GeForce RTX: A Beast for Today’s Games — and Tomorrow’s | The Official NVIDIA Blog
/proxy.php?image=https://blogs.nvidia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/TuringVsPascal_EditorsDay_Aug22_v3-1.png&hash=f9017199bbd61a6fbef00746df43f273
/proxy.php?image=https://blogs.nvidia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/TuringVsPascal_EditorsDay_Aug22_v3-2.png&hash=16c60190683c48bee014f5717ef9750d
i am more interested in RTX 2080 vs 1080ti after all that is closer to the price bracket we are talking.
it seems to me without the new tensor core antiailising the 2080 is barely on a par with the 1080ti..... maybe a smidge better at stock
so the questions for me
1) does it overclock as well as the 10xx?if it can great, but it could be with all those extra cores and what not overclocking will be hampered.
2) will this AI become ubiquitous in games.. if it does and it just beomes an option along side all the other AA options, then i can see the even vanilla 2080 pulling away from the 1080ti.
if not then I would not be surprised to see a well ventilated decent binned 1080ti edge it over all
I think this DLSS AA will get some real traction, unlike the gameworks stuff. Real hardware acceleration for it will really help push adoption and Nvidia will want to help everyone put it in their game if its making that much difference to performance. It does all feel a bit new era for graphics cards, anandtech are saying its the biggest change since the first 3d graphics cards came out.
I can't help but think that there will be very few games in the next 18 months that really need this degree of processing though, maybe some ubisoft titles, battlefield obviously, the cd project game and of course the sponsored tomb raider. Not sure what else.
I'm not even sure that the second image is useful.
Yay you get 2x on a couple of things. Is that now double the frame rate. So if the framerate was 10fps to begin with then its still rubbish!
Totally agree. Plus the founders editions normally are gimped compared to the manufacturer versions, and with these later versions you would have seen loads of comparable benchmarks to make educated choices from.
I am jealous of those of you that have the desposable capital to buy blind based of the barest of information, and being in the same or worse position as Greg mentions I personally wont be buying one of the 2080ti unless....you know what, I can’t actually think of a realistic scenario that would allow me to buy one.
Looks like a cheap 1080ti for me early next year, unless the 2060 or 2070 are around the £500 Mark and better cards.
I just can't justify to myself spending over £1000 on a graphics card. I paid £550 for a 980ti and 600 would would by my limit I think in replacing it as i've had a good 3? years out of it. Suppose If i got £200 for it then that coulld push the budget a little but I really can't justify this amount of money.
PC gaming is becoming a less affordable hobby for me if I want to try and keep up in anyway.
1080 does OK at 4k in several of those games, but the image is meaningless without knowing what settings are applied. For example heavy AA could be applied and if that is the case then its worthless as heavy AA isn't required at 4k.
What on earth is that graph meant to represent?What are those numbers on the side?Looks like more hyperbole until we get proper data.
I think the reality of the situation is that the 1080ti is perfectly capable of playing 95% of PC games at 4k/60 with reasonable settings anyway. You don't actually need one of these new cards unlike the past where the software was moving much faster than the hardware. Hence the high price and the move to try to do something new.
Not sure thats the case for 60FPS mind. I'd rather just play at 1440p at max settings with a smooth guaranteed 60FPS than making sacrifices at 4K.