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

[PeterScott]

Let's see how convoluted the logic is:
GM106 > GP106 > TU106
$200 > $300 > $600

Phew, it was a tough logical road, but I think we got there /s.

That is a position of (willful?) ignorance.

Die names are not the same as marketing segments. TU106 is 2070, not 2060.

And as already discussed above, GP106 is only 200 mm2, vs 445 mm2 for TU106.

So neither in marketing segment or size class of the dies are they really comparable.

Finally for reasons I already mentioned, NVidia is giving each card segment it own die. More dies means, more die names, nothing more.

So focusing on the "6" of an internal part name appears to be nothing more than facetious game.

 

[Hitman928]

That is a position of (willful?) ignorance.

Die names are not the same as marketing segments. TU106 is 2070, not 2060.

And as already discussed above, GP106 is only 200 mm2, vs 445 mm2 for TU106.

So neither in marketing segment or size class of the dies are they really comparable.

Finally for reasons I already mentioned, NVidia is giving each card segment it own die. More dies means, more die names, nothing more.

So focusing on the "6" of an internal part name appears to be nothing more than facetious game.

Or it's how the product line stacks up regardless of the marketing name. You know, the chips Nvidia actually designs and orders mask sets for and puts on wafers. I wouldn't say that's arbitrary compared to the marketing name, really it's the marketing name that's arbitrary. The only reason the TU106 is so big is because of the RT additions. Perhaps that's worth the added price, perhaps not, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still getting the 4th die size down from the full chip.

According to your logic, if Nvidia releases a cut down GP107 at 300 mm^2 with RT features too cut to be worth anything and that performs like a 1050Ti, they should sell it for $450 because, hey, it's 50% bigger than a 1060! Marketing names are the names that are meaningless as Nvidia has shown over the generations. The internal names tell us where the dies fit on the true product stack.

 

[Hitman928]

The TU106 model number is a poor indicator though. This die is barely smaller than TU104, it could easily be called TU105. GM106 to GP106 gave a 25% increase in shaders, GP106 to TU106 is an 80% increase. It might have the same number at the end, but it's not really a traditional x06 chip.

I agree it's not traditional as the RT logic has taken up a seemingly large chunk of die space, however, it doesn't change the product stack or the relative performance. TU106 will perform closer to TU102 than GP106 did to GP102, but GM106 was also a lot closer to GM102 as well. Nvidia has been playing this game for a while now and has slowly (or not so slowly some times) pushed smaller (relative) dies up to prior bigger dies marketing slots and pushed the entire product stack higher.

To say that the marketing name is what's important and that the price increases are reasonable because we (as consumers) want Nvidia to continue to have industry leading margins is crazy talk to me (this is what you're saying if you're rationalizing the price increases by comparing die sizes and nothing else).

 

[PeterScott]

According to your logic, if Nvidia releases a cut down GP107 at 300 mm^2 with RT features too cut to be worth anything and that performs like a 1050Ti, they should sell it for $450 because, hey, it's 50% bigger than a 1060! Marketing names are the names that are meaningless as Nvidia has shown over the generations. The internal names tell us where the dies fit on the true product stack.

That is total nonsense, and a complete misrepresentation of my point. If it performed like a 1050Ti, then at best it would be a next generation 2050, and sell for less than the 1050Ti MSRP. Not the ridiculous $450, of your straw man misrepresentation.

My point is that is disingenuous at best, to try to pretend that RTX 2070 is the next generation equivalent of the GTX 1060, so you can make facetious price comparisons.

I realize some people are upset about pricing, but that isn't an excuse for disingenuous behavior to make it look even worse than it really is.

 

[MrTeal]

I agree it's not traditional as the RT logic has taken up a seemingly large chunk of die space, however, it doesn't change the product stack or the relative performance. TU106 will perform closer to TU102 than GP106 did to GP102, but GM106 was also a lot closer to GM102 as well. Nvidia has been playing this game for a while now and has slowly (or not so slowly some times) pushed smaller (relative) dies up to prior bigger dies marketing slots and pushed the entire product stack higher.

