• 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.

Geforce GTX1180/2080 Speculation thread

KentMan said:
lol someone posted this on another forum regarding these new cards

This is NOT my own words, i merely copy pasted the below from elsewhere!

How about this wild theory.

NVIDIA hit a max with their CUDA cores and also a max with clocks. Meaning, they simply can't put any more of them in a chip and get more performance, and clocks topped at that magic 2ghz on current processes.
One little hint of that is Titan V, with it's amazing 5120 CUDA cores and ultra-fast HBM2 memory, is -barely- able to beat the Titan XP in games.

So, the company scratched their head... what can we give gamers to make them buy a next generation, we can't just sell Pascals forever... because we cant' give them more performance, it has hit a ceiling.

The answer was... well, ray-tracing.
But this wasn't meant for consumer cards, actually, that 10 years in development was VERY LIKELY for the media industry, giving ray-tracing acceleration to content creators, to sell incredibly expensive Quadro chips.

But when there was no alternative for the consumer chips.. BAM ! Harvested Quadro chips now sold as cut down RTX 2070/80/80 Ti.

I have a strong feeling that the new and amazing RTX chips will not beat Pascal equivalents at all (maybe 10% if lucky, and only at 4K), and that is because they will clock LOWER than pascal, due to the very big and complex chip (and power hungry, and hot)

Even more crazy wild theory:
- Even so, yields are very low for these (as they are originally huge, professional chips), and their availability will be weak for the entire next year.
- This pre-order stunt was done to grab as much cash on these defective chips before the truth comes out, because with those prices will be a very tough pill to swallow with just 10% performance uplift.
- They had no choice, and HAD TO RELEASE SOMETHING, because with the fall of mining craze, the market is inundated with 2nd hand Maxwells, Pascals and everything else, meaning very few people (relatively) would buy NEW ones.
- They know something about AMD, possibly Navi or Vega 2 WILL be much faster than expected, and it will beat both Pascal and Turing in raw horsepower, in all existing games.

The ray-tracing is supposed to be the savior of this gen, and that's why they pushed the marketing so hard for it, inventing crappy meaningless performance values (Jiga-rays, tensor-flops), instead of bragging of how much faster they are in all games run at 4K, like they did with previous 3-4 gens.

History will prove this theory right.. or wrong.
Guess we'll find out soon enough.
Click to expand...


Titan V can easily beat a Titan Xp in gaming and on average is a better overclocker too by a small margin.

HBM2 is not great for gaming and really needs a big overclock (over 1000 on the memory) to get the best out of the Titan V hence the switch to GDDR6 on Turing.

Below is a good example of the Titan V really showing its muscle on demanding software compared to Pascal.



