Nvidia RTX 5 months on-a win or fail?

[DarrenM343]

It's AMD that have the raw power advantage, by quite a long way. Nvidia have a narrow scope focusing just on game optimization for the geforce cards. If you want anything more you have to fork out for Quadro. The issue is that most games don't make use of the compute power AMD cards have.

No, what AMD have in the new Vega is a good multi-purpose GPU that has great specs but it's just sub-optimal for gaming. TFLOPS wise it's up there but that's not reflected in gaming performance . 2080, but more notably the 2080 Ti and Titan RT way ahead on "gaming" raw performance (DLSS unassisted) which lets face it, is what 99.9%(probably ) of people use GPU's for at home. Add RT and DLSS into the mix and it's no comparison.
NV do make great GPU's optimised for gaming. 16GB HBM2 for example, is not, but if you do have use cases (ie, not only gaming) for it then it's a great GPU.

 

[vapor matt]

No, what AMD have in the new Vega is a good multi-purpose GPU that has great specs but it's just sub-optimal for gaming. TFLOPS wise it's up there but that's not reflected in gaming performance . 2080, but more notably the 2080 Ti and Titan RT way ahead on "gaming" raw performance (DLSS unassisted) which lets face it, is what 99.9%(probably ) of people use GPU's for at home. Add RT and DLSS into the mix and it's no comparison.
NV do make great GPU's optimised for gaming. 16GB HBM2 for example, is not, but if you do have use cases (ie, not only gaming) for it then it's a great GPU.

What AMD have is a capable gaming GPU offering HQ visuals that keeps up with a 1080ti and RTX2080 in a lot of games, also a very good compute card at half the price of a 2080ti and 25% of the price of a RTX titan. 99% of gamers might like a 2080ti or RTX titan for ultimate FPS but in the real world of PC gaming
fewer than 1% of PC gamers will be buying a RTX 2080ti or RTX Titan as they are out of reach price wise for the other 99% of gamers. and going by NVidia's own admission the sale of RTX cards is lower than expected. in the mid range gaming PC Vega 56 and Vega 64 along with the RX590 -580 offer the best value per $ as gibbo has said they fly off the shelves.

Yes RTX 2080ti and RTX Titan offer the most FPS but not everyone can afford that for PC gaming. So for AMD they have a good chance of the middle ground, where RTX features that seem iffy on clarity and offer very little performance on the lower end RTX cards. the whole reason AMD will gain ground in the most profitable side of PC gaming middle of the range systems.

 

[TNA]

Makes me realise how far Nvidia area ahead on raw power while at the same time bringing new technololgy into play. We know they could have done more had it not been for introducing RT too.
I think AMD they're mostly focused on CPU's now but it must have been a kick in the teeth when NV launched hardware RT capabilities.

Agreed. I don't think Navi will bring performance, but will be great for improving price for performance. Which to be fair at the moment is more important than bringing sheer performance anyways.

 

[bru]

Agreed. I don't think Navi will bring performance, but will be great for improving price for performance. Which to be fair at the moment is more important than bringing sheer performance anyways.

I'm not so sure about that, the 7nm node is expensive compared to the 14/12nm.
Navi is rumoured to come in at around Vega performance and at the moment their are some cracking prices on Vega cards.
Personally I cannot see AMD bringing Navi with Vega beating performance but with better prices. Apart from anything they will price things as they see the market and for their costs, rather than just bringing the performance for cheap.

 

[TNA]

I'm not so sure about that, the 7nm node is expensive compared to the 14/12nm.
Navi is rumoured to come in at around Vega performance and at the moment their are some cracking prices on Vega cards.
Personally I cannot see AMD bringing Navi with Vega beating performance but with better prices. Apart from anything they will price things as they see the market and for their costs, rather than just bringing the performance for cheap.

So you are saying Nvidia should forever increase profits? They need to accept there is a certain point where pricing any more is counter intuitive like they are finding out with Turing. If a process costs more, all it means is less profits for a time being until the process matures or use smaller dies. It should not mean pass the cost onto the customer. For way over a decade now the norm has been that as manufacturing process improved to smaller nanometres, price usually remained similar (in dollars). Don't see why this should change much now.

