TR Forums

What we've seen so far are not data points. There's too much speculation involved, and the picture isn't nearly clear enough to call them that. It may seem like a game of semantics, but how to filter out the noise in order to learn what's really going on with this stuff is an essential skill for anyone who's more interested in the technology than they are the drama which goes with it.

As for the OPs question, I'll second DancinJack and say get the 1080Ti. I wouldn't consider anything below that a worthwhile upgrade for the amount you'll be spending. To be completely honest I wouldn't upgrade at all, but if you plan for this to be your next GPU for the foreseeable future the 1080Ti is the one I'd pick while the pickings are good.

Redocbew wrote:

To be completely honest I wouldn't upgrade at all, but if you plan for this to be your next GPU for the foreseeable future the 1080Ti is the one I'd pick while the pickings are good.

If I bought the 1080 Ti that card would be kept until at least the generation after the 2080.

adampk17 wrote:

First my system, i7-8086k, Nvidia 970, and a 1440p Gsync 144 Hz monitor. Second, my games. I mainly play World of Warcraft (I know!) with a very small dabbling in new(ish) shooters like Sniper 4. I realize WoW is not super demanding but I would like to play it with all the settings turned up to max at 1440p and my 970 can't do that, not by a long shot.

I had been excited to wait for the next generation, what has turned out to be the 2080, but since the announcement most of the prognosticators I've read/watched are rather dour about the new series, particularly from a price/performance perspective. Ray Tracing looks neat but I don't think its going to hit its prime with this generation of card.

I'm willing to spend what I think is a princely sum for a new GPU, $600-$700. So now I'm wondering if I don't just pull the trigger on a 1080 Ti before they dry up. The 20X0 series cards in that price range don't sound like they will be any faster than the 1080 Ti, perhaps even slower.


Opinions?

edited for punctuation

I also play WoW and I bought a 1080Ti last year, runs great at 1440 with nary a problem. Id say go with that, as most games coming out aren't going to use any of the ray tracing part of that gpu, so it will go to waste. 1080Ti will be way more than what you need and cheaper to boot, esp with the mining cards dumping onto the market. Plus NV has made the partners have to take tons of pascal GPUs back to sell if they want to get the new RTX cards, so prices will prob drop even more as they want to get rid of all the excess cards.

adampk17 wrote:

First my system, i7-8086k, Nvidia 970, and a 1440p Gsync 144 Hz monitor. Second, my games. I mainly play World of Warcraft (I know!) with a very small dabbling in new(ish) shooters like Sniper 4. I realize WoW is not super demanding but I would like to play it with all the settings turned up to max at 1440p and my 970 can't do that, not by a long shot.

Neither can my 1070 at friggin 1080p.
You cannot max WoW and expect 60-100 FPS in every situation. WoW is simply not coded efficiently and it relies mostly on your CPU, not your GPU.

I get 30ish FPS in Boralus and my 1070 is only 50% taxed.

I have everything on ultra except view distance, that is set to 6 or 7, don't remember right now.

Redocbew wrote:

techguy wrote:

At least I'm offering datapoints

Data should not require belief in order to be useful. In this case it does since there's currently no way to verify these results. You want to believe in those numbers, and you won't listen to anyone who tells you anything but what you want to hear. I'm sure you're not alone and there are plenty of other people who are doing the same right now. You can join in the fun, or you can wait for reviews. Your call, bro.

You're literally making the argument that because you can choose not to believe that means it's untrue.

Head : sand

Redocbew wrote:

What we've seen so far are not data points. There's too much speculation involved, and the picture isn't nearly clear enough to call them that. It may seem like a game of semantics, but how to filter out the noise in order to learn what's really going on with this stuff is an essential skill for anyone who's more interested in the technology than they are the drama which goes with it.

As for the OPs question, I'll second DancinJack and say get the 1080Ti. I wouldn't consider anything below that a worthwhile upgrade for the amount you'll be spending. To be completely honest I wouldn't upgrade at all, but if you plan for this to be your next GPU for the foreseeable future the 1080Ti is the one I'd pick while the pickings are good.

More nonsense. So hard FPS numbers in specific titles at a given resolution is "speculation"? Your glasses are so tinted I don't know how you can see anything at all.

techguy wrote:

More nonsense. So hard FPS numbers in specific titles at a given resolution is "speculation"? Your glasses are so tinted I don't know how you can see anything at all.

FPS numbers in games without any details of the settings used. That's pretty speculative to think you can compare them to anything else...

techguy wrote:

You're literally making the argument that because you can choose not to believe that means it's untrue.

