance impact they had?

Why are people even arguing against progress? If you feel like you don't need a feature and a GPU is overpriced to you, just don't buy it.
Though I guess if it was up to some people on here we'd still have early 2000s 3D graphics.

Equally though those features you mentioned didn't require new hardware cores to work, and they didn't add a hefty price premium on top of their predecessors either.

For example, lets take the game "Control" which has one of the better and most comprehensive ray tracing implementations.

Now a 2060 on its pure raster performance can handle it at 1080p 60Hz without ray tracing, but if you enable ray tracing it knocks it down to 720p render resolution to get acceptable frame rates. And on top of all that it costs more than it's predecessor. What I was saying is make the ray tracing on par with raster before releasing it, as the raster to ray tracing performance is miss-matched on these cards.

 

[AndreiD]

Equally though those features you mentioned didn't require new hardware cores to work, and they didn't add a hefty price premium on top of their predecessors either.

For example, lets take the game "Control" which has one of the better and most comprehensive ray tracing implementations.

Now a 2060 on its pure raster performance can handle it at 1080p 60Hz without ray tracing, but if you enable ray tracing it knocks it down to 720p render resolution to get acceptable frame rates. And on top of all that it costs more than it's predecessor. What I was saying is make the ray tracing on par with raster before releasing it, as the raster to ray tracing performance is miss-matched on these cards.

Ray Tracing doesn't require new hardware to work though, the RT Cores in Turing just accelerate that workload. The price premium comes from the fact that these features take die space.
The 2060 is only comparable to the 1060 in name only, die size, cuda count, etc. are all very different. Again, if a GPU isn't price competitive, don't buy it. If you don't like a feature or you feel it impacts performance too much, don't use it. AMD now has alternatives without any RT for the 2060 to 2070 segment.

Like I said before, someone had to do it first. For better or worse there's a considerable install base now with accelerated Ray Tracing, which means more developers will start using the feature and we might actually get some good implementations.

 

[Rroff]

Ray Tracing doesn't require new hardware to work though, the RT Cores in Turing just accelerate that workload. The price premium comes from the fact that these features take die space.
The 2060 is only comparable to the 1060 in name only, die size, cuda count, etc. are all very different. Again, if a GPU isn't price competitive, don't buy it. If you don't like a feature or you feel it impacts performance too much, don't use it. AMD now has alternatives without any RT for the 2060 to 2070 segment.

Like I said before, someone had to do it first. For better or worse there's a considerable install base now with accelerated Ray Tracing, which means more developers will start using the feature and we might actually get some good implementations.

Yeah technically Pascal does ray tracing in hardware (more of a hybrid hardware/softeware really but still) it just doesn't have dedicated hardware units for it that significantly accelerate the performance.

 

[ljt]

Ray Tracing doesn't require new hardware to work though, the RT Cores in Turing just accelerate that workload. The price premium comes from the fact that these features take die space.
The 2060 is only comparable to the 1060 in name only, die size, cuda count, etc. are all very different. Again, if a GPU isn't price competitive, don't buy it. If you don't like a feature or you feel it impacts performance too much, don't use it. AMD now has alternatives without any RT for the 2060 to 2070 segment.

Like I said before, someone had to do it first. For better or worse there's a considerable install base now with accelerated Ray Tracing, which means more developers will start using the feature and we might actually get some good implementations.

I didn't buy one nor will I. I don't really want to pay extra as an early adopter of a feature I personally don't think is ready yet. If they were priced the same as their predecessors I would have but my 1080ti will last me fine for a while until the 80ti class card comes back down to what it used to be, and if it doesn't then I will wait until I get the same performance increase I got going from the 980ti to the 1080ti for the same price.

 

[BigBANGtheory]

The price premium comes from the fact that these features take die space.

But not a large price premium on top of an already inflated market combined with incremental performance gains in rasterisation. That’s the problem you can’t separate one from the other because its all bundled together. Nvidia are taking the **** and trying to use marketing to make the taste sweeter.

Yeah don’t buy into it absolutely, skip generation after generation until a true generational successor is on offer imho

 

[AndreiD]

@BigBANGtheory price increases are partly die size, partly Nvidia not having any competition from AMD.
Next gen might be different because Navi seems competitive and Intel is entering the market too.

@ljt That's basically all there is to it, accelerated RT right now is in its 1st generation, with all of the issues that come with being an early adopter. If you want to avoid that just wait for next gen stuff, AMD should have theirs and Ampere supposedly will improve RT acceleration considerably over Turing (rumored).

 

[KillBoY_UK]

It didn't matter that TnL had no games because the GPU had a nice generational bump in performance.

However, RTX didn't have a bump in performance. It basically matched Pascal.

1. You are changing the goal posts, basing a new feature like RTX based on support or results

2. As for the pascal comment LOL, 20-30% boost in rasterization performance, reworked SM's and RTX on a not much smaller process (remember AMD only just match Pascals performance per watt with a 'new' architecture and process half he size), rasterization jump is is impressive considering the lack of proper new node but not as impressive as Kepler to Maxwell.

3. You are not addressing the pixel shader side of what I said as you prob well know Pixel shaders did reduce performance a lot in the early days.

4. As for the TnL comment, back when TnL was new chips where smaller and had less power draw do designers could aforder to brute force performance jump from Fahrenheit to Celsius architectures by doubling the number the pixel and texture pipelines etc. TLDR, die space and power was less of an issue 15-20 years ago. Turing does offer a jump in rasterization performance, reason why Turning and RTX gets as much stick is the price of the cards (and righlty so in that regard) but nVidia can get away with it as AMD has been absent from the high end almost 4 and a half years.

Im RELAY looking forward 2020, intel Xe on the since new 7nm cards from nvidia

Maybe this mythical "big Navi" might show up too up i subset it would drop not long before or after nvidia's new card but offer "3080" performance at best. Going by the performance and the powerdraw of current 7nm Navi, this is educated guess on my part though.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

2. As for the pascal comment LOL, 20-30% boost in rasterization performance, reworked SM's and RTX on a not much smaller process (remember AMD only just match Pascals performance per watt with a 'new' architecture and process half he size), rasterization jump is is impressive considering the lack of proper new node but not as impressive as Kepler to Maxwell.

1080ti was about £650 I think. How does a £650 RTX card compare? Is there really a 20-30% jump in rasterisation?

 

[Quartz]

However, RTX didn't have a bump in performance. It basically matched Pascal.

Pretty much every benchmark and test says otherwise.

 

[greatash]

1080ti was about £650 I think. How does a £650 RTX card compare? Is there really a 20-30% jump in rasterisation?

2080 is 8% faster than the 1080Ti according to techpowerup relative performance. Across the whole range its pretty much the same, 2060 is 10-15% faster than 1070 (or same perf as 1070ti), 2070 10% faster than 1080 etc. Must be the lowest jump in performance in the history of GPUs. Its slightly better with the Supers being released but still really small.