To say that the marketing name is what's important and that the price increases are reasonable because we (as consumers) want Nvidia to continue to have industry leading margins is crazy talk to me (this is what you're saying if you're rationalizing the price increases by comparing die sizes and nothing else).

I'm not even really talking about die space in absolute terms. The last time we had a new gen without a node shrink was Maxwell, there we went from 960 SM (GK106) to 1024 SM (GM206), a 7% increase. With a shrink to Pascal SM count still only went up the 25% to 1280. Even outside the TU and RT units, the 80% here is a massive increase for having the same die designator.
If you look at them within the generational stack, GM206 was 50% of the SM of GM204 and 33% of GM200. GP106 was the same relative to GP104 and GP102. TU106 (if the numbers are correct) would be 75% of TU104 and 50% of TU102. Relative to the cards of its own generation, TU106 is 50% larger just in SM count than previous generations. I'm just saying that even though it's called TU106, it's much closer to TU104 and TU102 and thus you can't really compare it generation to generation to Maxwell or Pascal x06 cards that were 1/2 the x04 chip.

 

[Hitman928]

That is total nonsense, and a complete misrepresentation of my point. If it performed like a 1050Ti, then at best it would be a next generation 2050, and sell for less than the 1050Ti MSRP.

Aren't you arguing against the 20xx series line up here? Isn't this the point I was making (albeit mine was taken to an extreme to prove a point). According to the best estimates we have, the 2080 will have the performance of ~1080 Ti and yet cost more. So according to you, the 2080 should be priced under the 1080 Ti. . .

Not the ridiculous $450, of your straw man misrepresentation.

It wasn't a straw man, I just took your argument and exaggerated the price increase to show why the 20xx series doesn't make sense from a consumer stand point. Yes, the number is exaggerated, but the principle of the argument still holds.

My point is that is disingenuous at best, to try to pretend that RTX 2070 is the next generation equivalent of the GTX 1060, so you can make facetious price comparisons.

I realize some people are upset about pricing, but that isn't an excuse for disingenuous behavior to make it look even worse than it really is.

I don't know if I'm being lumped in with "some people" but I'm not upset about the price increases, so if you're trying to assign an emotional motive to my posts, it's not accurate. Second, I'm just going off of the best information we have as of right now. If new performance / lineup information comes out that better explains the product stack, I'm happy to re-evaluate.

I also don't see how it is disingenuous to take Nvidia's own developmental history and pricing pattern and apply it to this generation. How is that disingenuous?

 

[Hitman928]

I'm not even really talking about die space in absolute terms. The last time we had a new gen without a node shrink was Maxwell, there we went from 960 SM (GK106) to 1024 SM (GM206), a 7% increase. With a shrink to Pascal SM count still only went up the 25% to 1280. Even outside the TU and RT units, the 80% here is a massive increase for having the same die designator.
If you look at them within the generational stack, GM206 was 50% of the SM of GM204 and 33% of GM200. GP106 was the same relative to GP104 and GP102. TU106 (if the numbers are correct) would be 75% of TU104 and 50% of TU102. Relative to the cards of its own generation, TU106 is 50% larger just in SM count than previous generations. I'm just saying that even though it's called TU106, it's much closer to TU104 and TU102 and thus you can't really compare it generation to generation to Maxwell or Pascal x06 cards that were 1/2 the x04 chip.

Sorry, die space comment was for Peter, not you.

Yes, Kepler to Maxwell didn't bring a large SM increase at each level, but it was a thoroughly reworked architecture which brought large clock speed and overall performance increases. We don't have that in this case, from what we know so far. If it turns out that Turing brings significant IPC increases (we already know clock speeds are basically the same), I'll be happy to adjust my opinion.

