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

[Muhammed]

Dude, it's about performance/$ and the fact that progress in the whole IT 7 computing sector happened due to getting more performance/$.

My good sir, I agree, prices are bad. I am not arguing that. I am simply in rage over claims of bad performance increase just because the price is bad and just because some people have a score to settle with NVIDIA. FACT IS, performance will be REMARKABLE. You can take a screenshot of this comment and post it all over the web, it will be validated once NDA is lifted.

Now whether this amount of performance with the features we are getting is worth money is up for debate. 2080Ti is going to be the best GPU in the world, offering the best visuals and features in the world, you can't expect that to be cheap, just like you can't expect a 32 core ThreadRipper to be cheap.

 

[PeterScott]

I'm on the pessimistic side.

This(https://i.imgur.com/SWMjHOK.jpg) is showing the 2080 is barely better than the 1080 Ti. In Canada, it costs $100-200 more to get the 2080 versus the 1080 Ti.

10 games.

-2 games slower than 1080 Ti
-3 games with large gains(15-30%)
-1 game near 10% faster
-4 games within 5%(up or down)

Average 5.4%. 5% gain in performance for 10-15% increase in prices.

I'm in Canada as well. GPU price are obscene here. I just wanted a good deal on a 1060, but they are ~$400, and they should be MUCH less than that at this point.

True there are sales right now to clear 1080Ti, but before that, they were about the same price. If I was in this part of the market, I would definitely be waiting to see reviews. But if it was similar performance and $100 difference, I would probably get 2080 for the new features, maybe even more for DLSS than Ray Tracing.

I said many times, the only card I would feel comfortable pre-ordering (If I was a buyer in that segment) is the 2080Ti, that is going to have clear top performance at everything for a while.

 

[maddie]

My good sir, I agree, prices are bad. I am not arguing that. I am simply in rage over claims of bad performance increase just because the price is bad and just because some people have a score to settle with NVIDIA. FACT IS, performance will be REMARKABLE. You can take a screenshot of this comment and post it all over the web, it will be validated once NDA is lifted.

Now whether this amount of performance with the features we are getting is worth money is up for debate. 2080Ti is going to be the best GPU in the world, offering the best visuals and features in the world, you can't expect that to be cheap, just like you can't expect a 32 core ThreadRipper to be cheap.

My, my, do you even read what you write. It's because of the ridiculous prices that the expected performance increase should be extreme. No one would complain if prices would remain like last gen with a 25-30% increase. You are living in a personal bubble for the thoughts you're having. Not even close to reality.

 

[IntelUser2000]

My, my, do you even read what you write. It's because of the ridiculous prices that the expected performance increase should be extreme.

There are no bad products, only bad pricing.

 

[coercitiv]

I just wanted a good deal on a 1060, but they are ~$400, and they should be MUCH less than that at this point.

I said many times, the only card I would feel comfortable pre-ordering (If I was a buyer in that segment) is the 2080Ti, that is going to have clear top performance at everything for a while.

So you're on the market for 1060 but advising people to open their wallets and buy the 2080Ti because "clear top performance for a while". Since you're advising, have you also told them a new Titan card will likely drop 6 months later and take that performance crown with ease? You know, the $1699-1999 card with some more unlocked features/hardware and a completely justified price considering Nvidia's dwindling profits.

I'll give Nvidia this: they made people wait, ask and beg for new gen hardware, and now that's it here, we're drooling over it and simply refuse to listen to reason anymore. We have years and years of launches behind us with documented strategies on both pricing and performance, yet when people point out pricing is out of order, when they warn Nvidia would not launch the 2080Ti if 2080 had enough performance on top of 1080Ti, we close our eyes, cover our ears... and start repeating the mantra Nvidia fed us to justify the preorder.

For existing games, Turing will deliver 2x the performance and 4K HDR gaming at 60 FPS on even the most demanding titles.

I hope I'm the pessimistic sucker who just can't grasp how Nvidia can flawlessly execute this revolutionary jump in both performance and price. I hope it's me, cuz if it ain't me then it's just a revolutionary jump in price which we all pay for, even if all we want is a 1060 while recommending 2080Ti to strangers on forums.

 

[Ottonomous]

Hopefully ray-tracing based features can be disabled in future games, because removing that option would be the best way to make it mainstream and enforce new pricing brackets within 2-3 gens.

