Nvidia RTX Discussion

Venom

Praetorian wrote: »

Hopefully, the future will be brighter. I'm hoping for huge benefits from the 7nm node. I'm hoping Intel will really compete with Raja in charge of graphics there. I hope AMD can continue their huge comeback with a monster gpu in the next couple of years.

AMD was in a really bad place financially when their last GPU's were released with a stock price around $2 mark. They've had a huge success with Ryzen and Threadripper CPU's since then and with a stock price of almost $32, they hopefully can spend the resources needed to try and level the playing field with their next GPU line. Intel entering the GPU market will be great as is all competition but their not exactly know for being consumer friendly when it comes to pricing.

K.O.Kiki

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

When the 680 was released, did you see a lot of people talking about buying the 580ti new at rrp?

When the 780 was released, did you see a lot of people talking about buying the 680ti new at rrp?

When the 980 was released, did you see a lot of people talking about buying the 780ti new at rrp?

When the 1080 was released, did you see a lot of people talking about buying the 980ti new at rrp?

So why is it with the release of the 2080 and 2080ti, the fact that the rest of Nivida's product stack is relevant in terms of pricing(above rrp) and performance, is not something to report on?

They have released a better product and have created new pricing tiers. This is what happens when you loose competition.

The other thing is that during the previous generations, the next-gen x80 GPUs were performing better than previous by a good margin.

Aside, GTX 580 Ti / 680 Ti don't exist :pac:

Venom

Inviere wrote: »

Well said, and that's all she wrote.

Except it's not even remotely the case as if it was only a little more money no one would have an issue. It's the fact you need to pay almost a third of the price more for a 2080 over a 1080Ti, in the hope the RTX stuff may be the mutt's nut's further down the road.

Nvidia claims to have been working on this tech for almost a decade, yet only passed it out to a few game devs to get some demo's ready to show it off a few weeks beforehand! That's just fcuking insane which when added to how poorly said demos ran, having nothing to use RTX and DLSS with at launch and how long it took the previous tech like Softworks and PhysiX to become a thing which was then forgotten about even faster, it's no wonder most people are taking a wait and see approach.

Calibos

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

Calibos thats very interesting indeed. I found with VR ( I was a early Vive adopter since cahsed out on that) that the issue was movement. This teleporting around was not great, + I got motion sick even with high frame rates. I think the buzz around VR has died quite a bit and games developers are not seeing the interest there. Games were mostly designed to keep you static, and while it was cool for a few minutes the though of a long gaming session or spending 50 hours in a game was impractical....its really the other side of the arguement.....

The anti RTX crew say games are about the story telling and the extra visual fidelity is unnecessary....the VR people see visual fidelity as the goal but forget gameplay and storytelling. The truth lies somewhere in the middle I think. Until haptic feedback, foot tracking and movement are sorted VR will remain a interesting tech demo.

Putting aside sickness in VR (as opposed to VR sickness) caused by low frame/refresh rates or badly designed Headsets or improperly worn tight headsets, studies have found that 20% of people never experience VR sickness, 60% initially suffer VR sickness but quickly develop VR legs upon a few hours exposure to the various genres movement types and an unfortunate remaining 20% never develop 'VR legs'. VR sickness is caused by the mixed signals received by the brain from the Vestibular system and the eyes. Its actually the opposite of the likes of Sea Sickness. With the latter, the brain is being told by the eyes that one is not moving because relative to the ship one isn't, but the vestibular system in the inner ear is telling the brain that one is without a shadow of a doubt moving. Evolution has programmed the brain to interpret a sensory mismatch as being caused by eating something poisonous and hence the feeling of nausea and ultimately the urge to vomit. The former is the reverse where in VR the eyes are telling the brain that one is moving but the vestibular system is telling the brain that one is not.

So even that 20% of unfortunates who will never develop VR legs will not feel sick in VR experiences where they move in the real world to move in the virtual world, nor will they feel sick by not moving in the real world when they aren't moving in the virtual world......like when playing 2D games on a 20ft wide 4k 144hz Gsync OLED equivalent virtual monitor inside VR or watching a Movie in a 100ft wide 500 seater Virtual iMax with friends living across the city/country/planet for the cost of about €400.

Point is, that there will be plenty of use-cases for VR HMD's once the requisite spec improvements and technologies (like new rendering pipelines in RTX GPU's) are in place that are worth the eventual price of VR admission alone before one even talks about VR games themselves, games for which 80% of the gaming population will be able to play regardless of the movement type implemented.