As far as shaders go, they're not on the same node. Pascal is on 16 nm, Turing is on 12 nm. It's not as large a difference as we would normally see in a node shrink, but there is a density increase as well as a reticle limit increase. Also, part of the reason the 2070 and 2080Ti are so close is because the 2080Ti is more cut down from the full die than the past few generations (going by the full Volta core) and most likely the 2080 is cut down as well. Looks like boost clocks also went down compared to GP107 also. So if you compare that to prior gens, it's not as big of a leap for the 2070 as it seems.

However, like I said in my previous post, if the 20xx series comes out and performs much better than currently expected or new, perf/$ positive info comes out on further cut down cards (GTX20xx series perhaps?) then my view will change on the new Nvidia generation.

 

[PeterScott]

Aren't you arguing against the 20xx series line up here? Isn't this the point I was making (albeit mine was taken to an extreme to prove a point). According to the best estimates we have, the 2080 will have the performance of ~1080 Ti and yet cost more. So according to you, the 2080 should be priced under the 1080 Ti. . .

It wasn't a straw man, I just took your argument and exaggerated the price increase to show why the 20xx series doesn't make sense from a consumer stand point. Yes, the number is exaggerated, but the principle of the argument still holds.

No, your exaggerated numbers are a lie that misrepresents reality. Nothing better. Stop exaggerating to misrepresent my position, and misrepresent the situation.

I also don't see how it is disingenuous to take Nvidia's own developmental history and pricing pattern and apply it to this generation. How is that disingenuous?

Misrepresenting through exaggeration is disingenuous.

Pretending that an unadvertised internal part numbers represent some kind of consistent marketing, is disingenuous.

Complaining is fine, but try to keep it honest.

The 2070 should be considered this generations 1070, by any reasonable comparison.

The pretenses used to argue that it's this generations 1060, are disingenuous games.

 

[Brahmzy]

I’m noticing a LOT of the pissed at the 2080 Ti people are existing 1080 Ti owners. And a few very loud ones on multiple forums that keep up the constant 2080 Ti hate. Just sayin.
I cannot wait to finally rock solid 4K60 with a single card, cause the 1080 Ti can’t. Gotta turn some stuff off, and even the minimums go down pretty bad.
Is it release day yet???

 

[AtenRa]

The problem with RTX prices are not the die size and if TU106 is used in the RTX2070 and not RTX2060.
The problem is the performance at those prices in relation to cards released two and half years ago (Pascal GTX1xxx).

GTX 1080 released in May of 2016 with MSRP of $599

If RTX 2070 only manage to reach GTX1080 performance (non-RT workloads) but with a $600 MSRP 2.5 years after GTX1080 was released, then there is a problem no matter the die size and no matter how you will try to rationalize it.

edit:
For those that saying the RTX 2080Ti is the new TITAN at 1200 USD, I will have to remind you all that GTX 1080Ti had the same performance as TITAN X , BUT at almost HALF THE PRICE.

TITAN X = $1200 MSRP
GTX1080Ti = $699 MSRP

So according to this theory, the RTX1080 which is the new GTX1080Ti, should be priced at $699 and have almost the same performance as the RTX2080Ti. From what we now know this is not the case.

 

[beginner99]

My PC gaming experience is starting to sour due to the massive amounts of idiots I often encounter. I game on a maxwell and am not a fan of an inferno of heat just to play some goofy games in my downtime. I wouldn't even dedicate pascal level $$$ to it. I'm sure as heck not spending $600/$800/$1200 for a gaming GPU

The solution is to stay at 1080p and then AMD has a useful card for you.

The problem with RTX prices are not the die size and if TU106 is used in the RTX2070 and not RTX2060.
The problem is the performance at those prices in relation to cards released two and half years ago (Pascal GTX1xxx).

GTX 1080 released in May of 2016 with MSRP of $599

If RTX 2070 only manage to reach GTX1080 performance (non-RT workloads) but with a $600 MSRP 2.5 years after GTX1080 was released, then there is a problem no matter the die size and no matter how you will try to rationalize it.

This is exactly the problem with this launch.

I have a feeling we will not see any cards below the 2070. They will just keep selling the 1000 series and why wouldn't they? There is no need for a new card except maybe a rebrand. 16/12nm doesn't make much difference and it would need to perform below a 2070. Simply not worth the effort to offer something new below a 2070.

