3 ms·

Again it’s all relative, NVIDIA always used big dies to win and they are making money hand over fist. It doesn’t change the fact that the TU104 is a mid range

Again it’s all relative, NVIDIA always used big dies to win and they are making money hand over fist. It doesn’t change the fact that the TU104 is a mid range die as far as the Turing lineup goes doesn’t matter if it’s 500mm^2 or 5M^2. Radeon 7 is a fairly large die for its processes on a very expensive node using the fastest memory around which barely beats the 1080ti and brings next to nothing new to the table over Vega, heck i doesn’t bring that many new things over Fiji but at least they finally have dot product support. The simple reality is that for gaming the 2080 is still a better pick if only because of the RTX features. For compute the 2080 might edge it depending on the workload and especially for DL/ML due to the craptastic state of AMDs ecosystem even today. For HPC as in FP64 then the Rad 7 is worse perf/$ than the Titan V you can buy a Titan V 24GB for £2400 today and get 7 tflops of FP64. The only case where the Radeon 7 would be better than the 2080 is likely in a small subset of GPU accelerated software that properly supports AMD GPUs e.g. blender.

dragontamer 8y ago
> The simple reality is that for gaming the 2080 is still a better pick if only because of the RTX features. I think there's a strong argument to future-proofing 4k gaming experiences. I think the 1080 Ti is a better pick, but the 1080 Ti is sold out in the US Market. The 2080's 8GB of VRAM is usable today, but I'm not entirely sure how long it will be before 4k games blow through that. 1080 Ti had 11GB of VRAM, Radeon 7 is a bit overkill at 16. But 8GB is solidly a mid-range VRAM size. > The only case where the Radeon 7 would be better than the 2080 is likely in a small subset of GPU accelerated software that properly supports AMD GPUs e.g. blender. FP32 performance is also used in Adobe Premier (video editors). But yo man, 3d renders (like Blender) can take hours under normal circumstances. Its a solid market to try to accelerate.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  Adobe Premiere doesn't care about the GPU much, even with pretty heavy effects and 8K you wouldn't notice the difference between a 1060 and a 2080ti, but one thing you usually don't want to do is to pair it with an AMD GPU due Adobe's craptastic support. https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2018-NVIDIA-GeForce-vs-AMD-Radeon-Vega-1206/ https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2... And 8GB is more than enough, heck if AMD memory management worked as in dev's would've used it then 4GB is enough for 4K even today, there are plenty of GDC talks about it and how some games on average only accessed 3GB of memory for a given level the biggest ones were from Doom and Witcher 3 iirc. This is how the Xbox One X can do 4K even if it's at 30fps with only 12GB of RAM shared between the GPU and CPU and how even the PS4 pro can do 4K with 8GB and in all cases when they can't it's not a memory limitation but rather a fill rate / horsepower issue. I'll take NVIDIA's stellar memory management and compression and tiled rendering over AMD's 1TB of memory bandwidth and 16GB of memory for 4K gaming, and 4K gaming on PCs is well meh, I'm actually regretting getting a 4K monitor and a 1080ti SLI setup something which i will remediate once the 1440P FLAD HDR Gsync monitors come out to the market.