(For me it mostly took about 4 hours cumulative playtime in each genre to fully develop VR legs made up of lots of shorter play sessions building up till the VR legs for that genre were fully developed. The worst mistake anyone can make is to push through the VR sickness as that will put you on your back on your bed for the rest of the day and creates an aversion in the brain where the mere sight or smell of the Headset can trigger nausea without even putting it on never mind starting a game. The trick that we tell everyone is to stop as soon as you start to feel a little woozy or clammy and try again later or the next day. Generally you last longer the next time you play that genre and one repeats the process until very soon one has developed ones VR legs and can play that genre in VR as long as one wants.

For 3rd person VR games I had my VR legs in about an hour split over 2 or 3 play sessions, flight/space sims it was about 2 or 3 hours split over 5 or 6 sessions. For driving games it was about 4 hours over 7 or 8 sessions and the same for VR First Person shooters. Why did it take longer for the last two? Could it be that I regularly drive and walk in real life but don't float over someones shoulder or fly F18's or Spaceships in real life? ie. The latter were outside my brains frame of reference and it was quicker and easier for it to be convinced that everything was normal and I was not poisoned because what the hell does it know about flying or floating like a spectre! For the former however, it had decades of experience of what it should feel like walking or driving. Every time I took a bend or corner in my Virtual Bugatti Chiron my brain was expecting lateral G-force signals from my vestibular system which it didn't receive. It took more exposure to the driving genre in VR to train away this expectation by the brain. Interestingly, my brother who has never driven in his life and who's brain has not been trained to expect lateral-G's to anywhere the same degree as me as he has only been a passenger in real life, he did not suffer one second of VR sickness while playing the same VR driving game.)

Inviere

Venom wrote: »

Except it's not even remotely the case as if it was only a little more money no one would have an issue. It's the fact you need to pay almost a third of the price more for a 2080 over a 1080Ti, in the hope the RTX stuff may be the mutt's nut's further down the road.

It's not only RTX advances though, it's generally a faster card is it not?

1080Ti for £629
2080 for £781

I think Fitz makes perfect sense when he says just save a few quid more for the newer card. I'm not sold yet on RTX in the real world, I do think it's the future, but the performance hit today is too much. I'd still however, go RTX over GTX today, for the bit extra.

Inquitus

Inviere wrote: »

It's not only RTX advances though, it's generally a faster card is it not?

1080Ti for £629
2080 for £781

I think Fitz makes perfect sense when he says just save a few quid more for the newer card. I'm not sold yet on RTX in the real world, I do think it's the future, but the performance hit today is too much. I'd still however, go RTX over GTX today, for the bit extra.

Performance wise there is nothing between the 1080ti and the 2080, so you are paying 25% extra for the possible future value of Ray Tracing etc.

Cuddlesworth

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

The other thing is that during the previous generations, the next-gen x80 GPUs were performing better than previous by a good margin.

Aside, GTX 580 Ti / 680 Ti don't exist :pac:

Never been much of a Nviodia person over the years, but the point is there. You could say the same about AMD.

Also, its been pointed out that the 1080ti and the 2080 are not selling at the same price point. The 1080ti is probably going to move slightly below MSRP and the 2070/2060 are probably going to slot somewhere between other cards at varying price points. Nvidia is creating pricing tiers similar to what Intel did over the last decade, where for every market there is a product(right up to 2k per chip).

btkm8unsl0w5r4

So here it is.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

It smaller than the Palit 1080ti but that thing is very large.








Found a use for this old thing....can hold two cups....




Seriously put it in my server for the time being. This machine will be for sale 6800k, X99, 16gb Ram, 256 NVme Samsung pro 950, Palit 1080ti. Will sell card seperatly too.

TitianGerm

Shamelessly showing off that he has a 2080, a 1080 and a BMW :pac:

Lots of hate for that EVGA shroud but I personally think it looks savage.

Blazer

Lu Tze wrote: »

Unfortunately this coincided with the introduction of ray tracing and your virtual screen will have terrible glare off it from the tropical sun

Maybe the VR can integrate sunglasses like spec savers? Lol
The next step is to slim those glasses down. Just beam the game into my optic nerve , it will be all good.

Blazer

TitianGerm wrote: »

Shamelessly showing off that he has a 2080, a 1080 and a BMW :pac:

He’s missing the powerplay mat for his mouse.
It’s shocking it is.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Never understood the powerplay mat, idea is to get cables off the desk, so you stick a huge cable into a mouse mat, its as bad as a wired mouse?? The batteries on the g900 last 3 days and only take an hour to charge. I use little retractable usb wires from amazon plugged in to the monitor, much neater solution.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B071GXKDPN/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

So far so good on the rtx....certainly is fast. Playing around with overclocking and the new OC scanner. Timespy up from 9775 to 12737 stock clocks. Nice a quiet to boot. I run a closed case so totally not fussed with aesthetics.

