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

[AtenRa]

The 7970 and 7870 definitely had a worse price to performance vs their outgoing last gen.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/30.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/28.html

The 7870 was horrifically bad offender. AMD was charging $350 for a 213mm2 die on a cheap node(vs the 231mm2 Polaris which ranged from $200/240 on a much more expensive node).

Looking at the above chart, the 6870 had 67% better price to performance than the 7870. The 7970 was pretty bad as well having the same price to performance as the gtx 580 which was Nvidia's worst card as far as price to performance while having a 520mm2 die size.

The 7970 was 351mm2 die and AMD was charging $550s for it, vs the 6970's $369(389mm2) or the 5870 $399 price(331mm2). This comparison is actually favorable to AMD because this is using initial street pricing of those products. Not the EOL or clearance pricing.

AMD's initial pricing for the 7970/7870 was the trigger of the massive price inflation of smalls chips. AMD which is usually the value company which keeps pricing in check, decided to capitalize on a 3 month window before nvidia released their cards. AMD took the savings which comes from the shrinkage of dies with a new nodal process and put everything in their pocket and charged a big premium for their new products.

Nvidia followed suit after their chips beat AMDs, thus pricing their chips relatives to their competition and we have the story we have today.

I agree the HD7970 and HD7950 had worse perf/$ than HD6970/50, BUT HD7970 was the fastest card at release and it had the same or a little better perf/$ vs GTX580 which had the performance crown at the time.

Today the RTX2080Ti is the fastest card but it has way worse perf/$ than the fastest card it replaces, the GTX1080Ti.
Even if you put RTX2080 against the GTX1080Ti the perf/$ is worse again. According to the NVIDIA slides, the RTX2080 is 13% faster but it cost 24% more than the GTX1080Ti. (prices today from newwegg)

HD7870/50 were the worst AMD perf/$ cards at the time of release, although they had the same performance as the HD6970/50 so perf/$ at the same performance level was the same with way lower power consumption. BUT again, HD7870 was faster than GTX570 at almost the same price giving the same perf/% against the competition.

 

[tajoh111]

I agree the HD7970 and HD7950 had worse perf/$ than HD6970/50, BUT HD7970 was the fastest card at release and it had the same or a little better perf/$ vs GTX580 which had the performance crown at the time.

Today the RTX2080Ti is the fastest card but it has way worse perf/$ than the fastest card it replaces, the GTX1080Ti.
Even if you put RTX2080 against the GTX1080Ti the perf/$ is worse again. According to the NVIDIA slides, the RTX2080 is 13% faster but it cost 24% more than the GTX1080Ti. (prices today from newwegg)

HD7870/50 were the worst AMD perf/$ cards at the time of release, although they had the same performance as the HD6970/50 so perf/$ at the same performance level was the same with way lower power consumption. BUT again, HD7870 was faster than GTX570 at almost the same price giving the same perf/% against the competition.

What your writing, basically justifies small chips being priced more than last generations, which was the whole catalyst for the big jump in midrange sized chips.

The gtx 580 was a 520mm2 chip and because of it's flagship performance, had among the worst price to performance of chips at the time. So having similar to slightly better price to performance than it, isn't much for bragging rights when you include that it was a much smaller chip.

If you allow the pricing premium of the midrange die(because of the shrink with the nodal process) because they will typically perform better than a last gens flagship because of the transistor density increase, it destroys any savings for consumers from the die shrink. What this creates is a situation where continuous price increases occur because it means the die shrink savings is entirely absorbed as profit by the GPU maker while the performance of the shrink, allows GPU manufactures to sell for higher. This is super anti consumer because something that is saving money for manufacturers is being charged a premium to consumers.

What this translates into is chips forever increasing in price even faster than normal.

E.g Using this logic, the gtx 1080 was appropriately priced at 699 and in fact a tad underpriced as it was faster than a gtx 980 ti, and deserved a premium over the outgoing cards because it was 20% faster than a gtx 980 ti which had 650 dollar pricing. Thus pricing like 699 to 799 would have been fair considering the price increase. Thus ignoring the potential cost savings for the consumers because the die shrink(ironically the savings is less so this generation because of the cost of finfet) has reduced the chip size and the cost of the chip for the GPU maker.