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    "Heavy" GPU-accelerated 2d effects, like Optical Flow Time Remapping, are used quite often in my experience. Its the easiest way to get the "cool slo-mo" that made movies like 300 popular. Good Youtubers are using the effect a lot in their videos now. You're right about Adobe being bad with OpenCL, but its just an example. But my overall point is that the 2d video editing community is mostly about FP32. A high end FP32 card caters towards 3d renderers, 2d video editors, and others in the professional marketplace. Davinci Resolve users seem to get a bigger benefit out of Vega cards than 10xx series NVidia cards. So it depends on your video editor. ---------- Aside from scientific compute, I'm having issues figuring out where FP64 support is an issue. All of the applications I'm aware of are FP32. There's a clear difference in the rendering of heavy effects (Optical Flow based Resampling) or 3d editors, so a good GPU really makes a difference in those cases. > And 8GB is more than enough, heck if AMD memory management worked as in dev's would've used it then 4GB is enough for 4K even today, there are plenty of GDC talks about it and how some games on average only accessed 3GB of memory for a given level the biggest ones were from Doom and Witcher 3 iirc. XBox and PS4 Pro are bad examples to use. Those systems have far weaker GPUs, and the textures aren't truly 4k. If you enter a game with 4k texture packs (or 8k texture packs, like Star Citizen), you can expect your memory usage to spike significantly. 8GB is still sufficient, but gamers are expecting better and better textures. 4k + 10-bit HDR textures take up a lot of room.
    - dogma1138 8y ago
      >XBox and PS4 Pro are bad examples to use. Those systems have far weaker GPUs, and the textures aren't truly 4k. Textures are the same as v.high/high on PC the only thing that some PC games add is an uncompressed texture pack which are simply stupid to begin with. Xbox One X is a great example of a system that can push 4K or near 4K gaming because it does so pretty darn well. The memory capacity is really not an issue with 8GB, in fact the only cases where the 2080 really pulls a head of the 1080ti is in higher resolutions especially 4K. >if you enter a game with 4k texture packs (or 8k texture packs, like Star Citizen), you can expect your memory usage to spike significantly. 8GB is still sufficient, but gamers are expecting better and better textures. Most textures in a game are well beyond 4 or even 8K regardless of the resolution, heck a simple texture atlas is huge. Star Citizen is a crap game to use as an example as both the textures are overall simply horrid and it make PUBG looks like a well optimized title. Overall the 2080 gives you RTX which is RT + Tensor Cores which will become very important as WinML/DirectML games begin to ship since NVIDIA both assisted Microsoft in defining the spec and it's essentially tailored for their Tensor Cores, you get concurrent Int/FP execution per ALU which will give NVIDIA a huge boost as integer shaders (e.g. compute shaders with heavy bool logic) will become more common and you get a more mature ecosystem, better encode/decode and various other small QoL improvements. For gaming specifically the Radeon 7 doesn't have anything to offer other than to those that care more about the brand than what they get for their investment. I really miss the days of the HD4000 series or the days when the R300, and sadly I don't see AMD getting out of this cycle any time soon, Fiji was late and underwhelming, Vega was late and underwhelming, and now Radeon 7 is late and underwhelming. If Navi is another mid range GPU will see 15%-20% improevemnt over Polaris if we're lucky, once we get closer to Feb 7th I'm pretty sure we'll see that in 1080p there is likely no difference between VEGA64 and Radeon 7 and the only place we see the difference is in 4K due to slightly higher fill rate and more bandwidth since AMD still can't get delta compression to work correctly.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >I think there's a strong argument to future-proofing 4k gaming experiences. 4k isn't that impressive for gaming with a monitor. Most people can barely tell the difference between it and 1440p, but there's a huge performance difference. For VR it does matter though.

