The RTX 3080 TI isn't going to be- EDIT - No We Were All Wrong!

Perfect_Chaos · 8 Aug 2020 at 10:14

Grim5 said:
I heard it has multiple hdmi 2.1 ports, so you can get 4K 120hz with Gsync on an LG OLED TV, best TVs by the way, unmatched color contrast, responsiveness and pixel refresh. Does anyone else have an OLED and excited about hdmi 2.1?

Not sure why people seem to love OLED so much? Reading up and looking at videos people complain of stutter. Also, knowing my luck it would easily get burn in like my Vita did, I would have to be way too careful.

Are gamers replacing monitors with TVs because 4k high hz monitors are near the same price as them or something?

gpuerrilla · 8 Aug 2020 at 12:07

Yeah I think some TV's are offering better value. Although I dont think a gigantic 40+" display is what I would use as a PC monitor. I can see them doubling up for watching movies, console gaming then use-case PC stuff, but not regular work tasks and web browsing I cant.

TNA · 8 Aug 2020 at 13:25

Perfect_Chaos said:
Not sure why people seem to love OLED so much? Reading up and looking at videos people complain of stutter. Also, knowing my luck it would easily get burn in like my Vita did, I would have to be way too careful.

Are gamers replacing monitors with TVs because 4k high hz monitors are near the same price as them or something?

Much better image quality and proper HDR for starters I would say.

g67575 · 8 Aug 2020 at 14:30

already got a 4k monitor years ago. The main concern for most with a 4k monitor is that they dont have a powerful enough GPU to actually run games at that resolution, unless you are lucky enough to have a 1080 ti or 2080 ti. If I brought another 4k display, I would try to find a smaller one, ideally 14-15 inches as that would provide much better image quaility than say a 28" -40" display. In theory, your eyes cannot see additional pixels beyond approx 300 pixels per inch, this is the point were aliasing / jagged edges should no longer be an issue. In other words, pixel density is a more important concept than resolution alone (at least, for gamers).

If you can't bare using a small 4k monitor, id say wait for affordable 8k monitors and don't buy a monitor / display over 28/29 inches or you wont get the full image quality benefit from upgrading. you would also need a GPU with a very high pixel rate, probably at least 300 GPixel/s (about double the spec of the rtx 2080 ti). I think multi GPU graphics cards will be a necessity for 8k @ 60fps.

HDMI 2.1 is an important upgrade too for refresh rate, but entirely optional.

Still, its nice to be able to sit close to a 4k screen and not notice individual pixels like you often can on lower res screens.

ViRuS2k · 8 Aug 2020 at 15:02

i already own a LGTV but its only hdmi 2.0 i think lol B6 model still the picture quality is amazing i will never go back to normal led tv`s there is a reason why you pay a premium for a 4k HDR OLED compaired to a 4k standard afair lol
though i will be upgrading that to a 2021 model when they get released early next year

McGraw · 8 Aug 2020 at 17:24

Th0nt said:
Yeah I think some TV's are offering better value. Although I dont think a gigantic 40+" display is what I would use as a PC monitor. I can see them doubling up for watching movies, console gaming then use-case PC stuff, but not regular work tasks and web browsing I cant.

The whole point of a big monitor is that you’ve got the screen space and resolution if you need it...but you don’t have to.

use smaller multiple windows or scale text up.

love using a 40” Panasonic tv as a monitor.

g67575 · 9 Aug 2020 at 00:06

I guess we are talking about the fascinating subject of monitors and tvs from now on :confused:

McGraw · 9 Aug 2020 at 01:10

ViRuS2k said:
Anyone have any more information regarding the 3080TI as im holding out for one with itchy fingers lol
i hope it comes out before CyberPunk gets released :/

if this thread hadn’t been created in the first place (it shouldn’t have by the way), the ampere thread would leave you just as clueless.

