Originally Posted by ragedogg69:
indeed. While it pisses the hardcore nerds off, his channel is turning into Top Gear for Technology. I love it. I actually go out of my way to use his amazon referral link when shopping. If it gets him to do more this and other channel super fun stuff, I am all for it.
Yeah him and Paul's Hardware are frequent visits for me as well. Can't really stand JayzTwoCents though. [Reply]
So I have a few hours of American Truck Simulator under my belt. Not a lot of changes, but still worth the on sale price of $15. Driving across the desert now has tumbleweeds across the road. More detailed cities and your choice for much harder parking for XP. Some of those parkign spots are bullshit.
I cannot wait for the free Arizona DLC to see if the trip between Phoenix and Tucson is as boring as real life lol. [Reply]
Meh. There's nothing to compare them to right now and I just bought a 1070ti a couple months ago for $430. The price on a 2070 begins at $500 so unless this new ray shit adds a fuck ton more horsepower I wont be buying. [Reply]
Originally Posted by hometeam:
no benchmark yet, and the only leak is that raytracing on tombraider cant even keep a steady 30 fps on 1080p
Yeah, I saw that too.
I'm curious to see what the non-ray tracing benchmark show as well. The community seems to be very upset with the price points. I mean NVIDIA is getting roasted in the comments. :-)
My 1070 can't really give me the FPS I want on my 1440p monitor so I was excited for these bad boys to come out hoping I could hit 160 Hz @ 1440p on Ultra with something like an RTX 2080.
I may just end up getting a 1080 Ti instead if the price drops sufficiently enough.
I feel like if ray tracing does become the norm, it'll happen with the next generation or maybe the one after anyway. /shrug [Reply]
The first gen RTX cards will be like when physx came out. It'll be cool to turn ray tracing on but you wont play the game with it on as it'll tank performance. They'll release 7nm cards next year, that will be a proper generational leap over the 10 series. [Reply]
I'm curious to see what the non-ray tracing benchmark show as well. The community seems to be very upset with the price points. I mean NVIDIA is getting roasted in the comments. :-)
My 1070 can't really give me the FPS I want on my 1440p monitor so I was excited for these bad boys to come out hoping I could hit 160 Hz @ 1440p on Ultra with something like an RTX 2080.
I may just end up getting a 1080 Ti instead if the price drops sufficiently enough.
I feel like if ray tracing does become the norm, it'll happen with the next generation or maybe the one after anyway. /shrug
a lot of it is these games now days suck as far as optimization. Its like game companies came out and are just like fuck it we'll make it as easy as possible. [Reply]
I'm curious to see what the non-ray tracing benchmark show as well. The community seems to be very upset with the price points. I mean NVIDIA is getting roasted in the comments. :-)
My 1070 can't really give me the FPS I want on my 1440p monitor so I was excited for these bad boys to come out hoping I could hit 160 Hz @ 1440p on Ultra with something like an RTX 2080.
I may just end up getting a 1080 Ti instead if the price drops sufficiently enough.
I feel like if ray tracing does become the norm, it'll happen with the next generation or maybe the one after anyway. /shrug
This is what I’m hoping. My son’s 1080 is about 2 years old and it shreds anything he throws at it including Vive. I’ve been wanting to build another rig and now gpu prices are finally starting to soften.
My bitch with Nvidia is the gsync monitors cost double compared to the freesync monitors I got for my other two boys who have AMD cards.
I’ve heard there’s a hack to get freesync to run on nvidia but never tried it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Trent Green GOAT:
The first gen RTX cards will be like when physx came out. It'll be cool to turn ray tracing on but you wont play the game with it on as it'll tank performance. They'll release 7nm cards next year, that will be a proper generational leap over the 10 series.
Originally Posted by hometeam:
no benchmark yet, and the only leak is that raytracing on tombraider cant even keep a steady 30 fps on 1080p
No independent baseline yet that I could find but Nvidia says it’s an improvement. Shocker, I know.
Nvidia Shares RTX 2080 Test Results: 35 - 125% Faster Than GTX 1080
Two days after Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang introduced GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, 2080, and 2070 with a deafening emphasis on real-time ray tracing, the company fed Tom's Hardware early performance data showing GeForce RTX 2080 outperforming GeForce GTX 1080 by anywhere from ~35 percent to ~125 percent at 3840x2160, depending on the workload. Its comparison necessitates a bit of analysis, though.
Right out of the gate, we see that six of the 10 tested games include results with Deep Learning Super-Sampling enabled. DLSS is a technology under the RTX umbrella requiring developer support. It purportedly improves image quality through a neural network trained by 64 jittered samples of a very high-quality ground truth image. This capability is accelerated by the Turing architecture’s tensor cores and not yet available to the general public (although Tom’s Hardware had the opportunity to experience DLSS, and it was quite compelling in the Epic Infiltrator demo Nvidia had on display).
The only way for performance to increase using DLSS is if Nvidia’s baseline was established with some form of anti-aliasing applied at 3840x2160. By turning AA off and using DLSS instead, the company achieves similar image quality, but benefits greatly from hardware acceleration to improve performance. Thus, in those six games, Nvidia demonstrates one big boost over Pascal from undisclosed Turing architectural enhancements, and a second speed-up from turning AA off and DLSS on. Shadow of the Tomb Raider, for instance, appears to get a ~35 percent boost from Turing's tweaks, plus another ~50 percent after switching from AA to DLSS.
In the other four games, improvements to the Turing architecture are wholly responsible for gains ranging between ~40 percent and ~60 percent. Without question, those are hand-picked results. We’re not expecting to average 50%-higher frame rates across our benchmark suite. However, enthusiasts who previously speculated that Turing wouldn’t be much faster than Pascal due to its relatively lower CUDA core count weren’t taking underlying architecture into account. There’s more going on under the hood than the specification sheet suggests.
A second slide calls out explicit performance data in a number of games at 4K HDR, indicating that those titles will average more than 60 FPS under GeForce RTX 2080.
Nvidia doesn’t list the detail settings used for each game. However, we’ve already run a handful of these titles for our upcoming reviews, and can say that these numbers would represent a gain over even GeForce GTX 1080 Ti if the company used similar quality presets.
Of course, we’ll have to wait for final hardware, retail drivers, and our own controlled environment before drawing any concrete conclusions. But Nvidia’s own benchmarks at least suggest that Turing-based cards improve on their predecessors in a big way, even in existing rasterized games.
