12 ms·
The point was different - it is way too expensive for regular gamers, 2080Ti likely won't be able to do 4k@60Hz like 1080Ti couldn't either and 10 games featuri
by bitL 8y ago
The point was different - it is way too expensive for regular gamers, 2080Ti likely won't be able to do 4k@60Hz like 1080Ti couldn't either and 10 games featuring RTX in the nearly future is not a sufficient draw, especially when some of the effects now look subjectively worse with RTX ON (see those shadows from multiple lights above dancing people from Jenson's demo). So the question remains - who is the real target audience that will actually buy those cards at these prices? Did NVidia turn into Apple and made RTX its own iPhone X?
Waiting this generation out until RTX is more wide-spread/tested and going for the next 7nm generation with hopefully AMD having a proper GPU to compete seems like a better strategy for most gamers out there.
- xxs 8y agoNot only that later in the same demo you can notice the fps drop during the explosion sequence.
- jdietrich 8y ago>it is way too expensive for regular gamers The 80 series has always been a low-volume, high-margin halo product within Nvidia's gaming range. It's dirt cheap and high-volume compared to Quadro, but top-of-the-range for gaming. Cryptomania has revealed to Nvidia that they probably priced the 1080 too low at launch - many gamers were in fact willing to pay substantially inflated prices for The Best GPU. If the mass market decides to wait for the RTX 1060 or 1050, that's fine with Nvidia, as they face no real competition from AMD at the moment. It's very much in Nvidia's interests to make the most of their market dominance.
- emodendroket 8y agoThe 70 series is traditionally pretty popular for gamers though. At $600, though, I mean... that's at the point where just the graphics card is more than one of the 4K consoles Microsoft or Sony is putting out. Obviously a PC game is going to look nicer, but someone has to start thinking about that comparison.
- Dylan16807 8y ago> I mean... that's at the point where just the graphics card is more than one of the 4K consoles Microsoft or Sony is putting out. The console might output 4K but that doesn't mean the GPU inside can handle higher settings than a 1060. The $600 GPU is irrelevant to that comparison.
- saiya-jin 8y ago> The console might output 4K but that doesn't mean the GPU inside can handle higher settings than a 1060 Which is kinda irrelevant too, since console games are highly optimized for exactly 1 graphic card & rest of the setup. You get all the details hardware is capable of smoothly, nothing more or less. No fiddling with tons of settings that most have no clue about. I don't get this often used argument - my games look better on PC than on consoles. Yes some UI gimmicks look better, textures have higher res, but after 30 minutes of playing it really doesn't matter at all, quality of gameplay and smoothness of experience is the king. Of course if one pours 5x the amount of money into PC that would be spent on console, there needs to be some inner justification. But it still doesn't make sense to me. This is a view of person who plays only on PC, never had any console.
- gspetr 8y ago> You get all the details hardware is capable of smoothly, nothing more or less. The "smoothly" part is far from guaranteed. cough Dying Light cough > Of course if one pours 5x the amount of money into PC that would be spent on console, there needs to be some inner justification. IIRC PC game sales are far juicier than their console counterparts, especially if you don't live in 1st world countries.
- emodendroket 8y agoTo the extent that's true it kind of works against your argument, doesn't it? I doubt that PC sales look better in India because Indians all have top-of-the-line Alienware rigs.
- Fnoord 8y agoI think the cryptomania revealed that people (young people, gamers, who got into cryptocurrencies) could earn a few bucks or so back with their investment. Some of whom used mom 'n pop's electricity grid for that purpose. If they had to pay that back, it was likely 0% interest.
- byte1918 8y agoYou're deviating from the point. It's irrelevant to the discussion who are the crypto people and where or how they got the money.
- jklinger410 8y agoThey are likely incentivized to jack up the price on personal purchases so the big manufacturers can have more overhead integrating it with their consoles or pre-built gaming PCs.
- eanzenberg 8y agoI'm gaming at 4k60fps ultra everything modern games on a single 1080ti right now.
- bitL 8y agoLucky you! Head over to /r/nvidia and read which games just can't cut it on 4k@60 Ultra.
- eanzenberg 8y agoWhich ones though? Tbh I do have a 4k gsync so that does help when fps goes below 60. I find anything from 50-60fps to be smooth and below 50 it starts to get too choppy. It also helps with the input lag to run gsync @ 58fps. The most current game I run ultra is far cry 5, it's a pleasure @ 4k.
- Jonnax 8y agoIt's a graphics card running a computer program. Did you expect it to run everything forever at an extremely high resolution with 60fps? Why are Nvidia releasing new cards then?
- floatboth 8y agoUltra is ridiculous and unnecessary. I play 4K60 on an RX 480 with "smart" settings — max textures/meshes, min shader effects, no ambient occlusion, no dynamic reflections, etc.
- andoriyu 8y agoIf you turn on extreme anti-aliasing then yeah, it might struggle, but guess what? Anti-aliasing ain't that important on 4k.
- mastazi 8y agoI agree with you, aliasing is obviously less noticeable at higher resolutions, simply because the pixels are smaller (or the pixel density is higher, whichever way you want to see it). It's just common sense but if anyone needs proof, they could look at the pictures here (e.g. look at 8X MSAA 1080p vs only 2X at 4K, yet the latter has less visible aliasing): https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/180402-five-things-to-know-about-4k-gaming-were-glitching-our-way-to-gaming-nirvana/3 https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/180402-five-things-to-kno...
- jackpeterfletch 8y ago> it is way too expensive for regular gamers Gamers arent kids anymore. Amongst my friends that game, most are nearly 30 working excellent jobs in software.