Metric Tensor

I was about to post to say I love the design on that mousemat!

Any chance of a link?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/halomy-900x400x2mm-Extended-Non-slip-Professional/dp/B072Q8V8KG/ref=sr_1_2_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1537826165&sr=8-2-spons&keywords=world+mouse+mat&psc=1

god's toy

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

People seem to care a lot about 4k performance too, I dont know why but they do.

Yes and every game out in the last year is using it...

btkm8unsl0w5r4

god's toy wrote: »

Yes and every game out in the last year is using it...

Presume thats sarcastic...here is the list https://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/physx/games

Big titles like Witcher 3, Fallout 4 and more, its is very popular. Its been superseded by other options lately, but the notion that is was not a success and points towards the future of RTX is not valid.

god's toy

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

Presume thats sarcastic...here is the list https://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/physx/games

Big titles like Witcher 3, Fallout 4 and more, its is very popular. Its been superseded by other options lately, but the notion that is was not a success and points towards the future of RTX is not valid.

Yes so many new games there.

BloodBath

People just love being negative about this because half of the so called tech youtubers were because they didn't understand it. Yes the price is a sticking point but at the end of the day in this market it makes no difference. People willing to splurge €700-800 on card (1080ti) will also spend €1200 on a card.

That's the enthusiast market which covers devs as well. The tech is far superior to the 1080ti. Die size increased by 50% to include the 2 new cores without a process node shrink and the memory got upgraded to GDDR6 and you expect the card to be cheaper or the same price?

Not a chance until 7nm. In the meantime all the devs buying these cards will implement DLSS into their engines. RT probably less so but that will be a slower process over the next few years.

By the time it trickles down to low/mid range and consoles the software library will be there to support it. That's how progress works. If you want a good Nvidia card now the 1070ti is only around €400. You can get 1070's for as little as €350. Got those already? Wait a gen and see what happens. You don't need an upgrade.

gizmo

FWIW, PhysX isn't a particularly good gauge of how RTX specifically may or may not be adopted in the future. It's general level of ubiquity stems from it's use by the more popular third-party engines such Unreal Engine and Unity to drive their physics sims but these, out of the box, are CPU-only driven for a rather obvious reason, it's platform agnostic.

That relatively short list on the nVidia site above is primarily a list of games which use now-deprecated PhysX systems such as FX and Clothing which were for cosmetic only GPU-accelerated effects, the former a feature that is handled in-engine in most cases anyway. The heavier and more integral side of physics calculations, rigid-body simulation, only had GPU-based acceleration added in the latest version of the SDK which was released last year. With modern CPU hardware, on both PC and console, and game engines, developers can now handle moving those calculations off to their own threads without taking up additional GPU resources.

Dcully

Ive taken it all in, the endless videos, reviews,discussions across the web etc you name it ive read it in depth.
Almost everything about the new cards feels like somewhat of an incrimental improvement with a big premium but ray tracing itself feels rather gimmicky to me despite being nvidias marketing focus.
Even if it does evolve with a few generations of cards from what i saw from gameplay vids while being impressive just feels rather pointless and reminds me of 3D televisions when they arrived ,thankfully i didnt buy one of those and doubt ill buy an rtx card for ray tracing.
Then again im not a fan of all the graphics effects so called trickery with post processing everywhere you look in all modern games, BFV im looking at you,i prefer a clean crisp look instead.
Personal opinion ofcourse, im probably way off the mark seeing it as gimmicky but to me its all a bit meh for a massive premium.

gizmo

Dcully wrote: »

Ive taken it all in, the endless videos, reviews,discussions across the web etc you name it ive read it in depth.
Almost everything about the new cards feels like somewhat of an incrimental improvement with a big premium but ray tracing itself feels rather gimmicky to me despite being nvidias marketing focus.
Even if it does evolve with a few generations of cards from what i saw from gameplay vids while being impressive just feels rather pointless and reminds me of 3D televisions when they arrived ,thankfully i didnt buy one of those and doubt ill buy an rtx card for ray tracing.
Then again im not a fan of all the graphics effects so called trickery with post processing everywhere you look in all modern games, BFV im looking at you,i prefer a clean crisp look instead.
Personal opinion ofcourse, im probably way off the mark seeing it as gimmicky but to me its all a bit meh for a massive premium.

