Ok thanks for the reply. I will just keep reading through reviews then.I'm not sue. I thought it was really funny seeing the Vega matching the 2080Ti in the chart.
It's way too early to get a clear picture of the actual performance and features yet. I wouldn't pass judgment on performance yet.
Computerbase has OCed FE comparisons.Did everyone only use 1080Ti FE for comparison? Did no one use a 1080 Ti AiB?
What does that have to do with playing an RTX build on a 2080ti?That's patently wrong. Digital Foundry played a non-RTX build of Metro Exodus on a Ryzen 2700X and Titan Xp and performance was barely hitting 60FPS at 4K.
Ok thanks for the reply. I will just keep reading through reviews then.
They've analyzed the RTX footage as well, it is sub-60 FPS with lots of frame-time variance at 1080p on a 2080Ti. How can a card that is only 35% faster than the Titan Xp without RTX suddenly deliver roughly 2x FPS with RTX enabled?What does that have to do with playing an RTX build on a 2080ti?
Computerbase has OCed FE comparisons.
We have dedicated RT cores to do the heavy work and faster shader units for the rasterization.They've analyzed the RTX footage as well, it is sub-60 FPS with lots of frame-time variance at 1080p on a 2080Ti. How can a card that is only 35% faster than the Titan Xp without RTX suddenly deliver roughly 2x FPS with RTX enabled?
Techradar's claims are total bull.
Actually, looking at Hardware Unboxed / Techspot, they used a slightly overclocked FE version as well, not a AiB. So back to no one used a 1080Ti AiB to compare again. 1080Ti FE OC is ok, but really interested to see how a good AiB model would stack up as well.
How can a 2080Ti give better performance with RTX enabled than not? It is obvious that Techradar's claims are wrong. As for rasterization, there is a dedicated INT32 pipe, which is supposed to give up to 50% more theoretical shading performance. How that translates to actual performance is anybody's guess at the moment.We have dedicated RT cores to do the heavy work and faster shader units for the rasterization.
I don't understand that either. I would expect with rtx on you would see drops in performance especially at anything higher than 1080p.How can a 2080Ti give better performance with RTX enabled than not? It is obvious that Techradar's claims are wrong. As for rasterization, there is a dedicated INT32 pipe, which is supposed to give up to 50% more theoretical shading performance. How that translates to actual performance is anybody's guess at the moment.
I guess time will tell.How can a 2080Ti give better performance with RTX enabled than not? It is obvious that Techradar's claims are wrong. As for rasterization, there is a dedicated INT32 pipe, which is supposed to give up to 50% more theoretical shading performance. How that translates to actual performance is anybody's guess at the moment.
I found one review that uses 1080 Ti AiB cards.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...ders-edition-review-benchmarks-vs-gtx-1080-ti
Yeah AIB 1080TI=AIB 2080I found one review that uses 1080 Ti AiB cards.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...ders-edition-review-benchmarks-vs-gtx-1080-ti
there is CPU limitation bug in FH4. The whole forbes review is a joke as they have a problem with their test system.Wait..What?? Is this the only case the Vega 64 is around the same performance as the 1080/2080??
I am starting to think its not gonna be worth buying a 20xx unit now