luyiDyN.jpg



1 GPU 1080p

  1. Score 10000, GPU TitanV @1980/1010, Min FPS 57.35, Avg FPS 74.80, CPU 6950X @4.4, Post No.0538, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 388.59
  2. Score 9896, GPU TitanV @1920/1000, Min FPS 56.67, Avg FPS 74.02, CPU 7980XE @4.8, Post No.0536, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 388.59
  3. Score 7111, GPU TitanXP @2126/3276, Min FPS 41.68, Avg FPS 53.19, CPU 5930k @4.4, Post No.0375, rickyjb - Link Drivers 381.65
  4. Score 6882, GPU TitanP @2139/2812, Min FPS 41.42, Avg FPS 51.48, CPU 6700k @5.0, Post No.0048, JR23 - Link Drivers 381.65
  5. Score 6821, GPU TitanXP @2025/3152, Min FPS 40.45, Avg FPS 51.02, CPU 6950X @4.444, Post No.0096, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 381.65
  6. Score 6766, GPU TitanP @2135/2665, Min FPS 40.75, Avg FPS 50.61, CPU 6850k @4.4, Post No.0226, Silent_Scone - Link Drivers 381.65
  7. Score 6761, GPU TitanP @2126/2772, Min FPS 40.01, Avg FPS 50.57, CPU 6950X @4.0, Post No.0222, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 381.65
  8. Score 6748, GPU TitanP @2100/2782, Min FPS 39.78, Avg FPS 50.47, CPU 4770k @4.4, Post No.0132, fenchu - Link Drivers 378.78
  9. Score 6669, GPU TitanXP @1978/3218, Min FPS 40.38, Avg FPS 49.89, CPU 4930k @4.6, Post No.0106, FMTopfan - Link Drivers 381.65
  10. Score 6575, GPU TitanP @2050/2700, Min FPS 39.69, Avg FPS 49.18, CPU 5960X @4.6, Post No.0448, darket - Link Drivers 385.12
  11. Score 6541, GPU 1080 Ti @2151/3000, Min FPS 39.23, Avg FPS 48.92, CPU 7700k @5.2, Post No.0298, OC2000 - Link Drivers 381.65
  12. Score 6515, GPU 1080 Ti @2138/3062, Min FPS 39.31, Avg FPS 48.74, CPU 4790k @4.8, Post No.0208, The Artfull Bodger - Link Drivers 381.65
  13. Score 6485, GPU 1080 Ti @2126/3075, Min FPS 39.41, Avg FPS 48.51, CPU 6700k @4.8, Post No.0191, parvumsystems - Link Drivers 381.65
  14. Score 6448, GPU 1080 Ti @2114/3554, Min FPS 38.55, Avg FPS 48.23, CPU 6850k @4.1, Post No.0102, Gregster - Link Drivers 381.65
  15. Score 6432, GPU 1080 Ti @2088/3048, Min FPS 38.66, Avg FPS 48.11, CPU 7700k @5.0, Post No.0340, khemist - Link Drivers 382.05
  16. Score 6431, GPU 1080 Ti @2100/3075, Min FPS 38.49, Avg FPS 48.10, CPU 5960X @4.4, Post No.0140, [Death] - Link Drivers 381.65
  17. Score 6393, GPU 1080 Ti @2050/3032, Min FPS 38.99, Avg FPS 47.82, CPU 7820X @4.8, Post No.0586, uksoldierboy - Link Drivers 388.71
  18. Score 6362, GPU 1080 Ti @2101/3083, Min FPS 38.53, Avg FPS 47.58, CPU 3770k @4.8, Post No.0489, Gameruk - Link Drivers 378.78
  19. Score 6342, GPU 1080 Ti @2050/3000, Min FPS 38.31, Avg FPS 47.43, CPU 4770k @4.2, Post No.0576, Jonnygrunge - Link Drivers 390.65
  20. Score 6317, GPU 1080 Ti @2123/3050, Min FPS 37.76, Avg FPS 47.25, CPU 6700k @4.7, Post No.0093, Besty - Link Drivers 381.65
  21. Score 6310, GPU 1080 Ti @2070/3000, Min FPS 38.04, Avg FPS 47.20, CPU 7700k @5.0, Post No.0302, Robzere31 - Link Drivers 381.89
  22. Score 6294, GPU 1080 Ti @2025/3178, Min FPS 36.99, Avg FPS 47.08, CPU 5820k @4.5, Post No.0223, Az_GTi - Link Drivers 378.78
  23. Score 6282, GPU 1080 Ti @2037/2988, Min FPS 37.30, Avg FPS 46.99, CPU 1700 @3.8, Post No.0481, kitfit1 - Link Drivers 385.41
  24. Score 6247, GPU 1080 Ti @2050/3005, Min FPS 37.67, Avg FPS 46.73, CPU 1700X @3.9, Post No.0417, Scrumpy_Jack - Link Drivers 384.94
  25. Score 6222, GPU 1080 Ti @2038/3001, Min FPS 37.81, Avg FPS 46.54, CPU 4770k @4.3, Post No.0281, geordiejc - Link Drivers 381.65
  26. Score 6216, GPU 1080 Ti @2050/3002, Min FPS 37.68, Avg FPS 46.49, CPU 5820k @4.5, Post No.0189, stooeh - Link Drivers 378.92
  27. Score 6214, GPU 1080 Ti @2075/3000, Min FPS 37.28, Avg FPS 46.48, CPU 6700k @4.6, Post No.0377, kayomani - Link Drivers 382.19
  28. Score 6210, GPU 1080 Ti @2025/3033, Min FPS 37.73, Avg FPS 46.45, CPU 3960X @4.7, Post No.0154, FlyingScotsman - Link Drivers 381.65
  29. Score 6202, GPU 1080 Ti @2038/3002, Min FPS 37.22, Avg FPS 46.39, CPU 6700k @4.6, Post No.0305, N0ddie - Link Drivers 381.89
  30. Score 6199, GPU 1080 Ti @2025/3079, Min FPS 37.13, Avg FPS 46.37, CPU 4770k @4.2, Post No.0398, mrbluebear - Link Drivers 382.53
  31. Score 6186, GPU 1080 Ti @2000/3078, Min FPS 37.03, Avg FPS 46.27, CPU 3930k @4.4, Post No.0141, straxusii - Link Drivers 381.65
  32. Score 6181, GPU 1080 Ti @2075/3002, Min FPS 37.10, Avg FPS 46.23, CPU 4770k @4.3, Post No.0332, Choimaloy75 - Link Drivers 381.89
  33. Score 6172, GPU 1080 Ti @2025/2988, Min FPS 37.15, Avg FPS 46.17, CPU 6600k @4.6, Post No.0406, KNiVES - Link Drivers 382.53
  34. Score 6170, GPU 1080 Ti @2000/3012, Min FPS 36.96, Avg FPS 46.15, CPU 5820k @4.0, Post No.0247, danoliver1 - Link Drivers 381.65
  35. Score 6165, GPU 1080 Ti @2050/3002, Min FPS 37.13, Avg FPS 46.11, CPU 7980XE @4.0, Post No.0525, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 388.13
