OcUK Nvidia RTX series review thread

[melmac]

Never buy based on future promises. I made that mistake with Destiny 2...

I hope that the DLSS stuff plays out as well in games as it does in the Nvidia issued demos, but I need to see it in an actual game. No the Final Fantasy results don't count, not until its something that can be replicated by buyers at home.

But i want to be clear - i want DLSS to be everything that is being promised. I hope the improvements that have been shown when using DLSS on the 2080 are real.

I had high hopes for DLSS, well, I still have high hopes. Hope it's close to been as good as marketed. Just disappointing that they couldn't have had one or two games ready for the launch.

 

[Kaapstad]

For the same price, yes, not for getting close to double the price though.

Price is very disappointing.

 

[Gerard]

30-50% increase over 1080Ti + probably double that in DLSS supported games (which will increase in number because Nvidia are providing the code to enable it free of charge) is not satisfying? Each to their own I guess, I am very happy with the results and looking forward to receiving both 2080Ti I ordered - going to be a huge step up from R9 390X and 980Ti they will replace. They weren't cheap sure - but neither was my iPhone XS, my iPad Pro, my MacBook Pro, my Apple Watch 4 etc etc etc.

Point is, value is subjective - I and many others are perfectly happy with what we have purchased.

Most reviews are concluding 25-30% at most. Which is the typical performance bump for a new product.

 

[Lokken86]

So found this on Paul's Hardware review - appears to be good improvement?
https://youtu.be/x8KtOAw6HnI?t=457

Yeah just shy of 30% which is not bad but honestly nothing is really pushing a 1080ti on an oculus rift or even vibe pro yet so a 2080ti would be wasted on it. The only thing you can do to harness that power is supersampling but I don't find it enough of a difference to want loads of it. Better off waiting to see if a good 4k (per eye) headset comes out and look at gpu prices then.

 

[Quartz]

Wow. 8 pages already!

My immediate take-aways, in no particular order:

There's going to be a Titan T with the full fat TU100.
Those who, like me, chose the 2080 Ti made the right choice.
Those who looked at the plain 2080 and chose to wait also made the right choice.
Some review sites don't seem to have thought about those looking to upgrade from 980 / 980 Ti / Titan XM cards. Thank you TechPowerUp for being one of those sites that did.
The 2080 Ti is over 2x as fast than the 980 Ti / Titan XM, and usually nearer 3x.

 

[Acesbomb]

Is DLSS even that valid when running high resolutions?

That's a good point. I have 1600p monitor and for old games I might run VSR 4k and turn off AA entirely. 4k on a 30" doesn't need AA, it is a replacement for using AA for me.

 

[~>Dg<~]

1080ti faster than 2080 in most games looking a bargin. unless you want smudged shadows

 

[Distracted]

Most reviews are concluding 25-30% at most. Which is the typical performance bump for a new product.

But usually the new product has the same pricing as the generation it is replacing or thereabouts.

Theres a huge disparity between the performance increase we're seeing and the current asking price when compared to past generations.

 

[spoffle]

Price is very disappointing.

I would have bought at the same price point as a 1080Ti, but their prices are complete delusional fantasy. The way they set up the NDAs said it all to me though, I really don't trust nVidia as a company and they keep doing things to reinforce my distrust.

It's frustrating that they're the only option for high end at the moment.

 

[Brendan1966]

Yeah just shy of 30% which is not bad but honestly nothing is really pushing a 1080ti on an oculus rift or even vibe pro yet. The only thing you can do to harness that power is supersampling but I don't find it enough of a difference to want loads of it. Better off waiting to see if a good 4k (per eye) headset comes out and look at gpu prices then.

I use VR for flight simming amongst other titles. I find my vega 64 is ok but struggles to give me a consistent frame rate without regular tweaking. Super Sampling max at 1.4

 

[Kirby Wurm]

Also GN was pretty shady with his review using an AIB 1080Ti instead of FE. Like for like comparison should have been the case - the fact that Nvidia beefed up the cooling on the new FE cards should be included as part of the review not disregarded and compared against AIB cards instead. I have seen a couple of the reviews so far which have dome the same - it is not appropriate in my opinion. If they are going to compare AIB 1080 Ti then it should be with an equivalent AIB 2080 - Strix for Strix etc. Mind you so many GN fanboys here I fully expect to get flamed to death for criticising his oh so holy methods.

I see your point but the comparison is certainly valid when looking at what's available at this time and at which price points. £600 will net you a solid AIB 1080 Ti with the MSI deal where £750 is the entry point with an FE 2080.

 

[doodah]

pointless lol

You don't need to tell me that. He's always wanting the best/overkill apart from his aging CPU .

 

[Lokken86]

I use VR for flight simming amongst other titles. I find my vega 64 is ok but struggles to give me a consistent frame rate without regular tweaking. Super Sampling max at 1.4

Well I'm not surpised. 1.4ss is rendering almost twice the resolution of the rift. The vega cards aren't as good anyway as the 1080s for vr let alone a ti which the guy said his mate was using. I just leave it at 1.0 and so far i've been getting constant 90fps so I'm happy. I did try 1.2 briefly but I'm getting old and I can't see much improvement unless it's virtual desktop reading text etc. When it starts struggling like this I'll maybe think about a new gpu.

