• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nvidia ,Rtx2080ti,2080,2070, information thread. Reviews and prices September 14.

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fact: If performance in general 3d was largely improved, NVIDIA would have been allll over it during today's presentation. Another fact: Turing was never even on NVIDIA's roadmaps until recently. Last relevant fact: TSMC was originally supposed to have mass production of 7nm chips in the first half of this year.

So NVIDIA was forced to release yet another same-node (12nm is for all intents and purposes a refined 16nm, just like we always got better clock speeds back in the day on mature nodes before marketing decided to squeeze out more from the same old). Unlike Maxwell, there was no leap forward in terms of optimization changes. So NVIDIA has scrambled to release a new wave of products over two years later with no real improvements.

The Geforce GTX 1070 was released on May 2016 with 1920 CUDA cores for $400

Now the RTX 2070 will be released with 2304 CUDA cores at $600.

27 months for 2304 CUDA cores versus 1920 CUDA cores, and an upcharge from $400 to $600.

Actually counting the additional month until actual release, 28 months for a 20% increase in power for a 50% increase in cost...
 
swilli89, the 2070 has nearly 2x the bandwidth so that alone will net 15-25% increase. The end result should be 30-40% better than the 1070.

The higher end cards are going to get less, but should still be 20-25%.
 
crisium said:
Yeah they said the 2070 is faster than the Titan Xp but I know it's faster at Raytracing obviously. How much faster is it on games that actually exist today? There must be some serious improvements to the SMs for that to happen. Or it's untrue.
Click to expand...
1080TI is around 60% faster than 1070.
RTX 2070 have only 20% more SP and same clocks as 1070.But have more bandwidth.
2304Sp at 1850Mhz is only 8,5TF and 1080Ti have 12,1TF(thats 42% more).I dont see how could rtx 2070 be faster unless they somehow incresed IPC by 40%.
 
Memory speed of the 2070 is about 70% faster than the 1070.
2080 memory is about 40% faster than the 1080.
2080ti memory is about 30% faster than the 1080ti.
 
Only me that got the feeling that Nvidia is trying to sell hardware intended for deep-learning/ray-tracing (etc) with data-centers and professional enterprises as the target audience, to gamers, to recoup some of the cost developing these server SKU's?

Don't think Turning was made with gaming in mind.. But since AMD is MIA they can do what they want, and make us "gamers" pay for it.
Iam surprised it didn't also include lots of FP64, but i guess they have Volta for that.

Monopoly is a great thing ;(
 
Talk about another marketing tactic. Newegg.com already has the EVGA RTX 2080 on sale at $749 from $799. How can it be on sale if its a brand new product? Seriously the things the marketing people come up with. Creativity used in a wrong way.

Lenovo does this so often. Leaks say $1299 laptop. On launch the laptop is "$1599" on sale for $1299. Sometimes these sales say limited to entice consumers.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
Talk about another marketing tactic. Newegg.com already has the EVGA RTX 2080 on sale at $749 from $799. How can it be on sale if its a brand new product? Seriously the things the marketing people come up with. Creativity used in a wrong way.

Lenovo does this so often. Leaks say $1299 laptop. On launch the laptop is "$1599" on sale at $1299. Sometimes these sales say limited to entice consumers.
Click to expand...

It's like the yellow "on sale" price tags in Wal-mart on things that are priced the same as usual and aren't actually on sale.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Memory speed of the 2070 is about 70% faster than the 1070.
2080 memory is about 40% faster than the 1080.
2080ti memory is about 30% faster than the 1080ti.
Click to expand...
Yeah but bandwidth dont help pascal that much.
1070TI is still 15% faster than 1070 and both have same bandwidth...
Edit:bandwidth help, but 2304sp is just too low.
 
Does this mean we have to wait a month for reviews and results? That's pretty lame but looks like they will get people's money anyway.
 
Just ordered a 2080. Cost me excactly twice as much as the launch day price i got a vega 56 for to one of the kids. And it was a cheap 2080. Most was twice the price of my former vega 64 that i got cheap at launch day.
256bit gddr6 interface at 1080ti prices. I guess my vega 64 was lower midrange then. These cards nust be twice as fast in bf or i cansel this crap. Man i hate no compettition.
If next gen amd 7nm gpu by some miracle is effective these cards will plummet to a quarter of the price.