dragontamer 8y ago

> The simple reality is that for gaming the 2080 is still a better pick if only because of the RTX features. I think there's a strong argument to future-proofing 4k gaming experiences. I think the 1080 Ti is a better pick, but the 1080 Ti is sold out in the US Market. The 2080's 8GB of VRAM is usable today, but I'm not entirely sure how long it will be before 4k games blow through that. 1080 Ti had 11GB of VRAM, Radeon 7 is a bit overkill at 16. But 8GB is solidly a mid-range VRAM size. > The only case where the Radeon 7 would be better than the 2080 is likely in a small subset of GPU accelerated software that properly supports AMD GPUs e.g. blender. FP32 performance is also used in Adobe Premier (video editors). But yo man, 3d renders (like Blender) can take hours under normal circumstances. Its a solid market to try to accelerate.

dogma1138 8y ago
Adobe Premiere doesn't care about the GPU much, even with pretty heavy effects and 8K you wouldn't notice the difference between a 1060 and a 2080ti, but one thing you usually don't want to do is to pair it with an AMD GPU due Adobe's craptastic support. https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2018-NVIDIA-GeForce-vs-AMD-Radeon-Vega-1206/ https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2... And 8GB is more than enough, heck if AMD memory management worked as in dev's would've used it then 4GB is enough for 4K even today, there are plenty of GDC talks about it and how some games on average only accessed 3GB of memory for a given level the biggest ones were from Doom and Witcher 3 iirc. This is how the Xbox One X can do 4K even if it's at 30fps with only 12GB of RAM shared between the GPU and CPU and how even the PS4 pro can do 4K with 8GB and in all cases when they can't it's not a memory limitation but rather a fill rate / horsepower issue. I'll take NVIDIA's stellar memory management and compression and tiled rendering over AMD's 1TB of memory bandwidth and 16GB of memory for 4K gaming, and 4K gaming on PCs is well meh, I'm actually regretting getting a 4K monitor and a 1080ti SLI setup something which i will remediate once the 1440P FLAD HDR Gsync monitors come out to the market.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  "Heavy" GPU-accelerated 2d effects, like Optical Flow Time Remapping, are used quite often in my experience. Its the easiest way to get the "cool slo-mo" that made movies like 300 popular. Good Youtubers are using the effect a lot in their videos now. You're right about Adobe being bad with OpenCL, but its just an example. But my overall point is that the 2d video editing community is mostly about FP32. A high end FP32 card caters towards 3d renderers, 2d video editors, and others in the professional marketplace. Davinci Resolve users seem to get a bigger benefit out of Vega cards than 10xx series NVidia cards. So it depends on your video editor. ---------- Aside from scientific compute, I'm having issues figuring out where FP64 support is an issue. All of the applications I'm aware of are FP32. There's a clear difference in the rendering of heavy effects (Optical Flow based Resampling) or 3d editors, so a good GPU really makes a difference in those cases. > And 8GB is more than enough, heck if AMD memory management worked as in dev's would've used it then 4GB is enough for 4K even today, there are plenty of GDC talks about it and how some games on average only accessed 3GB of memory for a given level the biggest ones were from Doom and Witcher 3 iirc. XBox and PS4 Pro are bad examples to use. Those systems have far weaker GPUs, and the textures aren't truly 4k. If you enter a game with 4k texture packs (or 8k texture packs, like Star Citizen), you can expect your memory usage to spike significantly. 8GB is still sufficient, but gamers are expecting better and better textures. 4k + 10-bit HDR textures take up a lot of room.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    >XBox and PS4 Pro are bad examples to use. Those systems have far weaker GPUs, and the textures aren't truly 4k. Textures are the same as v.high/high on PC the only thing that some PC games add is an uncompressed texture pack which are simply stupid to begin with. Xbox One X is a great example of a system that can push 4K or near 4K gaming because it does so pretty darn well. The memory capacity is really not an issue with 8GB, in fact the only cases where the 2080 really pulls a head of the 1080ti is in higher resolutions especially 4K. >if you enter a game with 4k texture packs (or 8k texture packs, like Star Citizen), you can expect your memory usage to spike significantly. 8GB is still sufficient, but gamers are expecting better and better textures. Most textures in a game are well beyond 4 or even 8K regardless of the resolution, heck a simple texture atlas is huge. Star Citizen is a crap game to use as an example as both the textures are overall simply horrid and it make PUBG looks like a well optimized title. Overall the 2080 gives you RTX which is RT + Tensor Cores which will become very important as WinML/DirectML games begin to ship since NVIDIA both assisted Microsoft in defining the spec and it's essentially tailored for their Tensor Cores, you get concurrent Int/FP execution per ALU which will give NVIDIA a huge boost as integer shaders (e.g. compute shaders with heavy bool logic) will become more common and you get a more mature ecosystem, better encode/decode and various other small QoL improvements. For gaming specifically the Radeon 7 doesn't have anything to offer other than to those that care more about the brand than what they get for their investment. I really miss the days of the HD4000 series or the days when the R300, and sadly I don't see AMD getting out of this cycle any time soon, Fiji was late and underwhelming, Vega was late and underwhelming, and now Radeon 7 is late and underwhelming. If Navi is another mid range GPU will see 15%-20% improevemnt over Polaris if we're lucky, once we get closer to Feb 7th I'm pretty sure we'll see that in 1080p there is likely no difference between VEGA64 and Radeon 7 and the only place we see the difference is in 4K due to slightly higher fill rate and more bandwidth since AMD still can't get delta compression to work correctly.
Mirioron 8y ago
>I think there's a strong argument to future-proofing 4k gaming experiences. 4k isn't that impressive for gaming with a monitor. Most people can barely tell the difference between it and 1440p, but there's a huge performance difference. For VR it does matter though.