This was probably decided couple years back when it was already clear AMD doesn't have anything to compete with. NV can simply release a cut-down card made for professionals to consumers to increase yields and offer that card at insane prices. Given the history many will bite regardless. And everyone else can buy the old cards which now are very cheap to make and AMD still after 2 years has no real competition. Vega 56 is actually worse performance/$ now here but it is also priced much higher than in US.
AMD has nothing to counter. Vega 20 will be high-end and expensive as well. NV will easily get away with this. Only problem they have is that sales will probably slow down as most people by now will have upgraded to 1000-series.

 

[AtenRa]

I have a feeling we will not see any cards below the 2070. They will just keep selling the 1000 series and why wouldn't they?

They have already said they will keep selling Pascal along Turing cards all the way to the end of 2018, and im sure they will continue in to H1 2019 as well.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I’m noticing a LOT of the pissed at the 2080 Ti people are existing 1080 Ti owners. And a few very loud ones on multiple forums that keep up the constant 2080 Ti hate. Just sayin.
I cannot wait to finally rock solid 4K60 with a single card, cause the 1080 Ti can’t. Gotta turn some stuff off, and even the minimums go down pretty bad.
Is it release day yet???

-I think you really hit the nail on the head with this (even if you meant it in a different way than I'll approach it).

The 1080Ti owners likely have a significant investment outside of their graphics cards alone in 4k monitors, multimonitor set-ups etc. They are heavily invested in the current rasterization pipeline pixel pushing scheme that GPUs have been pursuing since graphics went 3d.

The RTX series is a huge departure from that status quo and from all initial impressions will not bring that expected jump in traditional workloads this group was looking for (another 60-80% jump on top of the 1080Ti's 4k performance).

The general expectation prior to the RTX launch was that we'd get a 600mm2 traditional arch that would provide the expected uplift in performance, with likely a small bump to prices. Clearly not what happened.

The people most heavily invested in the status quo will likely be the ones fighting hardest against upsetting it.

Doesn't matter though, NV has shown time and again that eventually, they will find a way to bend the market to their will.

 

[ub4ty]

The solution is to stay at 1080p and then AMD has a useful card for you.

I game on a 2GB Maxwell GPU I purchased new almost 4 years for $140. I play at 2560x1440 (1440p) @ 60fps+ on all of the popular Steam games. I have 1080s that have never seen a game in their life. They're used for compute. I've been gaming since gaming was gaming. I have no clue where this obsession comes from with the take my money crowd. It's a new minority breed of mainstream gamers that seem intent on blowing cash on their "hobby"/one upping each other.

Look at what the majority of people run on :
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 - 12.29%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti - 8.60%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 - 4.59%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 - 4.32%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 - 4.15%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti - 3.62%

Meanwhile :

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 - 2.80%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti - 1.50%

If you think these ridiculously priced Geforce 20 series cards are being sold in any notable volume, you're asleep. $1200/$800/$600 .. All of these are priced at a point that most people won't purchase them. Pascal was a godsend when it was delivered and a no brainer purchase at various levels. Geforce 20 is a joke compared.

People play games that are fun. None of these games need a Geforce20. CS:GO / CS:Source top charts frequently... Yes, one of the most played games is 6 years old. You can get 70fps+ on poverty tier cards in these games. Barely ever notice lower fps. You play games to enjoy them not stare at textures and say ahhhhh how pretty the 4k @100fps.
https://store.steampowered.com/stats/Steam-Game-and-Player-Statistics?l=english
628,339 958,714 PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS
418,196 680,474 Dota 2
227,908 488,980 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
78,463 170,452 MONSTER HUNTER: WORLD
52,090 116,155 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege
40,173 74,553 Grand Theft Auto V

I thank whoever buys these ridiculous cards for keeping the coffers filled at Nvidia. However, I'll never understand such consumers. I've done the LAN parties and know tons of true gamers. None of these obsess over ridiculous things like 4k 200fps .. 300hz monitors and $1000+ GPUs. It's like a deep pocket crowd of mainstream individuals caught on to the gaming fad late and decided to carve a ridiculously expensive niche to set themselves apart from the unwashed masses. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people are gaming on basic hardware and having a blast.