 

[Paladine]

Digital Foundry Benchmarks:

AC Unity - 31%
Battlefield 1 - 37%
Far Cry 5 - 31%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider - 40%
Witcher 3 - 33%

Digital Foundry Benchmarks:

AC Unity - 31%
Battlefield 1 - 37%
Far Cry 5 - 31%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider - 40%
Witcher 3 - 33%

Tech Power-Up provided a lot more titles:

AC Origins: 37%
Battlefield 1: 36%
CoD WWII: 34%
Civilisation VI: 32%
Deus Ex Mankind Divided: 35%
Divinity Original Sin 2: 31%
Dragon Quest XI: 48%
F1 2018: 39%
Far Cry 5: 33%
Ghost Recon Wildlands: 32%
GTA V: 30%
Hellblade Senuas Sacrifice: 49%
Hitman 2016: 46%
Monster Hunter World: 47%
Middle Earth Shadow of War: 42%
Prey: 45%
Rainbow Six Siege: 51%
Rise of the Tomb Raider: 34%
Sniper Elite 4: 32%
Spell Force 3: 27%
Strange Brigade: 34%
Witcher 3: 39%
Wolfenstein II: 67%

Average: 39%

I don't see that as bad at all and it is a good range of games too which gives a more realistic spread.

 

[Shocky-FM]

Most reviews are concluding 25-30% at most. Which is the typical performance bump for a new product.

That was fine when we used to spend around £500 for flagships and even that was a lot at the time, also releases were every 6 months to a year.

This feels like the refresh we used to get after 6 months, only it's two years later and for twice the price.

 

[JediFragger]

I don't see that as bad at all and it is a good range of games too which gives a more realistic spread.

Lot of titles there have skewed the final result somewhat though.

 

[loftie]

Going by TPU, the 2080 is slightly better than the 1080Ti (8% slower), last gen the 1070 filled this role. The 2080Ti is around 14-28% faster than the 2080. Last time there was a larger gap between the 1080 and the 1080Ti.

It's not like it's bad, the gains are nice, just not as nice as Pascal was. The issue is that the price has increased significantly and the price brackets have effectively shifted with the 2080 filling the role the 1070 filled last gen whilst now commanding 1080Ti prices. Now DLSS could increase frames nicely, but we don't know enough, and ray tracing could make games look awesome. Though some of the examples I've seen so far have been hit and miss IMO.

 

[B1gbeard]

Lot of titles there have skewed the final result somewhat though.

The minimum though is about 30% which was quoted as the maximum.

 

[melmac]

Everythign Ive seen to far at the resolution I game at shows at least a small increase. Fair play, I think we have different view of previous discussions and a basis where we were coming from. For me it's always been about 1440P+ and newer games, not older.
And when I said pulling it all to bits, I meant generally, the 20 series. DLSS and RTX has always been crucial features of these cards, so to moan about the 20 series but then recognise the potential of DLSS seems contradictory.
I don't personally care about games I don't play. Right now for example I'm starting Wolfenstein 2 so for me in that game I would see a 40% increase at 1440P over a 1080 Ti with a 2080. So if I were to buy future games with 20-40% increase, that would be the average perforamne gain I'd see, not the average between games I don't play
What GPU do you own btw?

But, I never moaned about these cards, only the price. I gave a realistic expectation of the performance based on every leak and the interview with Tom Petersen. And I still cannot understand how you could listen to what he said and then come out and say that the cards were going to be 15% faster across the board.

If you look at a few of the decent reviewers like GamerNexus, you will see that the 2080 is behind as much as it's in front and that includes newer games. Nearly every reviewer, good and bad puts them on par with each other. Picking one or two games and telling me I am wrong because the 2080 is faster in those two games is not really true. There are always going to be a few outliers.

What games you play doesn't matter, we are talking about the cards performance relative to one another, Just because you play games where the 2080 is much faster doesn't make the 2080 the faster card overall.

I have an EVGA SC Black edition 1080ti at the moment. It's a really nice card. But, I have to either change my monitor or get a 7nm AMD card when they come as I miss having sync tech. I was never going to a Turing card as the price is too high. If the 2080ti drops to £899 I might consider one as I think it's the only one worth buying.

 

[Gerard]

But usually the new product has the same pricing as the generation it is replacing or thereabouts.

Theres a huge disparity between the performance increase we're seeing and the current asking price when compared to past generations.

Oh I agree, Nvidia just went bat**** mental with the pricing. Had it been £550 for 2080 and £750- £800 for ti then the reviews would have been more forgiving. For the time being this is just another speed bump card as none of the new features are usable currently.

The cooler looks good but as pointed out in some reviews its lack of air channels is a detriment to it, on open air test bench it could still get close to 80c. Didn't they claim something like a 10-15 c temp drop at some point? Presumably with the pc in a fridge.

Find it interesting they're using vulkan for their rtx effects considering that's an evolution of mantle.