  36. Score 6161, GPU 1080 Ti @1988/3001, Min FPS 37.17, Avg FPS 46.08, CPU 4790k @4.7, Post No.0344, D3K - Link Drivers 381.89
  37. Score 6153, GPU 1080 Ti @2026/3003, Min FPS 37.01, Avg FPS 46.02, CPU 6900k @4.2, Post No.0022, whyscotty - Link Drivers 381.65
  38. Score 6151, GPU 1080 Ti @2038/2950, Min FPS 37.19, Avg FPS 46.01, CPU 4790k @4.4, Post No.0256, Tommy_Here - Link Drivers 381.65
  39. Score 6141, GPU 1080 Ti @2022/2988, Min FPS 37.33, Avg FPS 45.94, CPU 8350 @4.5, Post No.0300, SupraWez - Link Drivers 381.65
  40. Score 6115, GPU 1080 Ti @2000/3007, Min FPS 36.90, Avg FPS 45.74, CPU 4770k @4.4, Post No.0438, Minusorange - Link Drivers 385.41
  41. Score 6072, GPU 1080 Ti @1800/3000, Min FPS 36.59, Avg FPS 45.42, CPU 3570k @4.2, Post No.0468, Mr.Cookie - Link Drivers 385.41
  42. Score 6002, GPU 1080 Ti @1717/2936, Min FPS 35.99, Avg FPS 44.89, CPU 5820k @4.1, Post No.0107, Gripen90 - Link Drivers 381.65
  43. Score 5892, GPU 1080 Ti @1988/2752, Min FPS 35.95, Avg FPS 44.07, CPU 1800X @3.9, Post No.0195, Coolasmoo - Link Drivers 381.65
  44. Score 5860, GPU 1080 Ti @1988/2754, Min FPS 35.29, Avg FPS 43.83, CPU 2500k @4.5, Post No.0513, tosspro - Link Drivers 385.41
  45. Score 5703, GPU 1080 Ti @1911/2754, Min FPS 34.33, Avg FPS 42.66, CPU 2600k @4.3, Post No.0342, roddypoddy - Link Drivers 382.05
  46. Score 5676, GPU TitanP @1860/2502, Min FPS 33.13, Avg FPS 42.46, CPU 6700k @4.6, Post No.0206, DarrenM343 - Link Drivers 381.65
  47. Score 5656, GPU 1080 Ti @1658/2752, Min FPS 33.95, Avg FPS 42.31, CPU 3570k @4.2, Post No.0465, Mr.Cookie - Link Drivers 385.41
  48. Score 5443, GPU 1080 Ti @1810/2750, Min FPS 32.09, Avg FPS 40.71, CPU 4790k @4.4, Post No.0074, Radeon85 - Link Drivers 378.92
  49. Score 5415, GPU Vega64 @1812/1100, Min FPS 31.81, Avg FPS 40.50, CPU 1800X @4.075, Post No.0484, AMDMatt - Link Drivers 17.10.1
  50. Score 5279, GPU Vega64 @1720/1100, Min FPS 30.97, Avg FPS 39.49, CPU 1700X @3.4, Post No.0532, shug_uk - Link Drivers 17.11.4
  51. Score 5276, GPU Vega64 @1752/1096, Min FPS 30.96, Avg FPS 39.47, CPU 1950X @3.9, Post No.0511, TrixX - Link Drivers 17.11.1
  52. Score 5264, GPU Vega64 @1747/1170, Min FPS 30.93, Avg FPS 39.38, CPU 1700 @3.85, Post No.0499, AmateurExpert - Link Drivers 17.11.1
  53. Score 5224, GPU Vega64 @1980/1100, Min FPS 30.39, Avg FPS 39.08, CPU 1800X @4.0, Post No.0421, MDPlatts - Link Drivers 17.8.1
  54. Score 5202, GPU Vega64 @1700/1100, Min FPS 30.74, Avg FPS 38.91, CPU 8700k @5.0, Post No.0528, TonyTurbo78 - Link Drivers 17.11.4
  55. Score 5171, GPU Vega64 @1777/1100, Min FPS 29.82, Avg FPS 38.68, CPU 1700 @3.9, Post No.0453, djbully - Link Drivers 17.8.2
  56. Score 5100, GPU Vega64 @1640/1140, Min FPS 29.67, Avg FPS 38.15, CPU 4770k @4.8, Post No.0495, r22snapper - Link Drivers 17.10.2
  57. Score 4966, GPU Vega56 @1709/1090, Min FPS 27.07, Avg FPS 37.15, CPU 1920X @4.0, Post No.0519, Kei - Link Drivers 17.11.2
  58. Score 4958, GPU Vega64 @1682/1010, Min FPS 28.88, Avg FPS 37.09, CPU 1600X @3.9, Post No.0578, nashathedog - Link Drivers 17.11.4
  59. Score 4896, GPU Vega64 @1632/1000, Min FPS 28.64, Avg FPS 36.62, CPU 1700 @3.0, Post No.0555, melmac - Link Drivers 17.11.4
  60. Score 4785, GPU Vega64 @1650/1025, Min FPS 27.53, Avg FPS 35.79, CPU 5820k @4.4, Post No.0457, Shiari - Link Drivers 17.8.2
  61. Score 4759, GPU 1080 @2164/2862, Min FPS 29.38, Avg FPS 35.60, CPU 4930k @4.7, Post No.0082, TTomax - Link Drivers 381.65
  62. Score 4651, GPU 1080 @1781/2925, Min FPS 28.36, Avg FPS 34.79, CPU 4770k @4.2, Post No.0371, Jonnygrunge - Link Drivers 382.19
  63. Score 4607, GPU 1080 @2126/2754, Min FPS 28.08, Avg FPS 34.46, CPU 6900k @4.25, Post No.0254, gbgt2 - Link Drivers 381.65
  64. Score 4582, GPU 1080 @2088/2754, Min FPS 27.90, Avg FPS 34.28, CPU 5820k @4.5, Post No.0289, mac40 - Link Drivers 381.78
  65. Score 4574, GPU 1080 @2126/2754, Min FPS 28.21, Avg FPS 34.22, CPU 2600k @4.4, Post No.0584, Wingz - Link Drivers 390.65
  66. Score 4571, GPU 1080 @2100/2740, Min FPS 27.16, Avg FPS 34.19, CPU 4790k @4.6, Post No.0171, ToOo - Link Drivers 381.65
  67. Score 4560, GPU 1080 @2088/2728, Min FPS 27.84, Avg FPS 34.11, CPU 4770k @4.4, Post No.0110, BriT - Link Drivers 378.78
  68. Score 4554, GPU 1080 @2100/2754, Min FPS 28.06, Avg FPS 34.06, CPU 7700k @4.2, Post No.0477, voidshatter - Link Drivers 385.69
  69. Score 4551, GPU 1080 @2012/2779, Min FPS 28.21, Avg FPS 34.04, CPU 6700k @4.7, Post No.0404, kylew_is_back - Link Drivers 382.53
  70. Score 4547, GPU 1070 Ti @1807/2248, Min FPS 28.20, Avg FPS 34.01, CPU X5650 @4.4, Post No.0582, KungFuSpaghetti - Link Drivers 388.71
  71. Score 4513, GPU 1080 @2080/2757, Min FPS 28.08, Avg FPS 33.76, CPU 8350 @4.5, Post No.0182, SupraWez - Link Drivers 378.78
  72. Score 4449, GPU 980 Ti @1572/1950, Min FPS 26.32, Avg FPS 33.28, CPU 6850k @4.4, Post No.0190, mrkambo - Link Drivers 378.92