No, he's making the argument that since they cannot be verified and are produced by a completely biased party, they shouldn't be relied upon.

Which is absolute common sense, backed by decades of experience in this field.

Until we have independent parties providing reproducible numbers, skepticism is completely warranted.

techguy wrote:

More nonsense. So hard FPS numbers in specific titles at a given resolution is "speculation"? Your glasses are so tinted I don't know how you can see anything at all.

How are they hard?

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2018/08/2 ... 0003301637

The word "mean" "median" "average" don't appear in that article or the graph.

So, in what they are saying directly to the public, those numbers aren't hard at all. They aren't even "numbers", it's just a relative graph.

Indirectly, to Jeff Kampman, they provided specific average numbers, but why not publish those on the same blog? And, of course, Kampman explicitly said that no settings or testing environment information were provided!

So, while those numbers are "harderish", uh, not really? I mean, that's an incredibly low bar.

Especially since average FPS is a lot less interesting than metrics that are designed to capture consistency. This is techreport, and "inside the second" was like 5 years ago.

DPete27 wrote:

dragontamer5788 wrote:

DPete27 wrote:

That said, keep in mind that the RTX2080 will probably outperform the GTX1080Ti (if Nvidia's history is anything to go by) once we see real benchmarks. So keep that pecking order in mind.

I'm not sure how much we can rely on history.So RTX 2080 has a clock advantage, but fewer CUDA cores. Unless Turing has some huge IPC improvements, we can more or less expect the 2080 to be roughly equivalent to the 1080 Ti outside of raytracing..

Sorry, meant to say 2080 = 1080Ti. Not 2080>1080Ti. Nevertheless, it looks like the 2080 could edge out the 1080Ti by about 12% based on Nvidia's benchmarks released after my first post.

I don't really doubt Nvidia's comparison, but I also believe it to be very selective. 4K + HDR indicates to me that it is probably heavily dependent on memory bandwidth and latency.

Video card comparisons with 4K gaming & HDR on are as rare as monitors that support it.... but I did find one comparing Vega 64 vs GTX1080. Vega seems to lose less performance than the GTX 1080 with HDR turned on @ 4K resolutions. It is a small sample, but it would be interesting if Vega 64 was tested and displayed on the Nvidia test graph. I can only assume that DLSS removes even more load on memory bandwidth @ 4K with HDR on and thus the even higher results for the GTX 2080.

So if you will be playing 4K with HDR (true HDR monitors can be costly) then these cards are good buys and probably a good investment for down the road, but I'm still playing with my pair of Vegas on 2560x1440 @ 144hz because 5K (21:9) screens at high refresh are all $1000+

Moral of the story, if you are buying a $700-$1000 Video card, you'll probably should spend at least that much on a monitor to truly enjoy it.

freebird wrote:

DPete27 wrote:

dragontamer5788 wrote:

I'm not sure how much we can rely on history.So RTX 2080 has a clock advantage, but fewer CUDA cores. Unless Turing has some huge IPC improvements, we can more or less expect the 2080 to be roughly equivalent to the 1080 Ti outside of raytracing..

Sorry, meant to say 2080 = 1080Ti. Not 2080>1080Ti. Nevertheless, it looks like the 2080 could edge out the 1080Ti by about 12% based on Nvidia's benchmarks released after my first post.

I don't really doubt Nvidia's comparison, but I also believe it to be very selective. 4K + HDR indicates to me that it is probably heavily dependent on memory bandwidth and latency.

Video card comparisons with 4K gaming & HDR on are as rare as monitors that support it.... but I did find one comparing Vega 64 vs GTX1080. Vega seems to lose less performance than the GTX 1080 with HDR turned on @ 4K resolutions. It is a small sample, but it would be interesting if Vega 64 was tested and displayed on the Nvidia test graph. I can only assume that DLSS removes even more load on memory bandwidth @ 4K with HDR on and thus the even higher results for the GTX 2080.

So if you will be playing 4K with HDR (true HDR monitors can be costly) then these cards are good buys and probably a good investment for down the road, but I'm still playing with my pair of Vegas on 2560x1440 @ 144hz because 5K (21:9) screens at high refresh are all $1000+

Moral of the story, if you are buying a $700-$1000 Video card, you'll probably should spend at least that much on a monitor to truly enjoy it.

Most of the monitors available to buy right now are ancient tech. I'd wait for the next round of monitors with better responsiveness, widespread HDR, and refined strobing. And of course, 4K is an idiot tax if you value responsiveness.

adampk17 wrote:

NTMBK wrote:

I say wait for reviews. Your 970 can last another month.