 

[Kaapstad]

So you are saying Nvidia should forever increase profits? They need to accept there is a certain point where pricing any more is counter intuitive like they are finding out with Turing. If a process costs more, all it means is less profits for a time being until the process matures or use smaller dies. It should not mean pass the cost onto the customer. For way over a decade now the norm has been that as manufacturing process improved to smaller nanometres, price usually remained similar (in dollars). Don't see why this should change much now.

£500 should really be the max for a normal high end GPU.

If AMD or NVidia are charging more than that it means they are pushing the tech too hard for too little gain and ultimately it will cost them sales.

Back in the days when the GTX 680 and HD 7970 were the top cards it would have been possible for either vendor to pack extra transistors onto their dies and end up with low yields and cards costing £1200 or more but they did not.

When the original Titan came along at £830 it caused uproar and I don't think NVidia sold huge numbers of them.

The vendors need to get back to around £500 for mainstream high end cards or lose customers for ever to other platforms.

 

[TNA]

£500 should really be the max for a normal high end GPU.

If AMD or NVidia are charging more than that it means they are pushing the tech too hard for too little gain and ultimately it will cost them sales.

Back in the days when the GTX 680 and HD 7970 were the top cards it would have been possible for either vendor to pack extra transistors onto their dies and end up with low yields and cards costing £1200 or more but they did not.

When the original Titan came along at £830 it caused uproar and I don't think NVidia sold huge numbers of them.

The vendors need to get back to around £500 for mainstream high end cards or lose customers for ever to other platforms.

Agreed. I know if the 3000 series is not priced similar to the 1000 series I will going for a PS5. I am happy to miss out on RTX, not like there is a day and night difference anyway. When there is, then they can command such prices.

 

[DarrenM343]

£500 should really be the max for a normal high end GPU.

If AMD or NVidia are charging more than that it means they are pushing the tech too hard for too little gain and ultimately it will cost them sales.

Back in the days when the GTX 680 and HD 7970 were the top cards it would have been possible for either vendor to pack extra transistors onto their dies and end up with low yields and cards costing £1200 or more but they did not.

When the original Titan came along at £830 it caused uproar and I don't think NVidia sold huge numbers of them.

The vendors need to get back to around £500 for mainstream high end cards or lose customers for ever to other platforms.

NVidia, AMD and even Intel need to push technology ahead for their other non-gaming markets and we get pulled along with it, at the moment, at an ever increasing price. I remember seeing an RT demo in a design use case and it looked fantastic.
I don't think the 20 series is a trend for the future regarding pricing. I think pricing includes a bit of early adopter tax too this gen, which I'm personally happy to pay at this stage but I'd be less happy to pay considerably more again next time.
I wont leave PC gaming. I tried a console and hated it. I like having a configurable system where I can upgrade parts individually - especially the GPU. However, the last two generations I've owned the Titan but this time only the 2080, so, I have a limit . Actually would have been prepared to buy the Ti this time but I think next gen will take a leap forward so might go top end then

 

[Shaz12]

Leaving PC gaming will be hard. I love modding games and PC just offers more flexibility and still looks better than consoles. Also loving 144hz.

 

[kedge]

Early days still, there are not many games with RTX features besides BF5 and Metro Exodus, what concerns me more is the possible disparity with image quality in those two games between the RTX series, for example, in Metro Exodus is the RTX image quality the same between the 2070 RTX and the 2080 RTX? does having more RT Cores give a better image quality?

 

[Yaayuh!]

£500 should really be the max for a normal high end GPU.

If AMD or NVidia are charging more than that it means they are pushing the tech too hard for too little gain and ultimately it will cost them sales.

Back in the days when the GTX 680 and HD 7970 were the top cards it would have been possible for either vendor to pack extra transistors onto their dies and end up with low yields and cards costing £1200 or more but they did not.