 

[PeterScott]

So you're on the market for 1060 but advising people to open their wallets and buy the 2080Ti because "clear top performance for a while". Since you're advising, have you also told them a new Titan card will likely drop 6 months later and take that performance crown with ease? You know, the $1699-1999 card with some more unlocked features/hardware and a completely justified price considering Nvidia's dwindling profits.

Who's "advising" people? I clearly said it's what "I" would do. Since when are we only allowed to comment on the exact product we are mostly likely to buy? I'd love to buy a 2080Ti, but it's out my price bracket. If it was in my price bracket, I would order one. Not sure what your problem is with me mentioning that.

As far as a new much more powerful card in 6 months, dream on. IMO there is about ZERO chance of that happening. Exactly who are they in a hurry to beat? Chip designs cost close to a hundred Million dollars these days, so companies want to amortize/milk them as long as possible, with 18-24 months in the norm in recent years for top GPUs. The aren't going to suddenly shift from a two year cadence to 6 months. That is nonsensical.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

There's no upgrade here for 1080Ti people. For $100 more than we paid for the 1080Ti, we get the RTX 2080 which trades blows with it, lol. Well, for me its really simple. If I am going to buy a new card, someone has to offer something better for the same money. That's how technology works and that's what I expect. So, that either happens or it just doesn't.

Nvidia takes a page from EA's playbook and tells us, "Accept it, or don't buy the card". Well alrighty then! That was easy!

I'm on and staying on 1440p and a 1080; is there an upgrade path for me? Logically only the Ti. Right now I'm battling internally to wait for 7nm, but my current card loses most resell value in the meanwhile.

 

[coercitiv]

As far as a new much more powerful card in 6 months, dream on. IMO there is about ZERO chance of that happening. Exactly who are they in a hurry to beat? Chip designs cost close to a hundred Million dollars these days, so companies want to amortize/milk them as long as possible, with 18-24 months in the norm in recent years for top GPUs. The aren't going to suddenly shift from a two year cadence to 6 months. That is nonsensical.

GTX 1080 - 05/27/2016
NVIDIA Titan X - 08/02/2016

GTX 1080 Ti - 03/10/2017
NVIDIA Titan Xp - 04/06/2017

FYI 2080Ti is not the fully unlocked chip. At the time of the launch, AMD had nothing to challenge them at the top. I'll dream on, thank you.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Yes, but the Titan cards are overpriced for so-called prosumers. The real gaming card ends at x80 Ti.

 

[arandomguy]

A fully unlocked TU102 if released cannot be "much more powerful." Unlike with the Pascal/Turing comparisons the raw hardware resource comparison is apples to apples. Much like how Titan Xp was not much more powerful than 1080Ti. Also if one is already balking about the cost of the 2080Ti surely such a release will be much worse off in that respect.

I feel the likelihood is that Nvidia's next series release will target what TSMC terms 7FF+ or some sort of similar variant. The alternative is they go back to product refreshing and just update the current lineup with adjusted configuration/clock rates/price adjustments. To me it seems like there is too much attribution of product pricing with respect to costs. These are all luxury products and not base commodities. Just looking at the margins these companies make we know they are selling them well above any price floor determined by cost. Moving to the next process mode by itself will not affect pricing, cost simply isn't the determining factor for pricing.

In terms of the AMD side the likelihood is that the product class they target next year with Navi is that of Polaris. I suspect Nvidia is also predicting this and that is how pricing will be laid out. We can already see that RTX 2070 is likely to be much better along the value curve as it is closer to the bracket they feel the competition will be. This would also match the rumors that the series further down will not target ray tracing and retain the GTX branding. They will push the higher traditional value metrics in the market segments where it matters more and competition will exist.

 

[coercitiv]

Yes, but the Titan cards are overpriced for so-called prosumers.

Titan Xp launch price - $1200
RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition - $1199

Remind me again, what are people preordering as we speak, and at what non-overpriced prosumer price?

 

[IntelUser2000]

Titan Xp launch price - $1200
RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition - $1199

I'm just saying, the Titan cards got you maybe 10% performance for such an increase in cost. It shouldn't be a factor.