  73. Score 4433, GPU 1080 @2114/2754, Min FPS 27.61, Avg FPS 33.16, CPU 4790k @4.7, Post No.0257, Bone9 - Link Drivers 381.65
  74. Score 4424, GPU 980 Ti @1560/2103, Min FPS 26.06, Avg FPS 33.09, CPU 6950X @4.444, Post No.0146, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 381.65
  75. Score 4423, GPU Vega56 @1530/900, Min FPS 25.85, Avg FPS 33.09, CPU 1600 @3.7, Post No.0447, docsonic - Link Drivers 17.8.2
  76. Score 4377, GPU 1080 @1950/2750, Min FPS 26.82, Avg FPS 32.74, CPU 7820HK @4.2, Post No.0273, Besty - Link Drivers 381.65
  77. Score 4349, GPU 980 Ti @1596/2156, Min FPS 26.11, Avg FPS 32.53, CPU 5820k @4.4, Post No.0250, Gandalf81 - Link Drivers 378.66
  78. Score 4342, GPU 980 Ti @1580/2090, Min FPS 26.23, Avg FPS 32.48, CPU 4770k @4.8, Post No.0095, amigafan2003 - Link Drivers 381.65
  79. Score 4336, GPU 1080 @1916/2752, Min FPS 27.29, Avg FPS 32.43, CPU 5820k @4.1, Post No.0108, Gripen90 - Link Drivers 381.65
  80. Score 4325, GPU 1070 Ti @2012/2127, Min FPS 26.08, Avg FPS 32.35, CPU 4670k @4.3, Post No.0534, Mr Paul - Link Drivers 388.43
  81. Score 4319, GPU 980 Ti @1535/1976, Min FPS 26.16, Avg FPS 32.31, CPU 7700k @5.2, Post No.0239, zia - Link Drivers 378.78
  82. Score 4302, GPU Vega64 @1750/945, Min FPS 26.10, Avg FPS 32.18, CPU 6800k @4.2, Post No.0424, BadIronTree - Link Drivers 17.8.2
  83. Score 4264, GPU 980 Ti @1489/2000, Min FPS 25.44, Avg FPS 31.89, CPU 4790k @4.0, Post No.0561, Guest2 - Link Drivers 375.57
  84. Score 4228, GPU 980 Ti @1513/2009, Min FPS 25.17, Avg FPS 31.62, CPU 3770k @4.7, Post No.0180, DaveRom - Link Drivers 381.65
  85. Score 4215, GPU 980 Ti @1500/2000, Min FPS 24.49, Avg FPS 31.53, CPU 4770k @4.4, Post No.0090, Toss3 - Link Drivers 381.65
  86. Score 4187, GPU 980 Ti @1500/2000, Min FPS 24.26, Avg FPS 31.32, CPU 6700k @4.4, Post No.0563, AiiR - Link Drivers 388.59
  87. Score 4142, GPU 980 Ti @1441/2001, Min FPS 24.76, Avg FPS 30.98, CPU 6700k @4.0, Post No.0214, mof - Link Drivers 381.65
  88. Score 4061, GPU 1070 @2126/2371, Min FPS 24.67, Avg FPS 30.37, CPU 6800k @4.2, Post No.0373, Shilz - Link Drivers 382.05
  89. Score 4059, GPU 1070 @2139/2329, Min FPS 24.82, Avg FPS 30.36, CPU 4770k @4.5, Post No.0234, Finners - Link Drivers 378.78
  90. Score 4044, GPU 980 Ti @1463/2025, Min FPS 23.46, Avg FPS 30.25, CPU 2600 @3.4, Post No.0217, Tommy_Here - Link Drivers 381.65
  91. Score 4003, GPU 1070 @2126/2376, Min FPS 24.61, Avg FPS 29.95, CPU 4670k @4.6, Post No.0286, Brizzles - Link Drivers 381.65
  92. Score 3944, GPU 1070 @2108/2250, Min FPS 24.34, Avg FPS 29.51, CPU 4690k @4.6, Post No.0114, humbug - Link Drivers 381.65
  93. Score 3942, GPU 1070 @2088/2375, Min FPS 24.11, Avg FPS 29.48, CPU 6950X @4.444, Post No.0142, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 381.65
  94. Score 3899, GPU 980 Ti @1340/1828, Min FPS 23.49, Avg FPS 29.17, CPU 4770k @4.5, Post No.0352, phatboy - Link Drivers 382.05
  95. Score 3836, GPU 1070 @1945/2152, Min FPS 23.69, Avg FPS 28.70, CPU 1700X @3.9, Post No.0553, Gtiracer - Link Drivers 388.59
  96. Score 3803, GPU 1070 @1624/2177, Min FPS 23.18, Avg FPS 28.45, CPU 6700k @4.6, Post No.0266, N0ddie - Link Drivers 381.65
  97. Score 3786, GPU 1070 @2000/2101, Min FPS 23.23, Avg FPS 28.32, CPU 4790k @4.0, Post No.0283, BodgeITandRun - Link Drivers 381.65
  98. Score 3727, GPU 1070 @2000/2125, Min FPS 22.94, Avg FPS 27.88, CPU 3570k @3.8, Post No.0196, Phil87 - Link Drivers 381.65
  99. Score 3690, GPU TitanM @1378/1928, Min FPS 22.40, Avg FPS 27.60, CPU 5930k @4.2, Post No.520, Streetlight - Link Drivers 388.13
  100. Score 3672, GPU Fury X @1180/500, Min FPS 21.76, Avg FPS 27.47, CPU 5960X @4.0, Post No.0321, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 17.5.1
  101. Score 3645, GPU Duo(1) @1150/500, Min FPS 21.62, Avg FPS 27.26, CPU 1800X @4.1, Post No.0144, AMDMatt - Link Drivers 17.4.2
  102. Score 3626, GPU 1070 @2050/2002, Min FPS 21.85, Avg FPS 27.12, CPU 1800X @3.4, Post No.0294, d3sbo - Link Drivers 381.65
  103. Score 3555, GPU Fury X @1125/500, Min FPS 20.72, Avg FPS 26.59, CPU 2680V2 @3.1, Post No.0324, ALXAndy - Link Drivers 17.5.1
  104. Score 3538, GPU 1070 @1747/2002, Min FPS 21.79, Avg FPS 26.47, CPU 7600k @4.1, Post No.0265, lltfdaniel - Link Drivers 381.65
  105. Score 3497, GPU Nano @1100/500, Min FPS 20.78, Avg FPS 26.16, CPU 4690k @4.4, Post No.0063, Radox-0 - Link Drivers 17.4.1
  106. Score 3239, GPU Nano @1000/500, Min FPS 19.18, Avg FPS 24.23, CPU G3258 @4.8, Post No.0476, AiiR - Link Drivers 17.9.1
  107. Score 3014, GPU Fury P @1020/500, Min FPS 17.77, Avg FPS 22.55, CPU 3770k @4.5, Post No.0202, maltrabob - Link Drivers 16.12.2
  108. Score 2983, GPU 980 @1500/1950, Min FPS 17.81, Avg FPS 22.31, CPU 4790k @4.6, Post No.0279, Princey - Link Drivers 381.65
  109. Score 2904, GPU 290X @1124/1475, Min FPS 17.00, Avg FPS 21.73, CPU 860 @4.0, Post No.0280, weegill - Link Drivers 17.4.2
