Nvidia RTX Discussion

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Playing for the last hours or so, the visuals are absolutely stunning, a new level of photo realism. Game is pretty good too so far. Need more time.

K.O.Kiki

FYI, Control has DX 12 stuttering - here's a fix: https://www.dsogaming.com/news/here-is-how-you-can-completely-fix-the-annoying-dx12-stutters-even-with-ray-tracing-in-control/

deceit

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

FYI, Control has DX 12 stuttering - here's a fix: https://www.dsogaming.com/news/here-is-how-you-can-completely-fix-the-annoying-dx12-stutters-even-with-ray-tracing-in-control/

This fixes stuttering in lots of games.

Cina

So, question. I got a G Sync monitor a few years ago, at a very pricey cost for my GTX 970. I have no real idea how it has in any way helped me at all and if games look better with it enabled but I'm assuming there's at least something there to make it worthwhile.

I'm upgrading my GFX card soon and I'd rather the 5700XT over the GTX 2070 Super given the price difference but then I feel like I'm wasting my G Sync monitor if I do that - so is it actually worth stumping up the extra £100 for something I don't even really notice in games?

btkm8unsl0w5r4

If Gsync and RTX features are worth it to you then yes...espically if you dont upgrade often. If not dont bother. RTX and Gsync go hand in hand really.

Cordell

5700XT and 2060 Super are similarly priced and performance wise also similar, but 2060 super has the RTX and lower TDP hence better thermals and noise.

K.O.Kiki

Cordell wrote: »

5700XT and 2060 Super are similarly priced and performance wise also similar, but 2060 super has the RTX and lower TDP hence better thermals and noise.

5700 XT outperforms the 2060 Super handily.

Cina

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

5700 XT outperforms the 2060 Super handily.

That was my understanding too.

And it seems to be pretty much on par with the 2070 on 1440p too, right?

So I guess the 2070 is really only worth the extra 100e for ray tracing and GSYNC? If I didn't already have a 550e Gsync monitor this would be a much easier decision to make!


Maybe I'll wait til the new year, my 970 can handle anything I want to play that's coming out this year (Gears 5, Outer Worlds, Doom Eternal) so it's Cyberpunk I really want the upgrade for.

BloodBath

The non super 2070 is around 5700xt pricing and performance.

tuxy

BloodBath wrote: »

The non super 2070 is around 5700xt pricing and performance.

Wouldn't a price difference of around €80 put them in different price brackets?

BloodBath

Price difference for ones with good coolers is only about €20.

If you're buying a stock 5700xt to save money then sure.

tuxy

BloodBath wrote: »

Price difference for ones with good coolers is only about €20.

If you're buying a stock 5700xt to save money then sure.

I don't really know which coolers are good or bad on AMD cards, all I know is the single fan ones are bad.

This is much checper than RTX 2060s but is the cooler poor?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/XFX-Radeon-5700-THICC-Graphics/dp/B07VXNDGK5/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=5700xt&qid=1567530741&s=gateway&sr=8-2

What's the cheapest one with a good cooler?

TitianGerm

tuxy wrote: »

I don't really know which coolers are good or bad on AMD cards, all I know is the single fan ones are bad.

This is much checper than RTX 2060s but is the cooler poor?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/XFX-Radeon-5700-THICC-Graphics/dp/B07VXNDGK5/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=5700xt&qid=1567530741&s=gateway&sr=8-2

What's the cheapest one with a good cooler?

The founders edition of the RTX 2060 Super is only £389 direct from Nvidia.

K.O.Kiki

RX 5700 XT:
OverclockersUK & CCL both have the MSI Evoke for £429 - it's decent.
OverclockersUK also have the superior Sapphire Pulse for £440.

If you can wait, OCUK have the PowerColor dual-fan on pre-order for £410

BloodBath

tuxy wrote: »

I don't really know which coolers are good or bad on AMD cards, all I know is the single fan ones are bad.

This is much checper than RTX 2060s but is the cooler poor?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/XFX-Radeon-5700-THICC-Graphics/dp/B07VXNDGK5/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=5700xt&qid=1567530741&s=gateway&sr=8-2

What's the cheapest one with a good cooler?

Not sure if the cooler is great but it's got to be better than stock, or if these sites deliver to ireland, but there are 2070's in the £430 price area which is around the same as 5700xt's with decent coolers.

https://www.ebuyer.com/869334-msi-geforce-rtx-2070-gaming-8gb-graphics-card-rtx-2070-gaming-8g?wgu=267255_206719_15675349305694_81de88e38a&wgexpiry=1575310930&utm_source=webgains&utm_siteid=206719

https://www.alza.co.uk/evga-geforce-rtx-2070-black-gaming-d5505749.htm?kampan=pcpartpicker_uk_komponenty_graficke-karty_nvidia_ev223b4&utm_source=pcpartpicker_uk&utm_medium=product&utm_campaign=pcpartpicker_uk_komponenty_graficke-karty_nvidia_ev223b4&IDP=7291

Is it possible to get free sync working on g-sync monitors with AMD cards? I don't see why not.

It won't be as good as g-sync but at least you will have free-sync if you got 5700xt if it does.

I'd go with a 2070 over the 5700xt I think when they are priced the same.

Less power consumption, better driver support, you got a g-sync monitor and those extra cores on the RTX might be useful for something someday.