- snuxoll 8y agoDoesn't matter if they aren't "kids" anymore or not, there's a reason AMD focused hard on the $200-300 range for graphics cards - because that's where most buyers budgets are. There are people who spend more, but even many enthusiasts are shopping in the $400-500 segment for a card to support high-refresh-rate gaming or higher resolutions like 1440P, the number of people who blow $800+ on a GPU like a 1080 Ti are few and far between in comparison.
- deadbunny 8y ago> the number of people who blow $800+ on a GPU like a 1080 Ti are few and far between in comparison. They always have been. Still doesn't stop those who can buying them.
- snuxoll 8y agoCertainly not, but the infuriating part is historically the performance of those cards trickles down to the lower tiers at more reasonable prices as the generations go by. The GTX 1070 beat the GTX 980 Ti at an MSRP $200 less just one generation later, meanwhile at least from pure TFLOPS numbers the RTX 2080 is less powerful than the GTX 1080 Ti while costing around the same. One would be forgiven for expecting roughly GTX 1080 Ti performance in the RTX 2070 at around $449-499 USD.
- viraptor 8y agoThis all sounds like normal r&d and market forces. New stuff is low volume and premium prices. Once it becomes more common and more production lines are switched, the prices fall and the features get included into other models. This applies to virtually every product. Or did you want to highlight something else I missed?
- deadbunny 8y ago> it is way too expensive for regular gamers Better cancel my pre-order then... > 2080Ti likely won't be able to do 4k@60Hz like 1080Ti couldn't either My 1080ti and 4k monitor beg to differ.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gameswithgo 8y agowhat kind of FPS can you get in Doom, all features on, at 4k? my 1070 would do it, but it was garbage fps
- seq2seq 8y agoI get 60 (limited by my monitor) or 1080ti. All settings maxed out at 4K
- naikrovek 8y agoNearly the same story for me on a 980 ti. I have to turn some settings down, but I get 60fps @ UHD commonly.
- andkenneth 8y agotry uncapping your framerate, the game will let you run at higher than your hardware limit.
- robdachshund 8y agoLol why even answer if you have vsync on
- soupbowl 8y agoWhat CPU do you have? My 1070 plays doom at 4k no problem.
- gameswithgo 8y ago
- ricardobeat 8y agoSpec page says 8K HDR @ 60fps.
- bitL 8y agoTalking about two different things here... You mentioned that card is capable of outputting 8k HDR @ 60Hz, i.e. your Windows desktop can happily have 7680x4320@60. I mentioned that running games at 4k@60Hz or 3k@144Hz smoothly might not be possible for some demanding games and that many gamers expected that from the new generation.
- vbezhenar 8y agoYou can slow any hardware with sufficiently inefficient program (or sufficiently detailed scene, if we're talking about GPUs). You can easily make any videocard work at 0.001 FPS if your scene is heavy enough. So it only depends on game developers, it's unfair to blame Nvidia for that. GPU progress is astonishing, at least when compared with CPU progress.
- johnvanommen 8y ago> GPU progress is astonishing, at least when compared with CPU progress. I have a dual xeon rig with sixteen cores that I used to use for video transcoding. It could transcode a movie in about 12 hours. I read that a cheap Nvidia GPU could do the job in less than 30 minutes. It seemed way too good to be true, but I figured I'd spend $120 to find out. It turned out the hype was wrong; it didn't take 30 minutes to do what sixteen Xeons spent 12 hours doing, it took fifteen minutes. Unreal.
- namibj 8y agoEhm, if your server runs a reasonable modern x264, you should get significantly lower bandwidth at "transparent" quality compared to what the GPU's hardware encoders is even capable of reaching. The reason there being that the hardware encoder can't use some features x264 implements sufficiently fast to make them worthwhile to use at that sort of time investment. Please don't try to measure lossy-anything-calculation by speed alone, always make sure that the required quality can even be reached, and even if, that it still exhibits the performance benefits, even after you tune these features up far enough.
- unphased 8y agoThe only point i'd like to make is that the only reason that you "can't do" 4k@60 is because devs decided to tune their effects scaling in such a way that this is the case. This doesn't affect the argument that you're making. I just think it's actually incredibly absurd to complain as though it's the hardware's fault for not being able to keep up with 4k@60, when it's the devs who you should be looking at when you're disappointed with the performance on a given piece of hardware.
- Improvotter 8y agoOh yes it’s the developer’s fault for not “tuning” something the right way. Sure. You can “tune” something all you want, you’re always going to have a lower quality representation if you want better performance. The hardware should give the developers the possibility of getting better quality graphics at higher resolutions. We can play the original doom at 4 and probably even 8K without much problems. But that doesn’t mean it’s because they “tuned” it better, it’s because hardware has gotten better and hardware will always be the limiting factor for games.
- Ntrails 8y agoI think the point is that with PCs they make less effort to eek performance out of hardware. When you've got a console, you know exactly what you'll be optimising for and work really hard to get the most out of it. With a PC release I think Devs tend to make far less effort and simply up the requirements
- robdachshund 8y agoOr rather you have a non unified memory architecture plus the overhead of windows. Also, console games aren't that optimized, they just run at pretty mediocre settings. Both the xbone and the ps4 dedicate cores and ram to running the OS in the background which is a huge waste of resources.
- EugeneOZ 8y agoWith my 1080 (not 1080Ti) I play most of the games (just couple of exceptions, really) with 60 FPS on 4k monitor. And look at 2080 with the same price tag as 1080 - gamers will wipe it out from stock in seconds.
- lern_too_spel 8y agoThey demonstrated real time super resolution on top of hybrid rendering. The meaning of 4k@60Hz has changed. They can render that just fine -- it's just a question of how many of the pixels are imagined by the model and how good the model is.