Thanks for paying the Luxury/early adopter tax so we don't have to

 

[amenx]

Looks like 2070 is indeed TU106...
https://videocardz.com/77895/the-new-features-of-nvidia-turing-architecture

 

[sze5003]

What's this with the 1180 and 1180+ cards?

So is this mediocre performance compared to rtx or should people that don't care about rtx keep an eye on these?

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3036428/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1180-30-august-release

 

[jpiniero]

What's this with the 1180 and 1180+ cards?

So is this mediocre performance compared to rtx or should people that don't care about rtx keep an eye on these?

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3036428/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1180-30-august-release

Look at the date. nVidia changed the name.

 

[sze5003]

Look at the date. nVidia changed the name.

Oh geez, stupid news feed on Google didn't update with the latest. Disregard lol

 

[dlerious]

I game on a 2GB Maxwell GPU I purchased new almost 4 years for $140. I play at 2560x1440 (1440p) @ 60fps+ on all of the popular Steam games. I have 1080s that have never seen a game in their life. They're used for compute. I've been gaming since gaming was gaming. I have no clue where this obsession comes from with the take my money crowd. It's a new minority breed of mainstream gamers that seem intent on blowing cash on their "hobby"/one upping each other.

Look at what the majority of people run on :
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 - 12.29%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti - 8.60%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 - 4.59%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 - 4.32%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 - 4.15%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti - 3.62%

Meanwhile :

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 - 2.80%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti - 1.50%

If you think these ridiculously priced Geforce 20 series cards are being sold in any notable volume, you're asleep. $1200/$800/$600 .. All of these are priced at a point that most people won't purchase them. Pascal was a godsend when it was delivered and a no brainer purchase at various levels. Geforce 20 is a joke compared.

People play games that are fun. None of these games need a Geforce20. CS:GO / CS:Source top charts frequently... Yes, one of the most played games is 6 years old. You can get 70fps+ on poverty tier cards in these games. Barely ever notice lower fps. You play games to enjoy them not stare at textures and say ahhhhh how pretty the 4k @100fps.
https://store.steampowered.com/stats/Steam-Game-and-Player-Statistics?l=english
628,339 958,714 PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS
418,196 680,474 Dota 2
227,908 488,980 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
78,463 170,452 MONSTER HUNTER: WORLD
52,090 116,155 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege
40,173 74,553 Grand Theft Auto V

I thank whoever buys these ridiculous cards for keeping the coffers filled at Nvidia. However, I'll never understand such consumers. I've done the LAN parties and know tons of true gamers. None of these obsess over ridiculous things like 4k 200fps .. 300hz monitors and $1000+ GPUs. It's like a deep pocket crowd of mainstream individuals caught on to the gaming fad late and decided to carve a ridiculously expensive niche to set themselves apart from the unwashed masses. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people are gaming on basic hardware and having a blast.

Thanks for paying the Luxury/early adopter tax so we don't have to

Thanks for the links. I already checked GPU usage (1070 and up less than 9%). I was curious about recommended GPU for top games, saw 2 in your list that had 1060 3GB, everything else was lower for recommended (not minimum).

 

[Brahmzy]

I game on a 2GB Maxwell GPU I purchased new almost 4 years for $140. I play at 2560x1440 (1440p) @ 60fps+ on all of the popular Steam games. I have 1080s that have never seen a game in their life. They're used for compute. I've been gaming since gaming was gaming. I have no clue where this obsession comes from with the take my money crowd. It's a new minority breed of mainstream gamers that seem intent on blowing cash on their "hobby"/one upping each other.

