Brent has the 2080Ti getting 28.5 fps and the 3080 getting 29 fps @ 4k.
-
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.
AMD Navi 23 ‘NVIDIA Killer’ GPU Rumored to Support Hardware Ray Tracing, Coming Next Year
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
- Status
Brent has the 2080Ti getting 28.5 fps and the 3080 getting 29 fps @ 4k.
That looks more like it thank you, probably a different area in the game from the other slide.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2016
- Posts
- 1,384
You and Brent need to hit that bong again.
this is how Brent @ FPS review tests.
Guru 3d do this.
The FPS review test seems more real world to me and since they give details of the route can be more easily independently verified.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,191
Right there is a serious problem with this testing methodology.
The lowest FPS does not = the most demanding on the GPU. That is far too simplistic, the lowest FPS could be indicative of a CPU derived bottleneck, in which case he's not testing GPU performance, he's testing CPU performance.
It looks to me in his quest to find the point of lowest FPS that what he's stumbled upon is a CPU bottleneck and because he doesn't understand these nuances that's what his slides show, not the GPU's performance, its the CPU's performance limitations in this scenario.
So few cares about 4k.
1080p and 1440p is the gamers chosen resolution today.
while 4k and widescreen are gaining its still, not what these cards showcase.
21% 3080 vs 2080ti at 1440p is anyone actually impressed?
at 320w or whatever?
8nm samsung is broken as a node.
Ball in the AMD corner now
1) This is the [H]ardOCP GPU reviewer. Brent Justice.
2) He is not looking for the lowest FPS spot, just pointing out that the frame rates are lowest when taking off and landing, which makes sense since taking off and landing will involve more being rendered which will lower frame rate.
3) If it was CPU limited @4k why would reducing the graphics settings improve frame rate by nearly 50% and bring the numbers in line with HUB and Guru 3d?
Not sure I agreed with Steve’s comment on people not being bothered at 4K. I think this new generation of cards will drive more people to 4K, especially when people look at the consoles that are “4K”.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2016
- Posts
- 1,384
Exactly.
People buying now will be buying a 4K card. 1440p is relevant but 4K is where these new GFX cards will do battle in the hearts and minds of the consumer.
I can find 3 reviews.
FPS Review tested at Ultra and High End.
HUB/Techspot tested at High and their high tests were about the same as the FPS review High but they did not in the written review say where they tested.
Guru 3d tested at Ultra and diverge from FPS Review Ultra tests.
Seems strange that lowering GPU load in a supposedly CPU limited scenario would increase frame rate by 50%. Also when looking at the Techspot indepth benchmarks of Flight Sim they have Jackson (Atlanta international) as the highest FPS (39 average, 30 1% low on the 2080ti) airport at 4k Ultra compared to something like New York which totally tanked performance to sub 20fps on the 2080Ti.
Flight Sim is a rather large game so benchmarks are going to vary. Testing in NY will give very different results to testing over the ocean at 30k feet.
Problem with 4k is the lack of 120hz panels at a reasonable size. Anything over 40 inches is way too big anything under 30 is too small. For me anyway
Some facts from someone who would buy NV or AMD:
if you think Nvidia made a poor choice with 8nm Samsung, reconsider. The transistor density is so far higher (45.1M / mm²) than 7nm RDNA 2 console GPUs (42.5M / mm²). Theyve boosted performance from the last gen by ~50%, with just a 50% increase in transistor count (from RTX 2080 TI to RTX 3080).
Turing GPUs were build with transistors with just 24.7M / mm².
8nm does not necessarily mean worse than 7nm.
if you think Nvidia made a poor choice with 8nm Samsung, reconsider. The transistor density is so far higher (45.1M / mm²) than 7nm RDNA 2 console GPUs (42.5M / mm²). Theyve boosted performance from the last gen by ~50%, with just a 50% increase in transistor count (from RTX 2080 TI to RTX 3080).
Turing GPUs were build with transistors with just 24.7M / mm².
8nm does not necessarily mean worse than 7nm.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,196
By the looks of the reviews, even a 3080 isn't quite going to be a 4k@120 card, just yet.
You always doI did a better job with the review thread!!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,769
- Location
- Planet Earth
You always do
- Status