NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080/2080 Ti Review: A New GPU King is Born - MMORPG.com

SBFord

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080/2080 Ti Review: A New GPU King is Born - MMORPG.com

The day has finally arrived: NVIDIA GeForce RTX is here and we’re able to tell you all about it. We’ve spent the last week with both the GeForce 2080 and 2080 Ti and feel like we’ve only scratched the surface. There’s a lot going on with these cards and they’re poised to change the face of game rendering as we know it. This is our review of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti.

Read the full story here

AwakenHD

Or you can buy two 1080ti for the same price . The performance per $ compared to last gen is abyssal plus features like RTX where only the TI can use it barely (1080p, ~50/60fps) that's what happens when you don't have competition . Plus the NDA contract where it says that any confidential information provided to the party must be used "solely for the benefit of NVIDIA" . Still a great overpriced card tho .

Alverant

AwakenHD said:

Plus the NDA contract where it says that any confidential information provided to the party must be used "solely for the benefit of NVIDIA" .

OK, that's the scary part. What aren't they telling us?

Ozmodan

The marketing hype on this overpriced card is absurd.  Just bought a 1080 ti for under $400 which should last me for a few years.  Ray tracing is pretty much an emerging tech that will need far more powerful GPUs to effectively use it.

If your monitor is closer than 6 ft from your eyes, you won't see much benefit from 4k either.  So a 1080 is about as much as you need for the foreseeable future.  

The upcoming 2060's and 2050's won't be able to do any ray tracing without a severe degradation of FPS.  You can probably include the 2070 in that too.

Take advantage of the low prices on the 10xx series, best bargain for a long time.  20xx prices are as expected ridiculous! 

timeraider

As nice as the tests are.. using PUBG as a performance monitor? Really? That shit is so unstable that it makes holding nuclear waste safe

Zeppel80

These charts are unprofessionally drawn, they're distorted across the horizontal axis in such a way as to exaggerate the advantage of the 20 series cards.

For example, on the 1440p chart for GTA V at average, the 1080 gives 170 fps and the 2080 177 fps. That's only 7 fps more, yet the bar for the 2080 is more than double the length of the bar for 1080. Surely, you guys know that a valid chart uses equal units of measurement across an axis. I guess that's why you didn't lay out any units of measurement across the X axis.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

gervaise1

Hmmm.

There has been a pretty lengthy discussion about Turing in the Hardware section.

Are these cards more powerful - absolutely. Do they deliver "useful" extra performance though? Obviously it will vary by what game you are playing and at what resolution but posters suspected probably not - especially at simple HD resolutions. Which seems to be the case. Against which you have to set the extra cost.

In the future? Yes. Things will get better. Better drivers and more games using new features. However:

In the future there will also be new cards manufactured on 7nm proceesses. Apple's A12 is the first 7nm chip but there are new 7nm offerings coming from both AMD (Navi?) and NVidia. Dates are a little uncertain but we may see AMD's as early as Q12019 and whatever NVidia have sent to tape around mid-2019. (AMD's Vega20 could be this year.) And these will - almost certainly - be more powerful.

Now sometimes there has been little reason to put off getting something new. Sure there is always something better coming but why wait? Sometimes however there are good reasons to wait a little - to see what the future holds. This is probably one of those times.

GameByNight

Alverant said:

AwakenHD said:

Plus the NDA contract where it says that any confidential information provided to the party must be used "solely for the benefit of NVIDIA" .

OK, that's the scary part. What aren't they telling us?

When you actually look into this, it's nowhere near as bad as it sounds. There's a lot of fear mongering going on for what's essentially standard legalese in the NDA. We weren't required to sign anything, for the record.

Alverant

The only advantage this card has is that it will probably drive down the price of earlier models.

GameByNight

timeraider said:

As nice as the tests are.. using PUBG as a performance monitor? Really? That shit is so unstable that it makes holding nuclear waste safe

Perhaps, but it's super popular and a metric that will have meaning to lots of users. It's also planned for Ray Tracing, so cross-referencing at that time will be important.