Yes, it can. But I get this awfully hard to resist itch when an upgrade is being decided. I'm sure no one else here has that issue.

I don't for computers anymore. But for audio equipment, yeah I got the bug bad this year. I've spent enough on speakers and amplifiers to run SLI 2080's and then some.

Kretschmer wrote:

Most of the monitors available to buy right now are ancient tech. I'd wait for the next round of monitors with better responsiveness, widespread HDR, and refined strobing. And of course, 4K is an idiot tax if you value responsiveness.

I totally agree... I'm in the market for a new monitor, but I want extra-wide screen [21:9] or [24:10] 35"+ approx. 3840x1600+ (sweet) 100hz+ Freesync2 or Gsync and sure why not TRUE HDR10?

But those are as rare as a rainbow farting unicorn right now... maybe in a year or two, a BFGD 65" would be possible, but I wouldn't buy any GPU now for it. Monitor tech seems to have fallen behind high-end GPU tech right now. Don't get me wrong, I like my 27" 2560x1440@144hz, but I was using 3 screen wide gaming before that and miss the peripheral view...

freebird wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

Most of the monitors available to buy right now are ancient tech. I'd wait for the next round of monitors with better responsiveness, widespread HDR, and refined strobing. And of course, 4K is an idiot tax if you value responsiveness.

I totally agree... I'm in the market for a new monitor, but I want extra-wide screen [21:9] or [24:10] 35"+ approx. 3840x1600+ (sweet) 100hz+ Freesync2 or Gsync and sure why not TRUE HDR10?

But those are as rare as a rainbow farting unicorn right now... maybe in a year or two, a BFGD 65" would be possible, but I wouldn't buy any GPU now for it. Monitor tech seems to have fallen behind high-end GPU tech right now. Don't get me wrong, I like my 27" 2560x1440@144hz, but I was using 3 screen wide gaming before that and miss the peripheral view...

I run a 21:9 right now, and you should think before hopping on the UWS train. UWS monitors are usually slower and pricier for that extra 30% real estate, and most streaming media and some games don't work properly at 21:9 (looking at you, Monster Hunter and Overwatch). I love the UWS for photo work, but realistically two 2560x1440 monitors are the best bet right now (one gaming one office IPS). If I could wave a magic wand and replace my X34 with a good QC copy of a PG279Q and an office IPS I would. But I can't be arsed to sell and ship such a large monitor and then play the panel lottery for a replacement.

techguy wrote:

You're literally making the argument that because you can choose not to believe that means it's untrue.

No, I'm not.

techguy wrote:

So hard FPS numbers in specific titles at a given resolution is "speculation"?

In this case, yes.

Now get off my lawn!

I'm leaning 1080 TI and I'm leaning towards waiting for the 20X0 series reviews unless I find a deal on a new or used 1080 Ti that I can't refuse.

Anyone here looking to sell?

"Anyone here looking to sell?"

I was about to ask the same thing. Lol!

Probably not before definitive perf numbers are available

A recent leak showed a 37% improvement in one benchmark for the 2080 over the 1080. Let's assume for a minute (pure fantasy, I know) that it's true... If you take NVidia price for the Founders Edition of the GTX 1080 of $549 then the current $799 list of the RTX 2080 will be 45% more and it's even worse when you factor in the fact I just bought a new EVGA GTX 1080 FTW for $429. So what will the new ray tracing and deep learning mean for the games I will play the most?

I have to say ray tracing looks awesome in Battlefield V, but how much do you see when playing the game anyway? I'm usually too busy looking for enemies and returning fire to admire the view. As I game on a 144hz monitor the hit in performance to me is a terrible price to pay because you know all that extra power it takes to render the awesomeness will likely result in my death if I round a corner on an opposing player who is running 144hz and settings turned down. My GTX 1080 runs BFV at 144hz with everything on ultra on 1080p and buttery smooth as well, why would I trade that for something that can barely run 60 fps? Especially since I am/was considering moving up to 1440p.

I was excited about deep learning and the big gains you get in Battlefield V and, because I would like to move to 1440p, deep learning is something that could help run it solidly at 144hz. Unfortunately, I can't afford to a new card and a monitor. As far as Elite Dangerous goes it would be awesome to have that in Elite Dangerous with VR but will the Cobra engine even support it? Not likely for now and I would say it will be a while before it does, if ever.

So even though there would be 37% more performance available to run the Rift I don't believe that the visuals will be much better or enough to make me want to spend $370 for a 37% gain (Using EVGAs upgrade program). So the two games I play or will play the most either don't support it or I'm not going to gain anything over what I have because I won't turn on the ray tracing to get killed a bunch more times in game.