 

[mohit9206]

As Anandlal Shimpi once famously said "No such thing as a bad product, only a bad price".

Now whether that holds true for these new RTX products we will soon know.

 

[Qwertilot]

The titan cards only got you 10% once the cheap big chip xxxxti had launched.

Now that Titan == compute (so Volta/whatever is coming next & fairly soon), the ti that launched here is the titan. Big (enormous!) die well ahead of the stage where they would (could?) otherwise sell it for a plausible price.

Their next move is either everything to 7nm or doing a refresh to 21xx with a few dies from the big chip & everything pushed down a pricing tier or two. They'll likely want to try and push the RTX stuff down fast & ramp it up, so maybe die shrink. Dunno.

 

[beginner99]

Now whether this amount of performance with the features we are getting is worth money is up for debate. 2080Ti is going to be the best GPU in the world, offering the best visuals and features in the world, you can't expect that to be cheap

Well you got the top performer for below $500 not too long ago so yeah I can expect it to be at least justifiable by average Joe.

The point remains. performance/$ has been stagnating at best. So with these price hikes anything below a huge increase of >50% is just a effing cash grab. I mean the 2070 costs 50% more so even with a 50% increase performance/$ does not increase. it would need a >70% boost over a 1070 to make me think ok, i get why you buy a mid-range GPU for $600. Same for the other cards.

And to be clear, 70% boost in traditional gaming with no HDR, raytracing or other trickery or cherry picking.

 

[arandomguy]

Out of interest I went back and looked at previous launches.

A common theme about this launch was the lack of direct performance comparisons against Pascal in traditional gaming performance and that when the 1xxx series launched it was compared to 9xx in that way. However looking back at the presentation slides was it the case? Maybe I'm missing it but there was one blurb about "1.7x" performance uplift of the 1080 vs 980. And then a chart discussing perf per watt. The majority of the slides were focused on the new features.

https://videocardz.com/59999/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-full-presentation


If we go further back to Maxwell and the GTX 980 we also have some interesting comparable. It was a similar situation with in terms of node transition (or lack thereof) and relatively muted theoretical FP throughput (TFLOPs) improvement. In terms of pricing the GTX 980 launched at $499 and $599 FE. In the same segment of the previous generation was the GTX 680 which launched at $500 but at that time was selling in a faster variant the GTX 770 for <$330. So actually comparable price differences as the 2080 vs 1080 currently.

In that launch presentation Nvidia did have a graph comparing the two directly -
https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2014/09/NVIDIA-Maxwell-GM204-Press-Slides-27.jpg

And here is the TPU review for some validity comparison - https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/26.html

Of course 9xx also had a VRAM capacity increase which 2xxx won't. In terms of the market competition AMD did have the 2xx and later 3xx refresh to compete which in terms of raw performance was comparable (with some advantages such as more VRAM as well).

Not saying anything with regards to value (I didn't think the GTX 980 was good in that regard either) but just some historical comparison to go by.

Also interestingly if you look at the overall 980 presentation the two main features they touted were VXGI (global illumination) and MFAA (new AA method).

 

[IntelUser2000]

In terms of pricing the GTX 980 launched at $499 and $599 FE.

No, FE came with 1000 series GPUs. Before, it was just a reference card. The "Founder's Edition" became the reason for the modern pricing problem. Reference cards were on the lowest range of pricing, and they were MSRP. With FE, they introduced a fancy name, but made it $100 higher than MSRP. That meant now a crappier cooler/circuitry reference edition was at the very high end of its pricing. And AIBs knowing this, rarely, if ever price it at MSRP. Why should they when the reference card(Oh, sorry, "Founder's Edition") cost $100 more than the so-called MSRP?

GTX 980 $549, was later price cut to $499. And they were MSRP. And they were reference editions. If you wanted a better card, generally AIBs offered cards for $50-100 more. That was logic for years.

And people, please don't give me that excuse about die size increase. AMD and Nvidia both offered much larger die size versions without a price increase. That changed in the past few years. Because they know now people will pay for it. This is nothing but to increase revenue for shareholders.

 

[LTC8K6]

But this time the FE models supposedly have better cooling and higher clocks than the reference cards?