This is not consumer rip off. Its consumer rape in full public.
Than you JHH.
Do you remember you once called Intel a money cannon?
How ironic and pathetic.
 
“Turing-based GPUs feature a new streaming multiprocessor (SM) architecture that adds an integer execution unit executing in parallel with the floating point datapath, and a new unified cache architecture with double the bandwidth of the previous generation. Combined with new graphics technologies such as variable rate shading, the Turing SM achieves unprecedented levels of performance per core.”

Most I could find on the new SM. Double the cache bandwidth should be good.
 
Head1985 said:
Yeah but bandwidth dont help pascal that much.
1070TI is still 15% faster than 1070 and both have same bandwidth...
Click to expand...

Just cause it benefits from increasing shaders at the same bandwidth, doesn't mean it won't benefit from higher bandwidth.

Real world applications vary tremendously in their requirements, which is why its a challenge to make faster devices(CPUs or GPUs).

Rule of thumb I have for a not particularly BW bound GPU is 30% increase for 2x the bandwidth.
 
Det0x said:
Only me that got the feeling that Nvidia is trying to sell hardware intended for deep-learning/ray-tracing (etc) with data-centers and professional enterprises as the target audience, to gamers, to recoup some of the cost developing these server SKU's?

Don't think Turning was made with gaming in mind.. But since AMD is MIA they can do what they want, and make us "gamers" pay for it.
Iam surprised it didn't also include lots of FP64, but i guess they have Volta for that.

Monopoly is a great thing ;(
Click to expand...

While it's a nice bonus they can use some of the same chips for gaming and pro markets, I don't think that is the real reason behind having the HW on gaming GPUs.


I think they want to make Ray Tracing in games, the next big thing. If they succeed, that puts AMD even further behind for gaming. It will probably take years for AMD to get some dedicated Ray Tracing that makes a good showing while not violating any NVidia patents.

It's all about crushing AMD under their boot, or kicking them when they are down.
 
krumme said:
Just ordered a 2080. Cost me excactly twice as much as the launch day price i got a vega 56 for to one of the kids. And it was a cheap 2080. Most was twice the price of my former vega 64 that i got cheap at launch day.
256bit gddr6 interface at 1080ti prices. I guess my vega 64 was lower midrange then. These cards nust be twice as fast in bf or i cansel this crap. Man i hate no compettition.
If next gen amd 7nm gpu by some miracle is effective these cards will plummet to a quarter of the price.

This is not consumer rip off. Its consumer rape in full public.
Than you JHH.
Did you call Intel a money cannon?
How ironic and pathetic.
Click to expand...
Huh?
In these PC times, maybe I'll leave it at that.

"Just ordered a 2080. Cost me excactly twice as much as the launch day price i got a vega 56 for to one of the kids."
"This is not consumer rip off. Its consumer rape in full public."
 
LTC8K6 said:
01:57PM EDT - 'Designed for crazy amounts of overclocking'

01:57PM EDT - 'And it's just so quiet' ... 1/5 audio levels of 1080 Ti at max overclock

Heh...
Click to expand...

We'll see. There were rumors saying that they'll OC to 2.5GHz "easily" but then we also heard that Pascal would easily hit 2.0GHz but I don't think it could sustain that without a really good water cooling setup. I'm doubtful about the 2.5GHz at all, as that's a 700MHz gap between the official boost clock (that I saw on an Ars article) and unless it just starts going crazy in power/thermals I can't see them leaving that much headroom unless they just had to try to stay near Pascal on power use.

Headfoot said:
Stoked for ray tracing. Despite the hype factor, it really is the holy grail of computer graphics and we've been steadily marching towards that reality. Since I have a 1080 Ti I will probably skip the first generation of RT hardware but its a chicken and the egg problem. The sooner they get RT hardware into the world the sooner devs who aren't tightly partnered will start baking it in.