  110. Score 2818, GPU RX480 @1525/2250, Min FPS 16.98, Avg FPS 21.08, CPU 1700 @3.9, Post No.0517, Ross Thomson - Link Drivers 17.11.2
  111. Score 2787, GPU RX480 @1500/2250, Min FPS 16.58, Avg FPS 20.85, CPU 2500k @4.5, Post No.0262, RogerTheGoat - Link Drivers 17.4.2
  112. Score 2784, GPU 980 @1400/1752, Min FPS 16.85, Avg FPS 20.83, CPU 5930k @4.2, Post No.0249, gary996 - Link Drivers 381.65
  113. Score 2736, GPU RX580 @1500/2250, Min FPS 16.26, Avg FPS 20.47, CPU 1800X @4.0, Post No.0571, AMDMatt - Link Drivers 18.1.1
  114. Score 2717, GPU RX480 @1460/2250, Min FPS 16.19, Avg FPS 20.33, CPU 4790 @4.0, Post No.0252, ree - Link Drivers 17.4.2
  115. Score 2691, GPU 390P @1100/1525, Min FPS 15.67, Avg FPS 20.13, CPU 3570k @4.2, Post No.0078, p5ychonaut - Link Drivers 17.4.1
  116. Score 2682, GPU 290P @1170/1600, Min FPS 15.61, Avg FPS 20.06, CPU 4790k @4.8, Post No.0165, MadMatty - Link Drivers 16.11.5
  117. Score 2653, GPU RX480 @1425/2200, Min FPS 15.80, Avg FPS 19.85, CPU 2700k @4.6, Post No.0204, Modjo - Link Drivers 17.4.2
  118. Score 2646, GPU 780 Ti @1085/1750, Min FPS 15.78, Avg FPS 19.79, CPU 7400 @3.4, Post No.0360, jiw2033 - Link Drivers 382.05
  119. Score 2642, GPU RX480 @1420/2175, Min FPS 15.79, Avg FPS 19.77, CPU 8350 @4.8, Post No.0125, siriq111 - Link Drivers 17.4.2
  120. Score 2638, GPU RX480 @1400/2100, Min FPS 15.73, Avg FPS 19.74, CPU 7600k @3.8, Post No.0264, jazzy68 - Link Drivers 17.4.2
  121. Score 2630, GPU 1060 @2100/2250, Min FPS 16.09, Avg FPS 19.67, CPU 2500k @4.2, Post No.0275, myshkinbob - Link Drivers 381.65
  122. Score 2606, GPU RX480 @1440/1750, Min FPS 15.54, Avg FPS 19.50, CPU 6700k @4.8, Post No.0431, MyBrains - Link Drivers 17.8.1
  123. Score 2564, GPU RX480 @1365/2200, Min FPS 15.28, Avg FPS 19.18, CPU 6700k @4.5, Post No.0241, JDHansen - Link Drivers 17.4.1
  124. Score 2552, GPU RX480 @1360/2150, Min FPS 15.21, Avg FPS 19.09, CPU 4770k @4.2, Post No.0080, Geckovich - Link Drivers 17.4.1
  125. Score 2549, GPU 290P @1100/1300, Min FPS 15.01, Avg FPS 19.07, CPU 2500 @3.4, Post No.0295, AiiR - Link Drivers 17.4.2
  126. Score 2504, GPU 780 @1228/1851, Min FPS 15.07, Avg FPS 18.74, CPU 1920X @3.7, Post No.0474, Kei - Link Drivers 385.69
  127. Score 2486, GPU 1060 @1679/2277, Min FPS 15.21, Avg FPS 18.60, CPU 1700 @3.8, Post No.0463, kitfit1 - Link Drivers 384.76
  128. Score 2480, GPU RX480 @1335/2200, Min FPS 14.77, Avg FPS 18.56, CPU 1700 @3.75, Post No.0260, OnlyaNooB - Link Drivers 17.4.1
  129. Score 2476, GPU 970 @1550/2000, Min FPS 15.19, Avg FPS 18.52, CPU 4770k @4.3, Post No.0194, Danny75 - Link Drivers 381.65
  130. Score 2470, GPU 780 @1201/1852, Min FPS 14.88, Avg FPS 18.48, CPU 4820k @4.5, Post No.0315, Kei - Link Drivers 378.78
  131. Score 2467, GPU 290P @1110/1350, Min FPS 14.42, Avg FPS 18.46, CPU 5820k @4.3, Post No.0118, Apache14 - Link Drivers 17.4.1
  132. Score 2431, GPU 290P @1005/1250, Min FPS 14.19, Avg FPS 18.18, CPU 3770k @4.2, Post No.0232, shankly1985 - Link Drivers 17.4.2
  133. Score 2359, GPU 780 @1150/1700, Min FPS 14.19, Avg FPS 17.65, CPU 3570k @4.0, Post No.0122, Ian Evey - Link Drivers 381.65
  134. Score 2352, GPU 780 @1042/1625, Min FPS 14.24, Avg FPS 17.59, CPU X3470 @3.5, Post No.0035, Cyber-Mav - Link Drivers 378.78
  135. Score 2299, GPU 1060 @1759/2002, Min FPS 13.98, Avg FPS 17.20, CPU G4560 @3.5, Post No.0259, Gripen90 - Link Drivers 378.66
  136. Score 2115, GPU 970 @1114/1753, Min FPS 12.66, Avg FPS 15.83, CPU 6600k @3.5, Post No.0412, ShiWarrior - Link Drivers 385.28
  137. Score 1686, GPU 7950 @1000/1400, Min FPS 9.88, Avg FPS 12.62, CPU 3770k @4.0, Post No.0439, BaroUK2 - Link Drivers 17.6.2
  138. Score 1655, GPU 7970 @925/1375, Min FPS 9.76, Avg FPS 12.38, CPU 6800k @4.2, Post No.0415, BadIronTree - Link Drivers 17.7.2
  139. Score 1495, GPU 1050 Ti @1840/2252, Min FPS 9.38, Avg FPS 11.19, CPU 180 @2.88, Post No.0111, MadMatty - Link Drivers 381.65
  140. Score 1283, GPU 1050 Ti @1734/1752, Min FPS 8.07, Avg FPS 9.60, CPU 955 @3.2, Post No.0599, Gripen90 - Link Drivers 397.31
  141. Score 1147, GPU 670 @1110/1502, Min FPS 7.39, Avg FPS 8.59, CPU 2500k @4.2, Post No.0317, BlackAle - Link Drivers 376.53
  142. Score 1032, GPU 680M @1006/1150, Min FPS 6.45, Avg FPS 7.72, CPU 3740QM @2.7, Post No.0123, Tommy_Here - Link Drivers 378.92
  143. Score 997, GPU 7870 @1100/1200, Min FPS 5.82, Avg FPS 7.46, CPU Q6600 @2.4, Post No.0076, Klo - Link Drivers 16.12.2
  144. Score 876, GPU 7850 @900/1200, Min FPS 5.33, Avg FPS 6.56, CPU 6600k @3.5, Post No.0411, ShiWarrior - Link Drivers 17.1.1
  145. Score 663, GPU 260X @1150/1650, Min FPS 4.14, Avg FPS 4.96, CPU 3570k @3.41, Post No.0288, Moonpie2 - Link Drivers 14.2
  146. Score 247, GPU 650M @950/900, Min FPS 1.60, Avg FPS 1.85, CPU 3610Q @3.08, Post No.0193, ToOo - Link Drivers 378.78
 
