I mean, performance will likely improve as drivers mature and the games using RTX features are actually finished, but enough to make it worthwhile? I'm massively sceptical about that. The article above talking about Metro says that the 2080 Ti topped out at around 40fps and spent much of its time lower than that with RTX on. That's at a mere 1080p. You're talking a 50%+ increase in performance needed there to even come close to 1080p/60 - and personally I don't consider 1080p/60 in any way acceptable for a card that costs well over a grand, no matter how many nice effects there may be (because they're sure going to look a lot less impressive upscaled on a non-garbage display). And that's the 2080 Ti! What sort of framerates are the 2080 and 2070 currently getting in these games?
-
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.
Is the NVidia RTX performance even worse than previously reported?
- Thread starter Flake87
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 5,952
Come on
, the games and cards are not even released yet. At least reserve full judgement until they are. No doubt RT will get better with time but can do we not agree that the games using it look great so rolling this out now is actually good? If you don't care for RT right now then there's plenty of other options to go without it and games will not be for RTX enabled GPU only.Get the tech out there, get devs using it, and it will improve and get cheaper too.
Last edited:
Soldato
Was reading a few days ago the BF5 Devs only put the RT in the game two weeks ago.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,103
No, they've had Titan Volta's since Feb but they had the Turing cards 2 weeks ago (I read about this about a week ago so about 3 weeks).
Caporegime
It's over for ray tracing, put your sunglasses away boys until the 3 series.
There's an article on toms hardware - apparently it will be dialled back from the gamescom footage to increase fps. 6 core cpu is also likely recommended for rtx
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Actually gddr6 is likely gone into much higher scale production than gddr5x ever did, it could potentially be cheaper and the 'nature of the beast' in the silicon industry is that costs come down over time. 12nm is tweaked 16nm which is now a very mature process with far higher yields than when the 1080ti launched. It almost certainly costs a fair amount less to produce a larger core on 12nm today than it cost to make 1080ti a while back on 16nm.
Costs have come down, Nvidia are just price gouging to see what they can get away with. ONce again it's in the consumers hands, say no in large enough numbers and they drop prices, say yes in large enough numbers and not only won't prices drop but they will keep doing this until the consumer says no.
Saying yes to this price increase guarantees price increases on the next gen, and the one after that, and the one after that till the consumer says no.
If you say no today, prices stick where they are for quite a while, if you say yes you only screw yourself on this card, on the next gen, on the gen after that, etc.
Last time Nvidia customers actually went hell no to the price, the Titan Z which launched at $3000, almost a 50% mark up on the cost of two Titans, and within a couple of months prices were down to $2000. That's how the consumer industry works, companies try to rip you off and make more money, if you tell them no, prices come down.
Caporegime
Yeah, and what about all those on 4k screens, 1440p, UW (like me) etc..., i can't see them wanting to run them @ 1080p, as it'll look crap, mine would have to be stretched to fill the screen, or id have to put up with mahoosive black bars down the sides running it @ that res.
Its just going to be a feature that no ones going to turn on, so theres just no point spending £1200 on it.
Soldato
I guess NVIDIA banked on their target audience understanding that doing something in realtime in as little as 16 milliseconds, that's conventionally only been possible on render farms at geological pace is impressive. Even with a low sample rate, it's a massive step in inovation.
Gamers don't have a benchmark for this kind of performance, nor do they care.
Gamers don't have a benchmark for this kind of performance, nor do they care.
It's to minor an improvement for such a big performance hit. As a developer why waste time on it, only a few percent of people will pay 2070/2080 prices.
We see what happens when devs make a game which prioritises graphical features over performance. People buy it, see the performance sucks and mass refund it.
We see what happens when devs make a game which prioritises graphical features over performance. People buy it, see the performance sucks and mass refund it.
Last edited:
I found the following comparison between a 1080ti and 2080ti @ 4k not sure how accurate they are https://www.3dcenter.org/news/angeb...tx-2080-ti-um-375-vor-der-geforce-gtx-1080-ti
GTX 1080Ti RTX 2080Ti
Battlefield V 54.5 frames per second 75.2 frames per second
Call of Duty: WWII 50.0 frames per second 61.1 frames per second
Far Cry 5 44.4 frames per second 68.9 frames per second
For Honor 51.7 frames per second 78.3 frames per second
Grand Theft Auto V 61.5 frames per second 78.2 frames per second
Mass Effect: Andromeda 48.4 frames per second 67.3 frames per second
PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds 42.5 frames per second 61.6 frames per second
Rainbow Six: Siege 61.6 frames per second 90.1 frames per second
The Crew 2 47.3 frames per second 58.3 frames per second
The Witcher III 44.1 frames per second 56.4 frames per second
AVERAGE - GeForce RTX 2080 vs. Ti GTX 1080 Ti + 37.5%
hanvt seen these posted yet but maybe someone has already
GTX 1080Ti RTX 2080Ti
Battlefield V 54.5 frames per second 75.2 frames per second
Call of Duty: WWII 50.0 frames per second 61.1 frames per second
Far Cry 5 44.4 frames per second 68.9 frames per second
For Honor 51.7 frames per second 78.3 frames per second
Grand Theft Auto V 61.5 frames per second 78.2 frames per second
Mass Effect: Andromeda 48.4 frames per second 67.3 frames per second
PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds 42.5 frames per second 61.6 frames per second
Rainbow Six: Siege 61.6 frames per second 90.1 frames per second
The Crew 2 47.3 frames per second 58.3 frames per second
The Witcher III 44.1 frames per second 56.4 frames per second
AVERAGE - GeForce RTX 2080 vs. Ti GTX 1080 Ti + 37.5%
hanvt seen these posted yet but maybe someone has already
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,356
Fake. Comes from a turkish blogger who "calculated" 2080ti values based on basically nothing and all the clickbait websites quoted the figures without understanding that in turkish he said these were "calculated" e.g. made up numbers
Associate
Thanks for the share interesting to see, wonder if it's true, time will tell not long to wait now.
Fair enough,
Sept 17th fo 2080 and 19th for 2080ti isnt too far away now to start seeing the review sites publishing
Man of Honour
I fail to see why RTX performance would be worse than previously reported, we all saw the numbers in the launch demo so NVidia were not hiding anything. Having said that the fps were low but they are what they are.
As to the 2080 Ti I think people are missing the obvious that it is still a sizable increase in performance over the 10XX series of cards using just conventional tech, what RT and DLSS bring is just the cherry on the cake.
As to the 2080 Ti I think people are missing the obvious that it is still a sizable increase in performance over the 10XX series of cards using just conventional tech, what RT and DLSS bring is just the cherry on the cake.
Forbes still reluctant to recommend the new RTX series, with advice to wait until the next generation becomes available.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...s-when-you-can-read-the-reviews/#50f6c5ca53cd
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...s-when-you-can-read-the-reviews/#50f6c5ca53cd
But nvidia then to target it at the $1000-$1200 market? That's not the market playing at 1080p with high graphical fidelity. The people doing that currently buy a 1060 or 580.
Even 1070(ti)/1080/Vega users mostly target 1440p and above.
Yeah that's the idea, in fact that's the whole point lol, DLSS done by the tensor cores replaces MSAA so you get the extra performance of the main GPU not having to do any MSAA but still get (in theory) the benefit of MSAA.
If you read the original link you would see that to achieve those figures NVidia activated the DLSS part of the chip, something which consumers are unable to do according to NVIDIA DLSS gives a marked increase in fps hence the thread title, that the 35% increase quoted might be very optimistic.
This is the DLSS graph in lighter green if the figures quoted are with it enabled then the FPS rate will be lower, potentially quite a bit.