One more thing is your using clearance/sale pricing when it comes to the gtx 1080 to RTX, but not the gtx 570/580 6970/6950/6870. If you are consistent and use sale prices of outgoing hardware, the rip off during the 7970/7870 generation is even worse.

https://www.overclockers.com/forums...deo-Card-JC2-amp-Mafia-II-281-71-AR-FS-Newegg

$281 for a gtx 570(paying 24% more for 3 to 5% more performance going by your methodology)

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/ncix-online-january-clearance-sale-6970-250-6870-150-a-1131314/

$250 dollars for a 6970(10% more performance for 40% more money for 7870 upgrade or 24% more performance for 120% more money for the 7970 upgrade) and $150 for a 6870(40% more performance for 133% more money for a 7870 upgrade).

I think it's ridiculous to use the sale pricing of last gens products and I think it is more consistent to use the MSRP to MSRP to see what is truly happening with the value for consumers. If you use the clearance pricing of outgoing hardware, most new hardware looks bad because old tech needs to have better price to performance than the incoming hardware or people will simply buy the new technology because with performance being equal, people would rather get new stuff.

 

[USER8000]

Why are people trying to use poor prices from 5+ years ago to justify prices now??

 

[nurturedhate]

Why are people trying to use poor prices from 5+ years ago to justify prices now??

AMD once did something similar but not to this degree so Nvidia is justified in charging these insane prices seems to be the prevailing reason for bringing all this up. Basically they are saying "both sides are bad so buy Nividia" or at least that's the impression I get.

 

[cmdrdredd]

AMD once did something similar but not to this degree so Nvidia is justified in charging these insane prices seems to be the prevailing reason for bringing all this up. Basically they are saying "both sides are bad so buy Nividia" or at least that's the impression I get.

What I get is both are bad, but AMD isn't competing at the moment in performance so you are stuck buying Nvidia. Technically there is a competing product but Nvidia is acting like there is none.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Those scores show what the others seem to imply, a 2080 is ~ a 1080 Ti aftermarket and a 2080 Ti is about 20-25% faster than that.

I don't know what the FFXV scores mean to be honest. It's not showing framerates or other information, just a number.

 

[Despoiler]

THE DEMOS WERE PLAYABLE AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE SHOW FLOOR. Am I speaking another language or what? 30-60 fps @ 1080p because developers are still doing optimizations.

Playable. Cinematic some might even call it. No one buys the top Ti card to play at 1080p. That ship has sailed years ago. Optimizations will not help the implementation go from 1080p to 4k. We won't see playable frames at 1440p either. Also, what kind of optimizations do you need when "it just works." That was the claim right? This is a remake of a movie re-titled to Sell Hard: The Jensen Huang Story.

 

[Hitman928]

I don't know what the FFXV scores mean to be honest. It's not showing framerates or other information, just a number.

Fair point. The score definitely comes from the framerate during the benchmark, but I don't know if it's a 1:1 linear relationship as far as performance increases go.

What I get is both are bad, but AMD isn't competing at the moment in performance so you are stuck buying Nvidia. Technically there is a competing product but Nvidia is acting like there is none.

The 7xxx series was a shift in business model for AMD. Before that, AMD wasn't trying to compete for the top spot, but rather be the perf/$ leader. At the top, they would offer ~85% performance versus Nvidia but for 75% of the price (MSRP, market price usually ended up a little lower). AMD was tired of being the "value leader" and decided it wanted to compete at the top of the range again. They were first to 28 nm so they priced their top card at the time in line with Nvidia's perf/$. So, AMD's perf/$ dropped but the overall market stayed the same. Obviously Nvidia brought a competitive card soon after the initial 7xxx AMD release so that forced prices down and AMD brought out a manufacturer overclocked line of cards to better compete on performance.

Now we have no competition from AMD at the high end and no competing cards at all this generation, so Nvidia continues to push the prices up in the market to see how much the market is willing to accept in the absence of competition. It sucks for consumers, but until AMD is able to truly compete again, this is the game that will be played. The only way to lower prices now is if gamers en masse decide that they've had enough price increases and don't purchase any new cards. Nvidia would be forced to either lower cards or stop offering the new generation. I highly doubt they'd want to take the second option though.

 

[Kenmitch]

Playable. Cinematic some might even call it. No one buys the top Ti card to play at 1080p. That ship has sailed years ago. Optimizations will not help the implementation go from 1080p to 4k. We won't see playable frames at 1440p either. Also, what kind of optimizations do you need when "it just works." That was the claim right? This is a remake of a movie re-titled to Sell Hard: The Jensen Huang Story.

Most likely the shift is due to some other underlying issue. Maybe nvidia is viewing the situation with Intel vs AMD in the cpu arena and sees the writing on the wall? Maybe they're tapped out on the it just works end of the gpu and have to shift to other strategies to keep the lead? Nobody really knows in the end what's going on as we only get bits and pieces of the puzzle and unless you count them and know how many pieces there really are you don't even know if you got the whole puzzle.