Kaapstad said:
Titan V can easily beat a Titan Xp in gaming and on average is a better overclocker too by a small margin.

HBM2 is not great for gaming and really needs a big overclock (over 1000 on the memory) to get the best out of the Titan V hence the switch to GDDR6 on Turing.

Below is a good example of the Titan V really showing its muscle on demanding software compared to Pascal.
Click to expand...

KentMan said:
One little hint of that is Titan V, with it's amazing 5120 CUDA cores and ultra-fast HBM2 memory, is -barely- able to beat the Titan XP in games.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but on newer drivers the Titan V is 30-40% faster depending on 1440p vs 4K in games.
Since when is that barely faster for some people.

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/03/20/nvidia_titan_v_video_card_gaming_review/19

There’s no denying that NVIDIA TITAN V smashes GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FE gaming performance at 4K and 1440p. We experienced performance differences up to 40%, most were around the 30% mark, with varying games below or above that average.
Click to expand...

NVIDIA moving to 7nm will bring some amazing gains I'm sure.[/QUOTE]
 
KentMan said:
lol someone posted this on another forum regarding these new cards

This is NOT my own words, i merely copy pasted the below from elsewhere!

How about this wild theory.

NVIDIA hit a max with their CUDA cores and also a max with clocks. Meaning, they simply can't put any more of them in a chip and get more performance, and clocks topped at that magic 2ghz on current processes.
One little hint of that is Titan V, with it's amazing 5120 CUDA cores and ultra-fast HBM2 memory, is -barely- able to beat the Titan XP in games.