Vhayne

Ozmodan said:

If your monitor is closer than 6 ft from your eyes, you won't see much benefit from 4k either.  So a 1080 is about as much as you need for the foreseeable future.  

Where do you people get this information, or are your eyes just not working properly?  I've heard over and over again, especially when 4k came out...."the human eye cannot distinguish the increase in resolution".  Blah Blah Blah…

I can absolutely without a doubt confirm that 4k is a HUGE increase in visual quality over 1080p from distances as close as 3ft from your face.  I have been using 40-55" tv's for years on my PC desk, with me sitting 3ft from the screen.  For the longest time I used 1080p tv's, but about 1.5 years ago I decided to upgrade to 4k.  It is totally an enormous difference.  Games don't always run the best in 4k however, so I change back to 1080p sometimes.  The framerate is buttery smooth (at 120hz) then, but the lower res is a drastic difference.  


I wish people would truly test things out for themselves before believing everything they read on the internet. 

Ozmodan

GameByNight said:

timeraider said:

As nice as the tests are.. using PUBG as a performance monitor? Really? That shit is so unstable that it makes holding nuclear waste safe

Perhaps, but it's super popular and a metric that will have meaning to lots of users. It's also planned for Ray Tracing, so cross-referencing at that time will be important.

The only ray tracing you will see in PUBG is where it does not effect FPS.  Eye candy in games like this is rarely useful.

GameByNight

Zeppel80 said:

These charts are unprofessionally drawn, they're distorted across the horizontal axis in such a way as to exaggerate the advantage of the 20 series cards.



For example, on the 1440p chart for GTA V at average, the 1080 gives 170 fps and the 2080 177 fps. That's only 7 fps more, yet the bar for the 2080 is more than double the length of the bar for 1080. Surely, you guys know that a valid chart uses equal units of measurement across an axis. I guess that's why you didn't lay out any units of measurement across the X axis.

I see your point because I opted for an embedded bar graph. As a means of cleanly showing the FPS between the two, it works fine. Our CMS requires images be sized down, so making it easily readable is an important factor until we get a redesign that allows for larger images. To interpret the graphs, you should *not* be thinking that the orange bars are running underneath the blue ones. Each side is sized independently. The GTA V example, those bars are almost exactly the same size.

Ozmodan

Vhayne said:

Ozmodan said:

If your monitor is closer than 6 ft from your eyes, you won't see much benefit from 4k either.  So a 1080 is about as much as you need for the foreseeable future.  

Where do you people get this information, or are your eyes just not working properly?  I've heard over and over again, especially when 4k came out...."the human eye cannot distinguish the increase in resolution".  Blah Blah Blah…

I can absolutely without a doubt confirm that 4k is a HUGE increase in visual quality over 1080p from distances as close as 3ft from your face.  I have been using 40-55" tv's for years on my PC desk, with me sitting 3ft from the screen.  For the longest time I used 1080p tv's, but about 1.5 years ago I decided to upgrade to 4k.  It is totally an enormous difference.  Games don't always run the best in 4k however, so I change back to 1080p sometimes.  The framerate is buttery smooth (at 120hz) then, but the lower res is a drastic difference.  


I wish people would truly test things out for themselves before believing everything they read on the internet. 

I have to completely disagree with your comment.  I have a 4k monitor and there really is little difference.  Even on my 1080 running 4k is problematic and not worth the minimal increase visually.

GameByNight

Ozmodan said:

GameByNight said:

timeraider said:

As nice as the tests are.. using PUBG as a performance monitor? Really? That shit is so unstable that it makes holding nuclear waste safe

Perhaps, but it's super popular and a metric that will have meaning to lots of users. It's also planned for Ray Tracing, so cross-referencing at that time will be important.