This is relatively 'AMD like' of nVidia, pushing new features that require dev and not progressing a ton on today's games (presumably - there could be magic they didnt mention but I doubt it). Smell's like AMD's dx12 move, and AMD's earlier tesselation move. And of course the so far failed-on-PC move to the new Vega pipeline stuff.

So I think the RT stuff will be awesome, especially when its more deeply built in vs being an add-on effect in a few games. But it also presents an opportunity for competitors to come in and play the old nVidia strategy - double down on what make today's games go fast because day 1 benchmarks stick around forever. Given how long the less dramatic switch to DX12 has taken, I am not convinced RT adoption will be much faster. We're looking at a few years before it approaches anything that looks like mainstream
Click to expand...

They've both done this type of thing. This actually makes me think of SM3.0 and Nvidia making a big fuss about HDR bloom. Few games utilized that and it was a pretty good performance hit for what, in my experience, amounted to washed out colors for a moment when you'd make a pretty drastic change in lighting (meaning like in Oblivion you'd go from a cave into the sunlight and you'd get a harsh bloom for a moment). But eventually it just became a normal thing in game engine lighting. And Nvidia adopted some newer stuff in the 8000 series first I believe, although I think AMD then did with their 5000 series (Eyefinity, first to SM5.0?), and then Nvidia were first to move to a compute heavy card with Fermi. Then AMD did Mantle. They kinda go back and forth, and it seems to be a crapshoot on if whatever new thing they're touting lives up to the hype.

We'll see on this ray-tracing stuff. It definitely has potential, but I have a hunch this is going to lead to a split. By that I mean, if you want real time rendering and control, you're gonna pay for it, while most people are going to start adopting streaming, where they can have their servers rendering at higher resolution and max eye candy, and then encoding it and sending it downstream, where it'll look like movie quality graphics and most people don't notice video artifacts and the like anyway. I kinda think it might even move to some pre-rendering (where they have their systems calculate a lot of looks, and then send it so that you have much of the information locally and don't need to stream it, but you also won't need to render everything in real time, and you'll get the benefits of higher resolution and realistic lighting model, but it won't be fully real time).

I'm not saying this happens within a couple of years, but that we're going to see it shift that way fairly quickly (within a decade) as the big cloud companies (Microsoft especially, who already has the infrastructure, and they have the Xbox, plus PC install base). The momentum is moving that direction, and I think it'll pickup steam once the big players start rolling out their streaming services in full force.

SPBHM said:
"ray tracing" stuff is very interesting but it's for the future and probably the next gen is the one that will be good enough to fully take advantage, also without the weight of a main console and without competitors being compatible with the same it's difficult to see it becoming a normal thing, so... we will see... still, exciting products, but pricing looks very wrong, specially if it's not massively faster in current games.
Click to expand...

I don't think we'll see consoles adopt it much at all (unless it really does actually simplify things for developers that much, but even then, I'm not sure, as I think the 2020 Xbox will be the last one to really push realtime local rendering on the system itself, and AMD has not shown any ray-tracing hardware yet, and they're likely already pretty locked in on what the chip design will mostly be), as it will just take too much power for that and I think their power would be better focused in other ways. I think we'll see Microsoft instead implement it in their streaming setup where they can buy those render boxes from Nvidia and process it, and then give people full eye candy rendering streamed to them at whatever resolution their internet can handle.

No that won't happen right away, but I think it'll be much more feasible there, and happen quicker than people expect (around 2025, I think consoles will mostly if not entirely be streaming boxes; well for the big name AAA gaming Xbox/Playstation/EA/etc, I think there will be niche ones that focus on maybe indie games or something - think things like the SNES Classic but for retro-style games where they don't need a ton of horsepower but that crowd will want minimum latency as they play bullet hell and crazy platformers and the like).

Oh, I think there will be an exception - Nintendo. They'll hold on for probably another 5-10 years (by that I mean, 5 years after everyone else does, they start pushing streaming but not all games, but within 10 of when the rest of the industry moves that way Nintendo follows suit - unless they get bought by someone who forces a quicker transition).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top