Look at what the majority of people run on :
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 - 12.29%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti - 8.60%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 - 4.59%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 - 4.32%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 - 4.15%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti - 3.62%

Meanwhile :

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 - 2.80%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti - 1.50%

If you think these ridiculously priced Geforce 20 series cards are being sold in any notable volume, you're asleep. $1200/$800/$600 .. All of these are priced at a point that most people won't purchase them. Pascal was a godsend when it was delivered and a no brainer purchase at various levels. Geforce 20 is a joke compared.

People play games that are fun. None of these games need a Geforce20. CS:GO / CS:Source top charts frequently... Yes, one of the most played games is 6 years old. You can get 70fps+ on poverty tier cards in these games. Barely ever notice lower fps. You play games to enjoy them not stare at textures and say ahhhhh how pretty the 4k @100fps.
https://store.steampowered.com/stats/Steam-Game-and-Player-Statistics?l=english
628,339 958,714 PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS
418,196 680,474 Dota 2
227,908 488,980 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
78,463 170,452 MONSTER HUNTER: WORLD
52,090 116,155 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege
40,173 74,553 Grand Theft Auto V

I thank whoever buys these ridiculous cards for keeping the coffers filled at Nvidia. However, I'll never understand such consumers. I've done the LAN parties and know tons of true gamers. None of these obsess over ridiculous things like 4k 200fps .. 300hz monitors and $1000+ GPUs. It's like a deep pocket crowd of mainstream individuals caught on to the gaming fad late and decided to carve a ridiculously expensive niche to set themselves apart from the unwashed masses. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people are gaming on basic hardware and having a blast.

Thanks for paying the Luxury/early adopter tax so we don't have to

Must be a 1080 Ti owner...
Been gaming a lot longer than you have. I like 4K. I like 4K to be locked at 60FPS with some eye candy on. Still need AA on a 43 @ 2ft.
Show me a single card that can do that.
Hint: it’s not the 1080 Ti

Also, we haven’t paid any luxury tax. These are the new prices. nVs top tier cards have NEVER gotten cheaper.
Do I like the price? Of course not, it sucks. But I like 4K. I’ve been waiting for this gen since early 2015 as I knew the 10 series wasn’t the gen that could do 4K well.

 

[tamz_msc]

Must be a 1080 Ti owner...
Been gaming a lot longer than you have. I like 4K. I like 4K to be locked at 60FPS with some eye candy on. Still need AA on a 43 @ 2ft.
Show me a single card that can do that.
Hint: it’s not the 1080 Ti

Also, we haven’t paid any luxury tax. These are the new prices. nVs top tier cards have NEVER gotten cheaper.
Do I like the price? Of course not, it sucks. But I like 4K. I’ve been waiting for this gen since early 2015 as I knew the 10 series wasn’t the gen that could do 4K well.

You must be playing a walking sim to not get eye strain from being that near on a screen of that size. Drop a few post-processing settings like depth of field and turn down shadows and draw(object/LOD) distance from ultra to high and you can have locked 60FPS on a 1080Ti on the majority of AAA games.

 

[crisium]

I'm a 1080 owner, but I was highly anticipating the 2080 Ti especially since it was launching at the same time as the 2080. I thought it would be like Maxwell - big 'ol 600m2 pure gaming die. I expected around 50% performance over the 1080 Ti. I already priced in Nvidia demanding more money, and was prepared to drop $900 for one.

So there's my disappointment. The gains are smaller, the die is larger (thanks to RTX which I have no interest in Gen 1 tech, and TPUs which are still unproven for gaming), and the price is even higher than my already inflated expectations were. Total disappointment.

 

[n0x1ous]

I'm just paying the no competition tax and hoping AMD can release something next year to keep Jensen in line next cycle

 

[JoeRambo]

I'm just paying the no competition tax and hoping AMD can release something next year to keep Jensen in line next cycle

Yeah, AMD should release a decent "no RTX" card with non RT performance comparable to Turing gen cards. That way we will be able to buy NV cards cheaper.

 

[sze5003]

I'm still gonna wait to see benchmarks. I may not upgrade at all this year either.