The only ray tracing you will see in PUBG is where it does not effect FPS.  Eye candy in games like this is rarely useful.

You think? My concern is that *any* ray tracing is going to effect FPS.

ragebullet

Vhayne said:

Ozmodan said:

If your monitor is closer than 6 ft from your eyes, you won't see much benefit from 4k either.  So a 1080 is about as much as you need for the foreseeable future.  

Where do you people get this information, or are your eyes just not working properly?  I've heard over and over again, especially when 4k came out...."the human eye cannot distinguish the increase in resolution".  Blah Blah Blah…

I can absolutely without a doubt confirm that 4k is a HUGE increase in visual quality over 1080p from distances as close as 3ft from your face.  I have been using 40-55" tv's for years on my PC desk, with me sitting 3ft from the screen.  For the longest time I used 1080p tv's, but about 1.5 years ago I decided to upgrade to 4k.  It is totally an enormous difference.  Games don't always run the best in 4k however, so I change back to 1080p sometimes.  The framerate is buttery smooth (at 120hz) then, but the lower res is a drastic difference.  


I wish people would truly test things out for themselves before believing everything they read on the internet. 

i remember when people said you couldn't tell the difference between 30-60-120 fps lol same shit different day xD

AwakenHD

DMKano said:

AwakenHD said:

Or you can buy two 1080ti for the same price . The performance per $ compared to last gen is abyssal plus features like RTX where only the TI can use it barely (1080p, ~50/60fps) that's what happens when you don't have competition . Plus the NDA contract where it says that any confidential information provided to the party must be used "solely for the benefit of NVIDIA" . Still a great overpriced card tho .

One RTX 2080 is faster than a 1080ti at a $100 higher cost.

I think you want to compare a 2000 series lower model vs a 1080 higher model

So 2080 vs 1080ti - as again as far as price and performance those 2 are in the same tier.

2080ti is way faster than 1080ti and should be compared to the titan x again if you look at price/performance that comparison makes sense

The real issue is Nvidias new naming - 2080 should be named 2080ti

2080ti should be named 2080 titan and then all would make sense as far as price and performance 

The RTX 2080 compared to the 1080ti in most scenarios has 1 to 5 fps increase and sometimes is even lower than the 1080ti for 100 euros more ? So you wait 2+ years to get a card more expensive with the same perfomance ??? And for info the 1080ti vs 2080ti  is a whooping 25/30% perf increase for a 70% price increase . Now you know why they only showcase a rtx demo instead of perf graphs ect .

GameByNight

AwakenHD said:

DMKano said:

AwakenHD said:

Or you can buy two 1080ti for the same price . The performance per $ compared to last gen is abyssal plus features like RTX where only the TI can use it barely (1080p, ~50/60fps) that's what happens when you don't have competition . Plus the NDA contract where it says that any confidential information provided to the party must be used "solely for the benefit of NVIDIA" .

Still a great overpriced card tho .

One RTX 2080 is faster than a 1080ti at a $100 higher cost.

I think you want to compare a 2000 series lower model vs a 1080 higher model

So 2080 vs 1080ti - as again as far as price and performance those 2 are in the same tier.

2080ti is way faster than 1080ti and should be compared to the titan x again if you look at price/performance that comparison makes sense

The real issue is Nvidias new naming - 2080 should be named 2080ti

2080ti should be named 2080 titan and then all would make sense as far as price and performance 

The RTX 2080 compared to the 1080ti in most scenarios has 1 to 5 fps
increase and sometimes is even lower than the 1080ti for 100 euros more ?
So you wait 2+ years to get a card more expensive with the same
perfomance ??? And for info the 1080ti vs 2080ti  is a whooping
25/30% perf increase for a 70% price increase . Now you know why they only showcase a rtx demo instead of perf graphs ect .