Nvidia also added better versions of things like amd's radeon image sharpening and input lag reduction.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Got about 4 hours of control under my belt....really great game and the RTX features are stunning, like the first time you saw crysis. In combination with DLSS getting a solid 60fps at 3440 x 1440 ultrawide maxed. If this game had been out at launch it would have been a game changer.

Worth the RTX upgrade alone....its a big win in my book. 10/10.

K.O.Kiki

z0oT

^^^
How it is most times I purchase any new hardware.

Cordell

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

There, FYP

btkm8unsl0w5r4

How dare you....I would never spend 550 euro on a GPU....its was like 1400 euro. And to be honest I have never had a GPU remain top tier for so long. Nearly a year now and nothing on the horizon to beat it except the titan, and with my EVGA card I can go to 130% power limit so its almost Titan levels of performance.

Irregardless of the jokey e-peen stuff...Control is a great game, and is finally a great use case for RTX. It makes a significant difference to graphical fidelity while maintaining good frame rates. Its taken a year but finally all the problems with RTX are being ironed out. (performance, lack of titles, lack of good titles, cost, small install base etc). I will be interested to see what DXR implementation AMD and intel bring out.

AlmightyCushion

Agree on Control being a great game. Unfortunately, I only have a GTX960 so have no idea what RTX stuff looks like in it. It runs surprisingly well at 1440p though, I have to say.

EoinHef

I think RTX has always been cool,its the price of entry thats been uncool for me.

I was tempted by a a 2070 Super awhile back but ive decided to sit out this gen and wait to see what AMD and Nvidia bring to the table next year

.G.

I've RTX too but still no idea what it achieves cos I dont own Control, tried Quake 2 and couldn't really see what I was supposed to be looking for ! I've a backlog of games to clear before I buy Control. Have Shadow of the Tomb Raider though, think its used in that.

For me this gen was all about 60fps at 4k ultra guaranteed for however long it lasts.

jonerkinsella

Have you guys seen this observation,

Sums up the NV approach nicely.

Cordell

Yes, he has a point, while deeply engaged in gameplay you won't notice the eye candy too much. And this has been true for years.
Tessellation was the last big thing that required fixed function hardware, and it was the same - something here something there, nothing dramatic, but still, it was significant in some other cases.
Is it worth it to pay such a premium for RT? I don't know, it was for me, the point is that we have a choice.

tuxy

Cordell wrote: »

Is it worth it to pay such a premium for RT? I don't know, it was for me, the point is that we have a choice.

But if you want high resolution, high frame rate rasterisation you have no choice but to pay for the tensor cores that comes with. Isn't that the issue people have had all along?

Cordell

You can't pick and choose like that; they introduced a new technology which comes at a premium, and they cover pretty much all the range for gaming suitable GPUs with and without RT at the middle to low end. You can still pick a price and get something better than what you would get for the same money from the launch prices of the 10 series, if this makes any sense

K.O.Kiki

tuxy wrote: »

But if you want high resolution, high frame rate rasterisation you have no choice but to pay for the tensor cores that comes with. Isn't that the issue people have had all along?

RX 5700 XT has similar performance in non-RT games if you want to spend less.

BloodBath

You're not even spending less. The 2070 is the same price as a 5700xt with the same performance. Granted the 5700xt caused the 2070 to come down to that price but it's still not better value. It's in fact worse value since you're not getting RT or Tensor cores if you place any value on those. The 5700xt needs another €50 price drop. It makes no sense to get it over a 2070 unless you really want to support AMD. Nvidia completely countered them with price drops, Free-sync support, their own image sharpening which is identical to AMD's and the reduced input lag. Not to mention better software and driver support which they pretty much always have had the edge over AMD with.

The RT and tensor cores have been busted though for things like real time reflections and ambient occlusion and DLSS is a bad joke. It is simply not worth it outside of developers experimenting with it. It's not fit for consumers yet. There has to be other uses for them that don't completely bottleneck the rest of the card though. Like using them for traditional post process effects.

It will be interesting to see if Nvidia double down on those cores for their next gen of cards. It's risky either way. Drop them and rtx owners will feel duped and people will say I told you so. Stick with it and maybe the industry doesn't use them anyway as there will be an open source alternative on much more widely used AMD hardware. They would need to at least quadruple the RT and tensor cores speed/core counts to get them anywhere near not bottle-necking current gen cards. That would take a die shrink to 7nm almost fully dedicated to putting the extra die size into RT and Tensor while leaving the traditional core as powerful as current gen but smaller. Maybe even drop the tensor part completely as DLSS is crap.

If you could at least use those cores for traditional operations like post process as well as RT based stuff then people maybe wouldn't be as opposed to it. At least they could use the full potential of their card in every game. Nvidia missed a trick with this one I think. Dedicating over half of your cards die size to things used in 0.00001% of games was never going to be a good idea.

z0oT

I'd agree - cool and all as it is, I don't ever see the RTX stuff fully taking off, given it's Nvidia only currently. It'll remain a niche product for years. AMD will probably come out with something similar at some point, and it'll probably be standardized at least officially or unofficially across both manafacturers down the line.

Typically Nvidia only stuff that they've come out with has drifted into irrelevance over the years. Two examples that come to mind:

G-Sync Monitors are now effectively pointless to buy given that they've caved and started to support Freesync (Adaptive Sync). It makes sense too, typically you want your monitor to last through multiple builds, you don't want to be locked to one GPU vendor.

PhysX, hasn't been relevent in a long time now. There hasn't been a game that supported it since 2016 according to this. I remember Nvidia drumming that up as the next best thing years back too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support