Considering replacing Gtx 1080TI for 2080TI, Worth the extra cost?

[Kaapstad]

30% was being quoted as the 'at best', not the average.

I have seen increases much higher than 50% but it is rare and depends on the software and drivers so using 25% to 30% as the average increase is quite reasonable.

I also think some of the reviews sites don't really help when comparing high end cards performance as using 1080p and even 1440p is often just a CPU bottleneck.

I find in the bench threads it is better to use 2160p and maximum settings to eliminate any CPU bottlenecks, this gives a pretty accurate guide to the difference in performance between high end cards. This does not mean it is a good idea to use those settings when gaming as the fps may suffer or the max settings give very little visual benefit.

The 2080 Ti is a really good card, unfortunately it is £400 more expensive than it should be for area of the market it is aimed at. This is a real R & D + marketing mess and NVidia deserve a lot of criticism for it.

 

[ninezerofive]

I can't wait for Intel to unveil what they have been working on. Hopefully something competitive that will make nvidia think twice about their pricing strategy.

 

[pmc25]

Hopefully nVidia will sort out their **** for the 7nm gen and give us a proper boost

I would hope their 7nm products will be better. Aside from the dodgy DRAM (which never should have shipped), I suspect the reason for so many failures is that the die sizes are so large, and defect rates are so much higher than normal. Binning them (literally), would cost more than they are prepared to absorb, so far too many more-than-slightly-defective dies are being pushed out. Calculated risk. Their mid range card (2060) is a 445mm chip. That's even more crazy than the 2080Ti being 754mm.

 

[pmc25]

Hopefully nVidia will sort out their **** for the 7nm gen and give us a proper boost

I would hope their 7nm products will be better. Aside from the dodgy DRAM (which never should have shipped), I suspect the reason for so many failures is that the die sizes are so large, and defect rates are so much higher than normal. Binning them (literally), would cost more than they are prepared to absorb, so far too many more-than-slightly-defective dies are being pushed out. Calculated risk. Their mid range card (2060) is a 445mm chip. That's even more crazy than the 2080Ti being 754mm.

I can't wait for Intel to unveil what they have been working on. Hopefully something competitive that will make nvidia think twice about their pricing strategy.

They seem to be hiring a lot of high flyers, and I doubt the research and testing budget is lacking. So it should be good.

But their foundry is a big question mark.

We will probably never see HEDT & server CPUs on 10nm now, and possibly even not desktop enthusiast. They've completely abandoned EUV plans for 10nm too. The first generation of their discrete GPUs are supposed to come in H1 2020 on their 10nm process. Will it be good enough, will the yields be good enough, will they be able to produce enough? If performance up until now determines the next year or so, it's quite doubtful. Much was made of Raja meeting Samsung execs in Korea, but if they'd closed a deal to do the chips, they would be misleading investors by continuing to say that it would launch on their 10nm process - surely it would be on Samsung 7nm LPP EUV if they had done that deal. Also they're less than a year out from launch ... they'd have to know by now if they were going 10nm Intel DUV or Samsung 7nm LPP EUV. So I find that doubtful.

2021 H1 is supposed to be the 2nd generation on their 7nm EUV process. Intel are pinning their hopes on that to catch up to AMD on the CPU side. But, again, 10nm was so badly delayed, underperforming, and had such disastrous yields that their 7nm is very questionable too - it's been pushed back twice already too. Either way, they're nearly 2 years behind Samsung on EUV, and nearly 18 months behind TSMC. That's a huge deficit.

IMO if their process problems continue, it could end up sinking the whole project.

 

[Grim5]

I have seen increases much higher than 50% but it is rare and depends on the software and drivers so using 25% to 30% as the average increase is quite reasonable.

I also think some of the reviews sites don't really help when comparing high end cards performance as using 1080p and even 1440p is often just a CPU bottleneck.

Well I've seen people trying to quote low performance numbers from the 2080ti using 1080p and 1440p results from places like HardwareUnboxed so nothing would surprise me anymore.

Those same people are going to be in for a shock as time goes on because the list of cards with lackluster low resolution performance will continue to grow due to CPU IPC remaining so flat generation after generation, can't wait for the complaining then "why release a new $500 gpu when it's 1080p performance is the same as 3 years ago, omg nvidia/amd/intel or *insert manufacturer name here*"

 

[JediFragger]

Their mid range card (2060) is a 445mm chip.

Jesus that's pretty damn horrific! Nigh-on 1080Ti size...

 

[Grim5]

Jesus that's pretty damn horrific! Nigh-on 1080Ti size...

1080 performance plus RT and Tensor cores, sounds about right and good efficiency too

 

[varkanoid]

I got a 2060 whilst my 2080ti is being RMA'd and I`m quite pleased with it. The Gigabyte Windforce cooler keeps it under 75c which isnt too bad for air. Not tried OC'ing it yet.