So, the company scratched their head... what can we give gamers to make them buy a next generation, we can't just sell Pascals forever... because we cant' give them more performance, it has hit a ceiling.

The answer was... well, ray-tracing.
But this wasn't meant for consumer cards, actually, that 10 years in development was VERY LIKELY for the media industry, giving ray-tracing acceleration to content creators, to sell incredibly expensive Quadro chips.

But when there was no alternative for the consumer chips.. BAM ! Harvested Quadro chips now sold as cut down RTX 2070/80/80 Ti.

I have a strong feeling that the new and amazing RTX chips will not beat Pascal equivalents at all (maybe 10% if lucky, and only at 4K), and that is because they will clock LOWER than pascal, due to the very big and complex chip (and power hungry, and hot)

Even more crazy wild theory:
- Even so, yields are very low for these (as they are originally huge, professional chips), and their availability will be weak for the entire next year.
- This pre-order stunt was done to grab as much cash on these defective chips before the truth comes out, because with those prices will be a very tough pill to swallow with just 10% performance uplift.
- They had no choice, and HAD TO RELEASE SOMETHING, because with the fall of mining craze, the market is inundated with 2nd hand Maxwells, Pascals and everything else, meaning very few people (relatively) would buy NEW ones.
- They know something about AMD, possibly Navi or Vega 2 WILL be much faster than expected, and it will beat both Pascal and Turing in raw horsepower, in all existing games.

The ray-tracing is supposed to be the savior of this gen, and that's why they pushed the marketing so hard for it, inventing crappy meaningless performance values (Jiga-rays, tensor-flops), instead of bragging of how much faster they are in all games run at 4K, like they did with previous 3-4 gens.

History will prove this theory right.. or wrong.
Guess we'll find out soon enough.
Click to expand...

I think this is a little tin-hat. Needs turning on its head.

I suspect there's something to be said about diversifying due to economic limits on future compute performance. As a rough rule of thumb, I've always seen 4k30 to need about 8TF compute, so 4k60 needs about 16TF ish. Well the 2080Ti will reach that performance if it can clock around 1.84 GHz or so (which i suspect it'll do easily). So we're a gen away from the point where compute doesn't make sense (why bother upgrading when you're 100fps + at 4k?).

The way I see it is that the advancement in compute performance will outstrip the demand in the medium term - which would have to be a concern for growth surely? Hence taking us down the physics based lighting route (given the computational overhead) gives the industry lots of room to grow into in the future (and probably another unification at a later date - who remembers separate geometry and pixel shaders?). Anyway - thats my 2p's take on it.
 
Boot_Loop said:
You think developers are going to add significant implementation of RT to their games right now when the consoles don't have the functionality, AMD cards don't have the functionality, and only the most ludicrously expensive card of the new expensive range of cards from Nvidia has the hardware for it?

Can I ask, what are YOU smoking?

So like I said, implementation of it is going to be reserved to a bit better shadows and reflections in some games, and that is literally it in the near term. Very far from your total hyperbole of 'Golden egg for 3D rendering' which is just laughable when applied to these cards.
Click to expand...
I don't need to *think* many developers are already ON THE RECORD stating they will support RTX - go do some reading instead of whining on OCUK
 
HazardO said:
For ray tracing to come off, the devs have got to find value in it. For the game devs to find value in it it has to be widely supported in hardware, and by that I mean consoles, AMD and Nvidia hardware. I expect AMD will bring something big to consoles before PCs as that's where they get to sell in high volume. Then RT will take off.
Click to expand...
I could see devs willing to add it due to Nvidia's market share dominance but due to the pricing of the RTX cards they aren't going sell anywhere near as well as Maxwell and Pascal.
 
Last edited:
My theory is very simple. In two years time with the release of the next gen consoles, Nvidia know they cannot compete at this 'low' price point. You see what can be squeezed out of a highly optimized sealed box in the ps4 pro, ps5 will most likely deliver true 4k 60fps with amazing graphics.

So Nvidia are repositioning their business into a luxury high end, high price point products.
 
pagepack said:
My theory is very simple. In two years time with the release of the next gen consoles, Nvidia know they cannot compete at this 'low' price point. You see what can be squeezed out of a highly optimized sealed box in the ps4 pro, ps5 will most likely deliver true 4k 60fps with amazing graphics.

So Nvidia are repositioning their business into a luxury high end, high price point products.
Click to expand...

There is some truth in this, PS4 Pro set the scene for 4K on consoles, Xbox One X bettered this still, so i fully expect PS5 and the next Xbox to definitely achieve 4k 60fps gaming, where i suspect this will sit for a good few years.

Maybe AMD have given up on the high end as they have already seen the writing on the wall? the adoption rate of consoles is great
 
KentMan said:
lol someone posted this on another forum regarding these new cards

This is NOT my own words, i merely copy pasted the below from elsewhere!

How about this wild theory.

NVIDIA hit a max with their CUDA cores and also a max with clocks. Meaning, they simply can't put any more of them in a chip and get more performance, and clocks topped at that magic 2ghz on current processes.
One little hint of that is Titan V, with it's amazing 5120 CUDA cores and ultra-fast HBM2 memory, is -barely- able to beat the Titan XP in games.

So, the company scratched their head... what can we give gamers to make them buy a next generation, we can't just sell Pascals forever... because we cant' give them more performance, it has hit a ceiling.

The answer was... well, ray-tracing.
But this wasn't meant for consumer cards, actually, that 10 years in development was VERY LIKELY for the media industry, giving ray-tracing acceleration to content creators, to sell incredibly expensive Quadro chips.

But when there was no alternative for the consumer chips.. BAM ! Harvested Quadro chips now sold as cut down RTX 2070/80/80 Ti.

