NVIDIA ‘Ampere’ 8nm Graphics Cards

[Adrian1976]

Yep totally agree. Couldn't give a fluff what synthetic numbers look like.

Ofc we all want real world gaming performance figures - FPS, thermals and noise

+1 Agreed completely.

 

[Adrian1976]

It's the synthetic benchmarks I have no interest in, gaming benchmarks from actual games I'm all over like a bad rash!

+1 Same here not interested 1 hoot lol.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Quake 2 RTX will run on a 1080ti - it will just be a lot slower than 2000 and 3000 series cards - talking 30 FPS at 720p kind of performance.

Right I didn't know that, but wow it's almost like going back 20 years lol.

My Titan V managed 15 fps at 3440x1440, and Was only playable at 480p, and I still couldn't even use all the Ray Tracer options.

https://imgur.com/ctn1IXx

https://imgur.com/30tPIQd

 

[Sargatanas2511]

It's the synthetic benchmarks I have no interest in, gaming benchmarks from actual games I'm all over like a bad rash!

Synthetics for life! Why play a game when you can watch numbers instead?

 

[Satchfanuk]

Warning: stop the bickering or I’ll put on my leather jacket and slap someone with a 12 pin power connector.

I hope that's an official 12 pin

 

[Rroff]

My Titan V managed 15 fps at 3440x1440, and Was only playable at 480p, and I still couldn't even use all the Ray Tracer options.

https://imgur.com/ctn1IXx

https://imgur.com/30tPIQd

Not sure when you played it but there was an update more recently that increases both quality and performance. I get a fairly playable framerate at 800x600 on my 1070... and like 7-10 FPS at 1440p (100% resolution) with all settings enabled and 2 bounces on reflections/transparency.

It is the only reason I'm considering a 3000 series GPU at this point TBH as the games I actually play are fine on my 1070 at the moment but I do a fair bit of Quake 2 RTX stuff.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Not sure when you played it but there was an update more recently that increases both quality and performance. I get a fairly playable framerate at 800x600 on my 1070... and like 7-10 FPS at 1440p (100% resolution) with all settings enabled and 2 bounces on reflections/transparency.

I played it just after it was released.

 

[Rroff]

They should have got someone to make some custom maps for release - the renderer is capable of far better than the stock maps can show off.

It is a good performance benchmark none the less as the whole GI implementation uses path tracing and related techniques without using traditional lighting or reflection techniques and is only mildly impacted by scene complexity in terms of traditional features like polygon counts and so on.

 

[WesleyBurns]

What socks are we expecting on the 17th at 2PM? I have about 3 cards I would pick, first one to show stock I am buying.
Last time I got stuck in no mans land was with the 3950X .... 4000 soon too!

 

[Guest2]

Haha, I've not been able to play any sort of quake rtx being on this 1080ti but I'll take your word for it, I'll be looking for the quake rtx benchmark now, that'd be interesting to see.

Download is free on Steam. It just uses the shareware version of Quake II.

To launch the benchmark press tilde (~) then enter the following
timedemo 1
demo demo1

Can be used for comparing OpenGL to RTX

For reference my 2080Ti does the following

RTX high global illumination
3440x1440 - 42.7fps
1080p - 97 fps
720p - 190fps

Open GL high settings
3440x1440 - 1867fps
1080p - 1903fps

Granted the lower settings will be much higher fps on a machine with a newer CPU than mine but it doesnt bother me I can't play games in Open GL at 2000fps in 1080p

For testing how well current hardware handles global illumination, path tracing etc. though, its very good. It does actually make a huge different to the game atmosphere (once you lower the default brightless)

Quake II is gritty and looks fantastic with RTX hardware - it's not support to be super bright though

 

[Rroff]

720p - 190fps

At 720p I get 17 FPS with everything maxed 100% resolution scaling on my 1070, 30 FPS with dynamic resolution scaling... jumps up quite a bit at 800x600 though - get a fairly playable 40 odd FPS (with 100% scale).

Granted the lower settings will be much more on a machine with a new CPU than mine but it doesnt bother me I can't play games at 2000fps from 20 years ago in 1080p

While there are some improvements - the game literally uses 0-2% CPU on a modern rig even while rendering high frame rates - a newer CPU probably won't gain much (that is how GPU limited RTX is).

 

[Guest2]

At 720p I get 17 FPS with everything maxed 100% resolution scaling on my 1070, 30 FPS with dynamic resolution scaling... jumps up quite a bit at 800x600 though - get a fairly playable 40 odd FPS.

The dynamic scaling option works very well. I think I played original Quake II at about 15 fps when it was released

 

[Quartz]

Also the 8k claim, I think there's a new variant of DLSS which upscales from 4k to 8k,

If memmory serves the original dataset for DLSS was shot at 16k, so 8k is still a down-scale.

 

[Adrian1976]

Download is free on Steam. It just uses the shareware version of Quake II.

To launch the benchmark press tilde (~) then enter the following
timedemo 1
demo demo1

Can be used for comparing OpenGL to RTX

For reference my 2080Ti does the following

RTX high global illumination
3440x1440 - 42.7fps
1080p - 97 fps
720p - 190fps

Open GL high settings
3440x1440 - 1867fps
1080p - 1903fps

Granted the lower settings will be much higher fps on a machine with a newer CPU than mine but it doesnt bother me I can't play games in Open GL at 2000fps in 1080p

For testing how well current hardware handles global illumination, path tracing etc. though, its very good. It does actually make a huge different to the game atmosphere (once you lower the default brightless)

Quake II is gritty and looks fantastic with RTX hardware - it's not support to be super bright though

Thanks for that didn't realise it was on Steam, I'll take a look later and give it a whirl, see what this 1080ti chucks out in open GL.

Over 1800fps in 4k wow and we were gobsmacked by 60fps back in the day when the CPU eventually had a decent FPU lol.

 

[Guest2]

Over 1800fps in 4k wow and we were gobsmacked by 60fps back in the day when the CPU eventually had a decent FPU lol.

60fps was unheard of in the late 90s. 30fps was seen as a good standard from what I remember. Granded I never could get 30fps unless I played games at 640x480 (which I did) or before that 320x240, good old pre SVGA days

 

[Rroff]

The dynamic scaling option works very well. I think I played original Quake II at about 15 fps when it was released

IIRC 512x384 ran about mid 40s on my Voodoo 1 and 640x480 around 40 FPS.

 

[Guest2]

Have a look on the Steam screenshots, there a fantastic shot of '❝Trying to do modern graphics with Quake 2 RTX❞ which was created by Rroff on here I believe. Saved to my Imgur below, i'll remove it if you want me to

10fps but can see maybe the 3090 or 4000 series being able to put out 30 or 60fps

 

[Quartz]

Did Nvidia GIMP the clocks on the 2080 Ti in the Doom Eternal video? A french dude investigates:

I'm pleasantly surprised to find I can still understand him, despite not speaking French for many years.

 

[keyser]

As long as I can do this in Quake II RTX I'll be happy

 

[Guest2]

IIRC 512x384 ran about mid 40s on my Voodoo 1 and 640x480 around 40 FPS.

Think I was using a Matrox Mystique 220 or maybe even onboard 2mb graphics only. I don't think I got Voodoo until Voodoo 2 in maybe 1999. Poor kid (15 year old) saving for GPUs when most of my money went on Cidre, Smirnoff Ice, Hooch and 20/20