 

[arandomguy]

No, FE came with 1000 series GPUs. Before, it was just a reference card. The "Founder's Edition" became the reason for the modern pricing problem. Reference cards were on the lowest range of pricing, and they were MSRP. With FE, they introduced a fancy name, but made it $100 higher than MSRP. That meant now a crappier cooler/circuitry reference edition was at the very high end of its pricing. And AIBs knowing this, rarely, if ever price it at MSRP. Why should they when the reference card(Oh, sorry, "Founder's Edition") cost $100 more than the so-called MSRP?

GTX 980 $549, was later price cut to $499. And they were MSRP. And they were reference editions. If you wanted a better card, generally AIBs offered cards for $50-100 more. That was logic for years.

And people, please don't give me that excuse about die size increase. AMD and Nvidia both offered much larger die size versions without a price increase. That changed in the past few years. Because they know now people will pay for it. This is nothing but to increase revenue for shareholders.

My mistake on that, the launch MSRP was $550.

However the later point is still accurate. Using $550 as the price instead of $599 the price increase delta versus Kepler is fairly comparable as Turing from Pascal (2080 vs 1080).

 

[Midwayman]

I have to wonder if these cards will command MSRP for long. Clearly they are trying to capture more of the mining craze profits rather than letting the retailers gouge like crazy. With mining dieing down for the moment we can hope these will be discounted to where they should have been priced in a few months.

 

[Kenmitch]

But this time the FE models supposedly have better cooling and higher clocks than the reference cards?

I'm sure the higher price points more than make up for the added cost of the better cooler. The higher clocks don't cost anything and are just a byproduct of the better cooling. Is there a reference card? Are you talking about the $100 cheaper msrp cards that may or may not be released?

 

[PeterScott]

GTX 1080 - 05/27/2016
NVIDIA Titan X - 08/02/2016

GTX 1080 Ti - 03/10/2017
NVIDIA Titan Xp - 04/06/2017

FYI 2080Ti is not the fully unlocked chip. At the time of the launch, AMD had nothing to challenge them at the top. I'll dream on, thank you.

Semantic games.

The reality for the top chips of each generation:

GK110 (AKA GTX Titan and 780Ti) Introduced first in February 21, 2013
GM200 (AKA GTX Titan X and 980Ti) Introduced first in March 17, 2015 (~ 2 years later)
GP102 (AKA GTX Titan Xp and 1080Ti) Introduced first in Aug 2016 (~ 1.5 years later)
TU102 (AKA RTX 8000,6000 and 2080Ti) Introduced first in Sept 2018 (~2 years later)

The big chip usually shows up first in a Titan, and then gets later price reduced to a x080Ti, but that didn't happen this time. Titan was skipped right to x08Ti. Naming conventions can change, but this is effectively the Titan/x080Ti chip, 2 years after the last one. You certainly won't see a new top chip in 6 months, or even a year. Sure they could later release a Titan Xt with all the units active, but that won't offer significantly more performance. It would get laughed off like Titan Xp (and Star Wars edition) did coming after 1080Ti.

Perhaps you think AMD Navi will be the savior?

 

[arandomguy]

I have to wonder if these cards will command MSRP for long. Clearly they are trying to capture more of the mining craze profits rather than letting the retailers gouge like crazy. With mining dieing down for the moment we can hope these will be discounted to where they should have been priced in a few months.

For what its worth as I posted the price increase from Kepler->Maxwell was similar as Pascal->Turing.

Maxwell was released also coming off the stages a mining craze as well but already into the price crash point when AMD cards were flooding the market making them look worse (and even AMDs own 3xx release) from a raw perf/% perspective.

 

[IntelUser2000]

But this time the FE models supposedly have better cooling and higher clocks than the reference cards?

We'll see, but its doubtful. Also don't take their claims without a healthy dose of skepticism.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/2

Craftsmanship. Referring to their FE 1080 card. Reviews show AIB models are cooler and quieter.
Overclocking. They had bunch of presentations regarding voltage stability, which is mostly important to overclockers, and the game slide with the thing overclocked to 2.1GHz, we all thought it could easily do that, and the better cooler cards would do better. Nope.

They all do this. Fury X was an overclocker's dream, and Intel made it look like 5GHz is readily doable for 3 generations.

I have to wonder if these cards will command MSRP for long.

They are already above MSRP. It'll take months and holiday sales to see MSRP cards.