Back at QuakeCon 2011, John Carmack talked a bit about ray tracing as part of his keynote. His summation:

Eventually ray tracing will win, but it’s not clear exactly when it’s gonna be.

A couple of years later, on a thread about workstation-grade hardware aimed at bringing ray tracing to the real-time realm, he again weighed in. His final take from that...

I am 90% sure that the eventual path to integration of ray tracing hardware into consumer devices will be as minor tweaks to the existing GPU microarchitectures.

Make of those statements what you will in the current context.

Blazer

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

Never understood the powerplay mat, idea is to get cables off the desk, so you stick a huge cable into a mouse mat, its as bad as a wired mouse?? The batteries on the g900 last 3 days and only take an hour to charge. I use little retractable usb wires from amazon plugged in to the monitor, much neater solution.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B071GXKDPN/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

So far so good on the rtx....certainly is fast. Playing around with overclocking and the new OC scanner. Timespy up from 9775 to 12737 stock clocks. Nice a quiet to boot. I run a closed case so totally not fussed with aesthetics.

I was on the fence about it too, but I’ve never regretted buying it. It also has the wireless receiver built into it so you’re not using an extra cable etc.
Sure I wish they used Qi wireless charging but I’ve honestly never regretted buying it or the mouse.
Pity their software wasn’t as good.
Actually those retractable ones look good for charging my phone .

Icyseanfitz

BloodBath wrote: »

People just love being negative about this because half of the so called tech youtubers were because they didn't understand it. Yes the price is a sticking point but at the end of the day in this market it makes no difference. People willing to splurge €700-800 on card (1080ti) will also spend €1200 on a card.

I bought a 1080ti for around €800, certainly wont be buying a 2080ti for €1300 (they go for £1150-£1200)

BArra

I caved and finally got the last piece of the puzzle, an aorus 1080ti from scan, looks like I got the last one they had too for £619.99.

Noticed some other brands dropped to £649.99 also so there is some movement on the downward trend coming

Not impressed with 2080s and ray tracing, I think it will be the next gen or after where it's going to be of any real use

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/user/duckpond/saved/By3xYJ

cursai

If a tree is ray-traced in the woods, and no one witnesses it, was it ray-traced at all

TerrorFirmer

Not gonna re-trace old ground and my previous posts (oh-ho) but this isn't the first generation that GPU's introduced new technologies....but it's among the first where there was beyond zero competition in a particular class ergo Nvidia are free to set prices as high as they'd like.

Does anyone - RTX adopter or otherwise - actually believe that if AMD had a viable competing card at rasterisation level, that these pricing structures would even vaguely work? Course they wouldn't.

No-one is anti-RTX, anti-Nvidia, anti-new technology, or whatever else....not even in the slightest. Doesn't matter if RTX is the future - doesn't mean we don't acknowlege the benefits, leap forward, and the rest of it - it's purely from an anti-consumer viewpoint.

Doesn't matter either if they sell-out. I made reference to scalpers previously, whose stock sells out even at double, triple, or even quadruple face value. Doesn't mean it's right.

Nvidia is price-gouging. That's the simple fact. If people are willing to pay their price, that's fine, but it is what it is and I wish people would acknowledge that rather than try to defend it.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

If I were in the market for a 1080ti and assuming I considered that a good bit of dosh, and didnt change my graphics card all the time, I would strongly consider a 2080. Why not, its only a little more and has all the new tech, and its faster. Also why are you not buying these second hand, its madness to buy a end of the line card new at retail price...there are loads on adverts, my own included for 550 ish euro. Nvidia must be delighted to clear all this old stock, people hoovering it up thinking they are making the smart move, when what they are doing is buying last gen for close to MSRP.

Are Nvidia gouging....maybe a bit, AMD are broke, they have nothing. They claim 7nm soon but thats a pipe dream, intel cant make that work. They need to produce chips really cheap and at volume for the console peasants and have not time to be worried about the ultra high end. But these RTX cards are a lot more than raster engines. I really wish they had a killer game ready to go, but that will come in time.

Inquitus

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

If I were in the market for a 1080ti and assuming I considered that a good bit of dosh, and didnt change my graphics card all the time, I would strongly consider a 2080. Why not, its only a little more and has all the new tech, and its faster.

A 2080 is not any faster, all the benchies show it and a 1080ti roughly on a par, its also 25% more expensive, not a little bit. With Raytracing etc pie in the sky for now, I'd pick up a well priced new, but preferably 2nd hand, 1080ti long before buying a 2080.