When the original Titan came along at £830 it caused uproar and I don't think NVidia sold huge numbers of them.

The vendors need to get back to around £500 for mainstream high end cards or lose customers for ever to other platforms.

I think given how silly it's got, I'm sure most (inc me) would even be happy for something like £850-£1000 Silly $£ Titan Card | £650-£750 High | £350-£500 Mid | £150-£250 Low

 

[Nasher]

Early days still, there are not many games with RTX features besides BF5 and Metro Exodus, what concerns me more is the possible disparity with image quality in those two games between the RTX series, for example, in Metro Exodus is the RTX image quality the same between the 2070 RTX and the 2080 RTX? does having more RT Cores give a better image quality?

It's all single pass, so I doubt it. The bare minimum to call it ray-tracing basically.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

What AMD have is a capable gaming GPU offering HQ visuals that keeps up with a 1080ti and RTX2080 in a lot of games,.

Almost 2 years later using a process that's half the size but a card that still consumes more power.

a lot of people who wanted 1080ti/2080 performance at that price already have a card and the people who don't would/should pick a RTX 280 in most cases.

 

[vapor matt]

Almost 2 years later using a process that's half the size but a card that still consumes more power.

a lot of people who wanted 1080ti/2080 performance at that price already have a card and the people who don't would/should pick a RTX 280 in most cases.

That doesn't matter, AMD are getting experience from 7nm and nvidia are far away from it yet. you cant buy 1080ti's any more they are EOL and the 2080 is NV's new tech. the VII is vega shrunk, not new tech just more HBM2 and
it keeps up with a 2080 offering better visuals. the top end 2080ti's are double the price. feature wise RTX offers RT and DLSS which for many is over priced and only really viable on the 2080ti at a decent frame rate.

It was AMD's only option, but its still the first 7nm GFX card and for the price offers 2080 performance. so anyone who was looking to upgrade from a 1070 or V64 its a viable option. 1080ti owners would do well to stick with what they have
especially if purchased when the 1080ti was £500 plus. as for power draw the 1080ti can draw some power to, especially the high end cards. my titan XP draws more power than the VII when over clocked. So far I can get
VII with a 150mhz core and 200mhz memory over clock undervolted. which is less than the 300w that AMD say power draw is at reference speed. I am not a NV or AMD fan by any means, but I do feel the bad drivers
released by AMD on launch reviews did the VII no good at all. but over all its a very good card for the money.

 

[Calin Banc]

You can get a decent performance out of 2080 with ray tracing (at least in Metro Exodus), it depends on what each individual expects. 2080ti isn't a lot faster. Probably you'll need something 2-3x the speed of a 2080 to enjoy what's now out and will come in the near future on higher resolutions, which 2080ti for sure doesn't offer. 30% or so is not enough, not for the price payed.

Vega VII at the same price as a RTX2080, strictly talking about gaming, is not worth it (unless you're into freesync). Doesn't offer anything extra, but it does need more power and generates more heat. Could mean an extra expense if you need to upgrade the PSU.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

 

[peahead]

I never even gave the USB-C port a second thought on my RTX2080 until i seen this article.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...c-port-on-rtx-graphics-cards-isnt-just-for-vr

 

[CuriousTomCat]

The RTX feature convinced thousands and thousands of people into upgrading so I'd say that's definately a win. A product doesn't have to be good to be a success. You could sell a turd with a cherry on top and it will be a win if people bought it.

 

[Nasher]

But sales have still been poor...

Even the 1070 and 1080 didn't sell all that well, there was a huge stock left over and people only bought them once they saw the even sillier 20 series prices.

 

[Vexr]

I never even gave the USB-C port a second thought on my RTX2080 until i seen this article.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...c-port-on-rtx-graphics-cards-isnt-just-for-vr

Interesting. I have a monitor that's designed to act as a USB-C hub, which I can't currently use as my motherboard doesn't have an appropriate port. I hope USB-C on graphics cards continue to be a thing - could see it coming in useful in a year or two's time even though I'm not using it right now.