Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by tommybhoy, Feb 8, 2019.
980ti to 1080ti performance increase of around 70% at 1440p for an increase of $50 = not a fail
1080ti to 2080ti performance increase of around 30% at 1440p for an increase of $400 = FAIL
Actually you will find that those cheap (sub £1200) RTX2080Tis are not the same as the £1400+ RTX2080Tis.
The latter are more power efficient and clock better as the SKU is different.
2080ti is a big fail for me, cost is just stupid. Its ok though there are loads of people that suck the Nvidia fat one and will buy a space invader card for mega moniez and believe they got a good deal cus there is 1 game that sort of supports it
I was just keeping the costs and performance relative to FE cards to keep the playing field even
FE 2080 Ti clocks as well as the best and costs £1099
Add waterblock and it is even better
I use FE cards in SLI (not 2080 Ti) and am very impressed with how quiet the coolers are compared to cards from previous generations.
But if you add another 20-45% on when games all in the future support DLSS you're back to a comparable increase in performance (70%). Raw performance isn't there but something had to give to bring RTX to the table .
Hopefully next gen takes a good step forward and I think it's going to come a little sooner than normal time between generations.
Is that really the case though?
I think a while back someone post something on this forum about that despite the Nvidia GPUs being the "same spec", Nvidia have separate the GPUs in the tier A parts and tier B with different part IDs/model numbers, with the teir A parts that can clock better being allocated to the more premium cards (such as AIB factory overclocked models), while the teir B parts that cannot clock as high are allocated to the lower price budget models (i.e. the blower cooler cards such as "Joker card").
Not really sure if there's any true to this.
Is ray-tracing still coming to Tomb Raider?
A parts go into the FE cards.
Yes B parts do go into joker cards and others.
I am very unimpressed with NVidia on this, if they are going to use RTX in TR as a demo for the launch the least they can do is make sure it is included in the game after all this time.
NVidia must be getting very close to being guilty of false advertising with the RTX launch because of the lack of RTX in TR.
Key word there is "when" but should probably be an "if".
But DLSS is reliant on Nvidia and the developers to implement. So it will never replace true physical performance improvement.
The 70% increase between 980ti and 1080ti was across all games without the need for developers or Nvidia to make it work
It just won't happen this time around and to add insult to injury they are charging a $400 premium for it
I know, remains to be seen .if nv can get it in top releases that will be nice.
Is why also mentioned raw performance, that is not dlss assisted.
Price was a fail, definitely. I can see a justification somewhat in the larger die size compared to previous gen but.... That being said, I bought a TI and put a waterblock on it and, in isolation, I am very pleased with the performance - who wouldn't be. I enjoy playing with the various demos on RTX and DLSS and it won't be long now until we see some real life usage of those features. Time will tell if those will be fail or not, too early to tell at the moment. For now I'd withhold judgement on that - too early. They are interesting features.
Same applies for ARK and quite a few games, where the developers are completely silent when DLSS will be added.
The worst part is now anything that has ray tracing, like the Quake 2 mod, straight away the media call it "RTX game" and in same sentence including RTX2080Ti.
Regardless if that doesn't need RTX card to do so and works even in ancient GTX780 or 7970 as it is using OpenGL 3.3 code
PhysX 10 years ago, was exactly the same on same marketing path. Yet by end of last year, the only good games supporting it could be counted on 2 hands, and those 4 were on same game series. Others still reported by Nvidia supporting PhysX they do not support it like Planetside 2 and others.
I recall someone did a direct comparison between natively rendered 3200x1800 res vs 4K DLSS, and concluded with that image quality and performance between pretty much comparable, with the latter limited to games that developers willing to support the feature, whereas the former have no such limitation.
DLSS (at the moment at least) is pretty much more for the sake of marketing than actual practicality. It's like trying to get from point A to B by take a "new shortcut" through the woods (which not everyone have the capability to do so), only to find out it is not really any more time-efficient nor is it a more pleasant experience than travelling on the road have always been available to everyone.
You knew the price was a fail yet you still bought it? I cant imagine buying something that I thought was too expensive.
It reminds me of the Just Cause 3 update that never materialised, I can't remember what the update was bringing but it was a big tech update, I think it never happened because the game didn't reach the level of popularity they'd hoped it would, I'm wondering if it's a similar situation with SOTTR, It was a decent Tomb Raider game but for me I spent 20 odd hours playing it & I must be past halfway through but the story never grabbed hold of me like the others did so I've never felt the need to go back to finish the campaign. Maybe that's a common thing & why it fell of the must play radar so quick.
Lack of options probably
Separate names with a comma.