This launch get's stranger as we get closer to the official reviews. Usually the fog clears as the official reviews approach.

 

[Head1985]

I don't know what the FFXV scores mean to be honest. It's not showing framerates or other information, just a number.

Its score/100=FPS
So if i have score 7600 its 76fps.

 

[Markfw]

Its score/1000=FPS
So if i have score 7600 its 76fps.

By that math, it would be 7.6 fps

 

[Head1985]

Yeah so it is /100

 

[PeterScott]

Playable. Cinematic some might even call it. No one buys the top Ti card to play at 1080p. That ship has sailed years ago. Optimizations will not help the implementation go from 1080p to 4k. We won't see playable frames at 1440p either. Also, what kind of optimizations do you need when "it just works." That was the claim right? This is a remake of a movie re-titled to Sell Hard: The Jensen Huang Story.

I think it's a bit early to be writing them off, based on a couple of early demos.

BFV was already doing 40-50fps in 1440p in one of the stories I read, and it is far from optimized. At the time of the demo, they only had RTX cards for 2 weeks.

It also depends what you want to do with RT HW. Gaijin games is apparently using it for Global illumination in all titles going forward. They claim something like 4K playable fps, already and they are using Vulcan:
https://wccftech.com/gaijin-impressed-nvidia-rtx-performance/

 

[ozzy702]

What I get is both are bad, but AMD isn't competing at the moment in performance so you are stuck buying Nvidia. Technically there is a competing product but Nvidia is acting like there is none.

The only competing product is the 1080TI. There is zero competition 1080 and above from AMD.

 

[PeterScott]

Edit, ignore:

Now that cards are out to reviewers, I expect some leaks before review day, but you obviously need the salt shaker for these:

6 games in Video(2080Ti vs 1080Ti). I set the timestamp on the summary page.
(redacted)

Huge boost in Witcher3 (~75%), and poor in Hitman (~27%). I think most of the rest average around 45%.

Edit. Looking at a bit more and some of the other videos posted on this very low subscriber channel, It seems more likely this is just Fake video for views garbage, so I removed the link, rather than give them more hits to reward this behavior.

 

[sze5003]

I'm excited for continuing Witcher 3. That one looks like its definitely has much better performance compared to the 1080ti at 4k. While other games like mass effect and shadow of tomb raider basically make it to 60fps on the 2080ti.

I'm getting about average 83-86 fps at 1440p on the highest preset for shadow of tomb raider right now. This was the result of the in game benchmark.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Fair point. The score definitely comes from the framerate during the benchmark, but I don't know if it's a 1:1 linear relationship as far as performance increases go.



The 7xxx series was a shift in business model for AMD. Before that, AMD wasn't trying to compete for the top spot, but rather be the perf/$ leader. At the top, they would offer ~85% performance versus Nvidia but for 75% of the price (MSRP, market price usually ended up a little lower). AMD was tired of being the "value leader" and decided it wanted to compete at the top of the range again. They were first to 28 nm so they priced their top card at the time in line with Nvidia's perf/$. So, AMD's perf/$ dropped but the overall market stayed the same. Obviously Nvidia brought a competitive card soon after the initial 7xxx AMD release so that forced prices down and AMD brought out a manufacturer overclocked line of cards to better compete on performance.

Now we have no competition from AMD at the high end and no competing cards at all this generation, so Nvidia continues to push the prices up in the market to see how much the market is willing to accept in the absence of competition. It sucks for consumers, but until AMD is able to truly compete again, this is the game that will be played. The only way to lower prices now is if gamers en masse decide that they've had enough price increases and don't purchase any new cards. Nvidia would be forced to either lower cards or stop offering the new generation. I highly doubt they'd want to take the second option though.

Quoted for truth. I’m with you all the way on this.

 

[railven]

What I get is both are bad, but AMD isn't competing at the moment in performance so you are stuck buying Nvidia. Technically there is a competing product but Nvidia is acting like there is none.

Ah I remember having long discussions with Russian defending the HD 7970's $550 price tag. Back then AMD couldn't get a break even from the pro-AMD crowd. The HD 7970 was a great card, OC'd to the moon, and sure it gulped power, but it definitely hurt the pricing scheme for future cards. With the $550 price point, NV got the "triple crown" victory from Anandtech for pricing the (at launch) faster GTX 680 for $500.

The other shoe being bitmining with people here defending the price hike because "free money" now that the markets have inflated, NV is reaping that inflation and everyone is hurting. Are we going to see any more "my AMD card paid for my NV card" posts?