True, but the 1080 Ti is going to show its age whereas the 2080 will only do better as features roll out in games that take advantage of Turing.

knightaudit

From the reviews I have heard Ray tracing in still not working at this time, and there are only like 2 games that could even use it. Drivers are not optimized, sot it is more like a half baked version of what may be not what is. It may be a good card but not in the current state and the cost is just too high right now.

laserit

Ozmodan said:

Vhayne said:

Ozmodan said:

If your monitor is closer than 6 ft from your eyes, you won't see much benefit from 4k either.  So a 1080 is about as much as you need for the foreseeable future.  

Where do you people get this information, or are your eyes just not working properly?  I've heard over and over again, especially when 4k came out...."the human eye cannot distinguish the increase in resolution".  Blah Blah Blah…

I can absolutely without a doubt confirm that 4k is a HUGE increase in visual quality over 1080p from distances as close as 3ft from your face.  I have been using 40-55" tv's for years on my PC desk, with me sitting 3ft from the screen.  For the longest time I used 1080p tv's, but about 1.5 years ago I decided to upgrade to 4k.  It is totally an enormous difference.  Games don't always run the best in 4k however, so I change back to 1080p sometimes.  The framerate is buttery smooth (at 120hz) then, but the lower res is a drastic difference.  


I wish people would truly test things out for themselves before believing everything they read on the internet. 

I have to completely disagree with your comment.  I have a 4k monitor and there really is little difference.  Even on my 1080 running 4k is problematic and not worth the minimal increase visually.

Really depends on what your running

Something like Fortnite = little difference

Something like Prepar3d = World of difference

On a different note:

My 1080ti performs more than good enough. I'm more interested in multi-monitor performance. For a couple of my applications I want to run up to 5 monitors to create a 220deg field of view, with another 3 for instruments. Right now that requires at least 3 computers and 5 gpus for acceptable performance. If that can be cut down to 2 computers and two gpus I'd be a happy camper. 

MadFrenchie

blueturtle13 said:

Actually what all these benchmarks show me is how well my 1080 still performs. I'll stick with it for now.
For those with a 900 series or older it seems a good time to upgrade.

It is time.  The question is do I just save some cash and grab a 1080, or shell out the extra to get a 2000 series card?

gervaise1

MadFrenchie said:

blueturtle13 said:

Actually what all these benchmarks show me is how well my 1080 still performs. I'll stick with it for now.
For those with a 900 series or older it seems a good time to upgrade.

It is time.  The question is do I just save some cash and grab a 1080, or shell out the extra to get a 2000 series card?

Or wait a few more months to see how availability and price pan out and see what 7nm brings.

PsYcHoGBR

DMKano said:

AwakenHD said:

Or you can buy two 1080ti for the same price . The performance per $ compared to last gen is abyssal plus features like RTX where only the TI can use it barely (1080p, ~50/60fps) that's what happens when you don't have competition . Plus the NDA contract where it says that any confidential information provided to the party must be used "solely for the benefit of NVIDIA" . Still a great overpriced card tho .

One RTX 2080 is faster than a 1080ti at a $100 higher cost.

I think you want to compare a 2000 series lower model vs a 1080 higher model

So 2080 vs 1080ti - as again as far as price and performance those 2 are in the same tier.

2080ti is way faster than 1080ti and should be compared to the titan x again if you look at price/performance that comparison makes sense

The real issue is Nvidias new naming - 2080 should be named 2080ti

2080ti should be named 2080 titan and then all would make sense as far as price and performance 

Not according to this bench today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUM_eINGUl4

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Alverant

GameByNight said:

When you actually look into this, it's nowhere near as bad as it sounds. There's a lot of fear mongering going on for what's essentially standard legalese in the NDA. We weren't required to sign anything, for the record.

And how can anyone properly "look into this" when they restrict what can be said. Remember you can only release information "solely for the benefit of NVIDIA". If you refused to sign, did you still get the video card? If not, then you were required. My point is that a reviewer shouldn't be prevented from reporting the bad things and if something is "solely for the benefit" then how can it be trusted?