McGraw · 9 Aug 2020 at 01:11

g67575 said:
I guess we are talking about the fascinating subject of monitors and tvs from now on

yes but this thread shouldn’t even exist

g67575 · 9 Aug 2020 at 01:26

Maybe it doesn't, maybe none of this is real *existential crisis intensifies*

Skynet5 · 9 Aug 2020 at 09:04

ViRuS2k said:
i already own a LGTV but its only hdmi 2.0 i think lol B6 model still the picture quality is amazing i will never go back to normal led tv`s there is a reason why you pay a premium for a 4k HDR OLED compaired to a 4k standard afair lol
though i will be upgrading that to a 2021 model when they get released early next year

It's a great TV. But I'll be running it until dies.

five8five · 10 Aug 2020 at 12:55

g67575 said:
Another other thing that occurs to me is that AMD's statement of +50% performance per watt vs RDNA v1 can't be true, simply because the Xbox series X GPU does not perform 50% better than the 5700 XT (with a TDP of 225w), even if you scale up the power consumption + performance of the console GPU a bit from 200w to 225W (assuming an optimistic 12.5% performance increase). Here's what you would actually get:

Texture rate 12.4% increase
Pixel rate: 34.7% increase
TFlops 40.1% increase

Interesting point about the +50% performance per watt.

I've seen it referred to as "up to +50% performance per watt" and "aiming for +50% performance per watt" which could vastly differ from 50% at the end of the day.

I asked in the Big Navi thread if AMD had officially confirmed that they'd achieved "+50% performance per watt". I didn't get a single response to confirm it.

In that thread, "+50% performance per watt" seems to be pretty much universally used to extrapolate Big Navi performance from the 5700XT, which as I mentioned earlier could be very misleading.

Twinz · 10 Aug 2020 at 13:40

Looking at what AMD has recently done in the laptop segment with "performance per watt" makes me optimistic.

LePhuronn · 10 Aug 2020 at 13:57

g67575 said:
Another other thing that occurs to me is that AMD's statement of +50% performance per watt vs RDNA v1 can't be true, simply because the Xbox series X GPU does not perform 50% better than the 5700 XT (with a TDP of 225w), even if you scale up the power consumption + performance of the console GPU a bit from 200w to 225W (assuming an optimistic 12.5% performance increase)

The XSX is running the entire APU at 200W. You'd need to rip out those 52CUs and run them alone at 225W to compare against the 5700 XT to see if the 50% ppw boost has occured.

five8five · 10 Aug 2020 at 15:33

Twinz said:
Looking at what AMD has recently done in the laptop segment with "performance per watt" makes me optimistic.

They have made some good strides on GPU efficiency. I'm just basing my scepticism on the fact that the +50% doesn't seem to have been confirmed yet and the previous generations of top-end cards.

gpuerrilla · 10 Aug 2020 at 20:59

We all know it wont be +50% as its not only too optimistic, but I think the original content said "up to 50%" which is entirely different..?

LePhuronn · 10 Aug 2020 at 22:44

Th0nt said:
We all know it wont be +50% as its not only too optimistic, but I think the original content said "up to 50%" which is entirely different..?

If AMD don't achieve +50% ppw then they've failed in their design goal. It's that simple, unfortunately.

g67575 · 10 Aug 2020 at 22:48

It's the 200w TDP (estimate I think) of the Xbox Series X GPU that gives me some hope for the performance of RDNA 2 desktop GPUs.

Power efficiency (although improved from the massive TDP of Vega) was one of the main things that prevented RDNA v1 GPUs from competing at the high end with NV. If the TDP of the 5700 XT had been 150w, they might've been able to double it's performance in a high end model.

Also, the preliminary specs show that Series X GPU is faster than all previous AMD GPUs, and slightly faster than the Nvidia RTX 2080 Super and GTX 1080 Ti (at least on paper). And more than 2x the theoretical performance of my current R9 390

Do most of us need more than a 50% improvement over the 5700 XT? Although, I can see why people with a RTX 2080 / RTX 2080 TI might end up being a bit disappointed, if looking for a substantial upgrade.

LePhuronn · 11 Aug 2020 at 01:13

g67575 said:
Do most of us need more than a 50% improvement over the 5700 XT?

Yes, we ALL need it. AMD haven't had a decent card in a bazillion years and Nvidia have slowed their progress in the face of zero competition. If AMD can indeed pull off their 50% uplift per watt with RDNA 2, that gives us a serious generational improvement for the first time in ages.

Consider this: 6700 XT with 40 CUs at 225W identical to its predecessor, but +50% ppw improvement puts AMD's mid-tier card 10% faster than the 2080 Ti. This is the shot in the arm consumer gaming space needs.

g67575 · 11 Aug 2020 at 01:21

Much more than 50% is gonna be tough for AMD. The Xbox Series X GPU already has 52 CUs and is slower than the RTX 2080 TI, so the higher end Desktop GPUs will definately need more than the Series X.

It would be a great though, if there was a GPU for a similar price as the 5700 XT, but similar / better performance than the RTX 2080 TI.