Good game PC enthusiasts, you played yourself.

Disclaimer: I'll gladly eat my serving of crow because I never thought a GPU outside of a halo "prosumer" version would eclipse the $1,000 price point. Oh how wrong I was.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Its score/100=FPS
So if i have score 7600 its 76fps.

Then why do they claim a score of 7600 is simply fair and not extremely good? 76fps is extremely good considering a lot of people are at 60hz refresh with vsync. I can get over 6000 at 4K but using their guide that’s considered kind of bad? That’s almost hitting my vsync limit.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The only competing product is the 1080TI. There is zero competition 1080 and above from AMD.

Exactly what I mean. As a result, nvidia is pushing the price up because there is no real choice for us if we want the top end product.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Ah I remember having long discussions with Russian defending the HD 7970's $550 price tag. Back then AMD couldn't get a break even from the pro-AMD crowd. The HD 7970 was a great card, OC'd to the moon, and sure it gulped power, but it definitely hurt the pricing scheme for future cards. With the $550 price point, NV got the "triple crown" victory from Anandtech for pricing the (at launch) faster GTX 680 for $500.

The other shoe being bitmining with people here defending the price hike because "free money" now that the markets have inflated, NV is reaping that inflation and everyone is hurting. Are we going to see any more "my AMD card paid for my NV card" posts?

Good game PC enthusiasts, you played yourself.

Disclaimer: I'll gladly eat my serving of crow because I never thought a GPU outside of a halo "prosumer" version would eclipse the $1,000 price point. Oh how wrong I was.

Hey I feel you there. I overpaid for my 1080ti because I was building a new PC a few months back and needed a new GPU to go with it. I bit the billet. However I need to see bigger gains to pay even more for an upgrade.

 

[railven]

Hey I feel you there. I overpaid for my 1080ti because I was building a new PC a few months back and needed a new GPU to go with it. I bit the billet. However I need to see bigger gains to pay even more for an upgrade.

Yeah, the bitminng craze made me a whole lot bitter. Throw in co-workers riding the crypto market waves that were creating lasting negative effects in the PC enthusiast market. Multiple friends wanted to upgrade but opted out because of growing prices. Throw in swinging by forums, and the "I got 30 AMD cards, LOLz, hit F5 faster" and suddenly...well you can imagine the rest.

Money has never been a concern for me, I'm not rich, I'm not poor, so I never understand people's reactions to it. I only bitmined for like a month, the issues it created (infancy days) left a bad taste in my mouth. Everyone else continued, probably made thousands, and now it's costing us thousands for a new GPU and they're all like "why is NV so greedy!? We need AMD back" knowing they helped dig AMD's current hole.

Gonna stop here.

 

[alcoholbob]

I'm excited for continuing Witcher 3. That one looks like its definitely has much better performance compared to the 1080ti at 4k. While other games like mass effect and shadow of tomb raider basically make it to 60fps on the 2080ti.

I'm getting about average 83-86 fps at 1440p on the highest preset for shadow of tomb raider right now. This was the result of the in game benchmark.

Seems kind of unlikely those benchmarks are real given nvidia's own reviewers guide benchmarks only put 2080ti as 15% faster than an AIB 1080 ti in witcher 3.

 

[PeterScott]

Seems kind of unlikely those benchmarks are real given nvidia's own reviewers guide benchmarks only put 2080ti as 15% faster than an AIB 1080 ti in witcher 3.

https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2018/09/GeForce-RTX-2080-Ti-RTX-2080-Witcher-3.png

Well FE to FE, they give it: 78/57 = 37%.

But I agree, the link I posted and redacted was most likely fake.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yeah, the bitminng craze made me a whole lot bitter. Throw in co-workers riding the crypto market waves that were creating lasting negative effects in the PC enthusiast market. Multiple friends wanted to upgrade but opted out because of growing prices. Throw in swinging by forums, and the "I got 30 AMD cards, LOLz, hit F5 faster" and suddenly...well you can imagine the rest.

Money has never been a concern for me, I'm not rich, I'm not poor, so I never understand people's reactions to it. I only bitmined for like a month, the issues it created (infancy days) left a bad taste in my mouth. Everyone else continued, probably made thousands, and now it's costing us thousands for a new GPU and they're all like "why is NV so greedy!? We need AMD back" knowing they helped dig AMD's current hole.

Gonna stop here.

I’m the same way, I can drop $1200 on a GPU and not feel the effects. I just don’t feel like I should have to.