I have a strong feeling that the new and amazing RTX chips will not beat Pascal equivalents at all (maybe 10% if lucky, and only at 4K), and that is because they will clock LOWER than pascal, due to the very big and complex chip (and power hungry, and hot)

Even more crazy wild theory:
- Even so, yields are very low for these (as they are originally huge, professional chips), and their availability will be weak for the entire next year.
- This pre-order stunt was done to grab as much cash on these defective chips before the truth comes out, because with those prices will be a very tough pill to swallow with just 10% performance uplift.
- They had no choice, and HAD TO RELEASE SOMETHING, because with the fall of mining craze, the market is inundated with 2nd hand Maxwells, Pascals and everything else, meaning very few people (relatively) would buy NEW ones.
- They know something about AMD, possibly Navi or Vega 2 WILL be much faster than expected, and it will beat both Pascal and Turing in raw horsepower, in all existing games.

The ray-tracing is supposed to be the savior of this gen, and that's why they pushed the marketing so hard for it, inventing crappy meaningless performance values (Jiga-rays, tensor-flops), instead of bragging of how much faster they are in all games run at 4K, like they did with previous 3-4 gens.

History will prove this theory right.. or wrong.
Guess we'll find out soon enough.
Click to expand...
I had to use double layer of tin foil for my hat but still believe some of this may be true.
 
Kaapstad said:
Titan V can easily beat a Titan Xp in gaming and on average is a better overclocker too by a small margin.

HBM2 is not great for gaming and really needs a big overclock (over 1000 on the memory) to get the best out of the Titan V hence the switch to GDDR6 on Turing.

Below is a good example of the Titan V really showing its muscle on demanding software compared to Pascal.
Click to expand...

To be fair, doesn't that particular benchmark use Async compute to a large extent? Volta excels here compared to Pascal. Would explain the large gains, but your point is still valid. There's still enough of a gain to be considered tangible.
 
Silent_Scone said:
To be fair, doesn't that particular benchmark use Async compute to a large extent? Volta excels here compared to Pascal. Would explain the large gains, but your point is still valid. There's still enough of a gain to be considered tangible.
Click to expand...

Even outside of that Volta is 30-40% faster; in current tests without launch day drivers.
It's a very powerful architecture.

Will be interesting to see what Turing brings; but looking at the FP32 performance chart from NVIDIA it's not a massive leap in traditional performance.
 
KentMan said:
lol someone posted this on another forum regarding these new cards

This is NOT my own words, i merely copy pasted the below from elsewhere!

How about this wild theory.

NVIDIA hit a max with their CUDA cores and also a max with clocks. Meaning, they simply can't put any more of them in a chip and get more performance, and clocks topped at that magic 2ghz on current processes.
One little hint of that is Titan V, with it's amazing 5120 CUDA cores and ultra-fast HBM2 memory, is -barely- able to beat the Titan XP in games.

So, the company scratched their head... what can we give gamers to make them buy a next generation, we can't just sell Pascals forever... because we cant' give them more performance, it has hit a ceiling.

The answer was... well, ray-tracing.
But this wasn't meant for consumer cards, actually, that 10 years in development was VERY LIKELY for the media industry, giving ray-tracing acceleration to content creators, to sell incredibly expensive Quadro chips.

But when there was no alternative for the consumer chips.. BAM ! Harvested Quadro chips now sold as cut down RTX 2070/80/80 Ti.

I have a strong feeling that the new and amazing RTX chips will not beat Pascal equivalents at all (maybe 10% if lucky, and only at 4K), and that is because they will clock LOWER than pascal, due to the very big and complex chip (and power hungry, and hot)

Even more crazy wild theory:
- Even so, yields are very low for these (as they are originally huge, professional chips), and their availability will be weak for the entire next year.
- This pre-order stunt was done to grab as much cash on these defective chips before the truth comes out, because with those prices will be a very tough pill to swallow with just 10% performance uplift.
- They had no choice, and HAD TO RELEASE SOMETHING, because with the fall of mining craze, the market is inundated with 2nd hand Maxwells, Pascals and everything else, meaning very few people (relatively) would buy NEW ones.
- They know something about AMD, possibly Navi or Vega 2 WILL be much faster than expected, and it will beat both Pascal and Turing in raw horsepower, in all existing games.

The ray-tracing is supposed to be the savior of this gen, and that's why they pushed the marketing so hard for it, inventing crappy meaningless performance values (Jiga-rays, tensor-flops), instead of bragging of how much faster they are in all games run at 4K, like they did with previous 3-4 gens.

History will prove this theory right.. or wrong.
Guess we'll find out soon enough.
Click to expand...

I don't know why people keep saying that. My OC'd Titan V is ~30% faster than my OC'd XP in real world games. I don't consider 30% faster at this level to be "barely" faster.
 
pagepack said:
My theory is very simple. In two years time with the release of the next gen consoles, Nvidia know they cannot compete at this 'low' price point. You see what can be squeezed out of a highly optimized sealed box in the ps4 pro, ps5 will most likely deliver true 4k 60fps with amazing graphics.

So Nvidia are repositioning their business into a luxury high end, high price point products.
Click to expand...

PS5 is out in 14 months :)
And true, this is going to be a Zen+Navi system. No more anemic Jaguar (see Atom) CPUs.
 
pagepack said:
My theory is very simple. In two years time with the release of the next gen consoles, Nvidia know they cannot compete at this 'low' price point. You see what can be squeezed out of a highly optimized sealed box in the ps4 pro, ps5 will most likely deliver true 4k 60fps with amazing graphics.

So Nvidia are repositioning their business into a luxury high end, high price point products.
Click to expand...

Like Apple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom