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

[PeterScott]

Don't know if they call it FE, but it is called Founders Edition. The other (cheaper) version that isn't available yet is called "reference". Haven't been checking every day, but I haven't noticed the 2080 being sold out, other than some OEM versions. Been available for pre-order at Nvidia every time I've checked.

Yes in the past Founder Edition was just the reference edition with a higher price. At least this time NVidia seems to be doing a nice cooler for the extra money.

 

[mikeyang]

Yes in the past Founder Edition was just the reference edition with a higher price. At least this time NVidia seems to be doing a nice cooler for the extra money.

The Nvidia blower was the best one you could buy, it was ALOT better than the standard AIB blower and when you have to vent out heat out of the case it's was the best option.

 

[IntelUser2000]

When those new features are not in use they are just sitting there not contributing and possibly drawing power.

This isn't really true nowadays. You can power gate it and uses zero power.

Do they even call it FE anymore. In the earlier posted interview video he stated something which more or less implied otherwise. Something like a premium offering? Targeting to be one of the best offerings? Not going back and watching it to verify. I wouldn't count on AIB offerings being much better..

Yes. It's still called Founder's Edition. It's a reference edition renamed.

By the way, AIBs are about having better cooling. Reference cards(or Founder's Edition) always were at the bottom for PCB and cooler performance.

 

[Paratus]

This isn't really true nowadays. You can power gate it and uses zero power.

Which is why I said ‘possibly’ since we haven’t seen an in depth review of the architecture yet.

Although you can correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t it take more power and xtors to keep a larger chips clock in sync across the entire chip vs a smaller chip?

 

[wilds]

I am so glad NV dropped the blower for reference. Now I can't say how awful the FE cooler is!

 

[IntelUser2000]

Which is why I said ‘possibly’ since we haven’t seen an in depth review of the architecture yet.

Although you can correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t it take more power and xtors to keep a larger chips clock in sync across the entire chip vs a smaller chip?

Since Nvidia engineers are very likely aware the RT and Tensor cores won't be utilized at all in certain circumstances and chips are entirely power bound nowadays, I would be very surprised if that was the case. If its not power bound, all chip design would forgo accelerators and be as general purpose as possible. A decade ago, process shrinks brought huge reductions in power and/or increase in clocks along with the ability to pack transistors more densely. Nowadays, clock/power benefits are little, but you still get huge increase in density.

What to do with the extra space?

RT and Tensor cores are basically accelerators added to a GPU. Accelerators would have been a crazy idea a decade or so ago but its the most power efficient choice, because it performs a particular task so fast. If you don't turn that off when its not needed, well, what's your team doing?

As for clocks and large dies, you can just use asychronous clocking. Some part of the chip clocks at x frequency, other parts 0.8x.

 

[Ottonomous]

Clearly you didn't follow the context. He was comparing to a $3000 Titan V. If that's your point of comparison, its about $2000 price decrease, not a price hike.

Why not when we have the precedent of the 1080ti vs Titan X Pascal? I don't understand how people here are bending over backwards to defend nvidia's redefinition of prices.

Edit: And even assuming your logic of the proprietary technology far offsetting the current (estimated) performance improvement in the usual stuff, the intelligent thing to do would be to wait for the relatively cheaper and better implemented 7nm versions.

 

[PeterScott]

Why not when we have the precedent of the 1080ti vs Titan X Pascal? I don't understand how people here are bending over backwards to defend nvidia's redefinition of prices.

Titan X is 1080 Ti. They are both gaming cards, both using the same chip.

Titan V is a unique $3400 Pro card. It really isn't a gaming card.

The bending over backwards is people upset that they didn't get what they want this release making outlandish comparisons like $3400 cards to $1200 card, then acting like it's a crime if the $2000 cheaper card doesn't run away with the performance crown.

What's even more absurd, is that NVidia actually comes off looking good in that comparison because it's about the same performance for a $2000+ discount.

 

[Ottonomous]

Titan X is 1080 Ti. They are both gaming cards, both using the same chip.

Titan V is a unique $3400 Pro card. It really isn't a gaming card.

The bending over backwards is people upset that they didn't get what they want this release making outlandish comparisons like $3400 cards to $1200 card, then acting like it's a crime if the $2000 cheaper card doesn't run away with the performance crown.

What's even more absurd, is that NVidia actually comes off looking good in that comparison because it's about the same performance for a $2000+ discount.

By your logic, if the upcoming Titan comes in at 5000USD and the ensuing Ti at 1800, or any price hike for that matter, the proportionate increase should be seen as a consumer victory regardless of the manufacturing costs at nvidia's end.

Same performance? Care to share your analysis/benchmarks indicating such? And I know we should all wait for the benchmarks, but I have a sneaking suspicion that most people here will start 'amazing industrial applications of ray-tracing' or 'future potential of the RT cores' threads if the performance does turn out to be disappointing

edit; word omission

 

[Ottonomous]

The bending over backwards is people upset that they didn't get what they want this release making outlandish comparisons like $3400 cards to $1200 card, then acting like it's a crime if the $2000 cheaper card doesn't run away with the performance crown.

This is weird, did you really expect anything else whilst defending the business practices of a company, and with little corroboration?

I don't understand why the cost-effectiveness of a new uarch, or technology is beyond the purview of this forum, that we're entitled children for attempting to discuss it

 

[Qwertilot]

Ok, but consider this - Titan V isn't a gaming chip and wasn't ever really sold as such.

They've split their product lines into gaming & compute and Titan is in compute.

V100's pending 7nm compute successor won't be a gaming chip either, although it'll presumably be somewhat faster than the 2080ti.
(At least for some games /benchmarks)

 

[MrTeal]

Titan X is 1080 Ti. They are both gaming cards, both using the same chip.

Titan V is a unique $3400 Pro card. It really isn't a gaming card.

The bending over backwards is people upset that they didn't get what they want this release making outlandish comparisons like $3400 cards to $1200 card, then acting like it's a crime if the $2000 cheaper card doesn't run away with the performance crown.

What's even more absurd, is that NVidia actually comes off looking good in that comparison because it's about the same performance for a $2000+ discount.

It's absolutely not the same performance. 1080 Ti and Titan Xp and 980 Ti and Titan X might have been that way because of die limitations, but that's not the case here. Titan V does better than 20x the DP FLOPs than a 2080 Ti. In a gaming workload they might be similar, but the Titan line was never really created for the gaming crowd. Maxwell was a bit of an anomaly since they never produced a real compute chip, and they chose not to release a GP100 Titan Pascal.
Now, given the performance numbers of the RTX Quadros we know TU102 is capable of 1/2 DP performance and so we could see a future Titan T card with excellent gaming performance and comparable compute capabilities, but who knows what kind of price that that will fetch. I wouldn't be surprised if we see it, but I can't imagine any but the money no object crowd choosing to buy one as a gaming card.

 

[dlerious]

The Nvidia blower was the best one you could buy, it was ALOT better than the standard AIB blower and when you have to vent out heat out of the case it's was the best option.

I liked it because you were pretty much guaranteed there would be a waterblock for it, AIBs were hit or miss depending on popularity.

 

[dlerious]

I am so glad NV dropped the blower for reference. Now I can't say how awful the FE cooler is!

There's still a reference version coming. Don't know if it'll have the blower.

 

[dlerious]

Titan X is 1080 Ti. They are both gaming cards, both using the same chip.

Titan V is a unique $3400 Pro card. It really isn't a gaming card.

The bending over backwards is people upset that they didn't get what they want this release making outlandish comparisons like $3400 cards to $1200 card, then acting like it's a crime if the $2000 cheaper card doesn't run away with the performance crown.

What's even more absurd, is that NVidia actually comes off looking good in that comparison because it's about the same performance for a $2000+ discount.

The 2080 TI has 1GB less and the memory bus isn't as wide as your traditional Titan. You also have the entire stack moved up a price point - the 2080 is more expensive than the 1080Ti was and the 2070 is more expensive than the 1080 was. I don't think the 2080 is giving you the performance gain over a 1080Ti in regular games for the price. We'll have to wait for reviews to see what that extra $100 is getting you.

 

[Geegeeoh]

Just a minor detail for the GP102:
Titan X - 3584:224:96, 384-bit Bus width (12GB)
1080 Ti - 3584:224:88, 352-bit Bus width (11GB)

 

[Timmah!]

It's absolutely not the same performance. 1080 Ti and Titan Xp and 980 Ti and Titan X might have been that way because of die limitations, but that's not the case here. Titan V does better than 20x the DP FLOPs than a 2080 Ti. In a gaming workload they might be similar, but the Titan line was never really created for the gaming crowd. Maxwell was a bit of an anomaly since they never produced a real compute chip, and they chose not to release a GP100 Titan Pascal.
Now, given the performance numbers of the RTX Quadros we know TU102 is capable of 1/2 DP performance and so we could see a future Titan T card with excellent gaming performance and comparable compute capabilities, but who knows what kind of price that that will fetch. I wouldn't be surprised if we see it, but I can't imagine any but the money no object crowd choosing to buy one as a gaming card.

What do you mean by that? That it has 1/2 FP64 performance compared to FP32? Cause i dont think that is true.

 

[PeterScott]

It's absolutely not the same performance. 1080 Ti and Titan Xp and 980 Ti and Titan X might have been that way because of die limitations, but that's not the case here. Titan V does better than 20x the DP FLOPs than a 2080 Ti. In a gaming workload they might be similar, but the Titan line was never really created for the gaming crowd. Maxwell was a bit of an anomaly since they never produced a real compute chip, and they chose not to release a GP100 Titan Pascal.
Now, given the performance numbers of the RTX Quadros we know TU102 is capable of 1/2 DP performance and so we could see a future Titan T card with excellent gaming performance and comparable compute capabilities, but who knows what kind of price that that will fetch. I wouldn't be surprised if we see it, but I can't imagine any but the money no object crowd choosing to buy one as a gaming card.

All the original Titans (Kepler, Maxwell, Pascal) were/are absolutely gaming cards, go to the NVidia site right now and read what NVidia says about Titans. It's all about gaming.
https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-titan-black (Kepler)
https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-titan-x (Maxwell)
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/10series/titan-x-pascal/ (Pascal)

Titan V OTOH, was big departure it is no longer considered a gaming product, and that card doesn't make sense for a comparison to gaming cards, which was my point. Again go see what NVidia says, all about compute, deep learning.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/titan/titan-v/
But I am not the one bringing up this odd duck in the comparison.

Bad marketing on NVidias part to shift the meaning of Titan. But earlier Titan and Titan V are not the same variety of card despite sharing a name.

Which also leads us to why 2080Ti is here early in the Titan X time frame, but not called Titan. It's what would have previously been Titan T, before NVidia changed the naming scheme. It's the Titan X, early adopter high performance card for this release.

If NVidia hadn't messed up their marketing. Titan V, should have stayed a Quadro (or picked a new name), and 2080Ti would have been Titan T, and people wouldn't have gotten so confused and made so many wrong headed comparisons.

 

[AtenRa]

I dont know if RTX2080Ti is the new Titan but,

At the time of release, GTX970 with a MSRP of $329 using the same 28nm was equal in performance against the GTX780Ti that came with a MSRP of $699.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/25.html

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/images/perfrel_1920.gif

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/images/perfrel_2560.gif

So, if RTX2070 is as fast as GTX1080Ti (non-RT) it should launched with a MSRP of $350 tops.

Lets wait and see how things will unfold the next couple of weeks because I have a feeling RTX2070 will not reach GTX1080Ti non-RT performance.

 

[PeterScott]

I dont know if RTX2080Ti is the new Titan but,

At the time of release, GTX970 with a MSRP of $329 using the same 28nm was equal in performance against the GTX780Ti that came with a MSRP of $699.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/25.html

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/images/perfrel_1920.gif

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/images/perfrel_2560.gif

So, if RTX2070 is as fast as GTX1080Ti (non-RT) it should launched with a MSRP of $350 tops.

Lets wait and see how things will unfold the next couple of weeks because I have a feeling RTX2070 will not reach GTX1080Ti non-RT performance.

I mostly agree. The 2070 seems to have the worse proportional price increase, the $600 launch price is kind of ridiculous. Though really you should be comparing to 1070 for price increases. It launched at $450, and people snapped them up. If you think we are going back to 970 prices you are having a fantasy.

The price increases actually started with the 1000 series, and while people grumbled, in the end they bought them in a frenzy.

If people really want to affect pricing, they have to stop giving companies record sales when they raise prices.

If this is a normal lifecycle, maybe in 6 months we can get a 2070 for about $450, and that likely isn't too bad, but the early adopter pricing is kind of brutal.

 

[AtenRa]

Sorry but GTX1070 MSRP was $379, the FE was at $450.
Secondly, price increases started with GTX680 and not GTX1xxx
Thirdly, RTX2070 even at $450 if it cannot reach GTX1080Ti is a failed product.

 

[PeterScott]

Sorry but GTX1070 MSRP was $379, the FE was at $450.
Secondly, price increases started with GTX680 and not GTX1xxx
Thirdly, even at $450 the RTX2070 if it cannot reach GTX1080Ti is a failed product.

GTX 2070 MSRP is $500, FE is $600. I was comparing FE to FE. Comparing MSRP to MSRP doesn't change anything.

I think there were bigger more noticeable jumps at 1000 series due to Founder Edition cash grab. Either way, they aren't rolling back to 970 pricing.

It's only a failed product if it fails to sell.

It reminds me of 1000 series launch, Price - grumble, FE -Grumble. Oh it's available now - Take my Money!

NVidia doesn't care what people say on forums, they only care about sales. NVidia keeps raising prices and people just keep buying them.

 

[AtenRa]

Fermi GTX480 was selling more than AMD cards but it was a failed product by all means.

Yes RTX2070 MSRP is $499, even higher than GTX1070 FE price LoLsssssss

MSRP to MSRP is what we should always compare, FE prices are only for brainless consumers.

 

[PeterScott]

MSRP to MSRP is what we should always compare, FE prices are only for brainless consumers.

FE pricing is early adopter pricing, not brainless. No need to insult early adopters, they make lower prices more possible for the rest of us later.

Early on, FE prices is what you pay, you have to wait longer for MSRP pricing.

 

[AtenRa]

FE pricing is early adopter pricing, not brainless. No need to insult early adopters, they make lower prices more possible for the rest of us later.

Early on, FE prices is what you pay, you have to wait longer for MSRP pricing.

LoLs,

You know we had early adopters before FE even was created in the minds of NV marketing and no they didnt pay more for it. What the hell, are you serious ???