Guru3D Reviews: GeForce RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti Founder Edition

TY. Lots of work done there. I will wait for a 1070 prices to crash when the 2070's R released and then go SLI and may be get 2080Ti performance.

 

Bear in mind folks, these are the higher (boost) clock FE's reviewed, so results are a bit better than the regular 2080/Ti's.

 

I doubt you won't be able to run the regular cards at the same clocks, same as Pascal.

 

The big problem with the 2080 is that you can buy a 1080Ti with the same performance for the same price! And to make matters worse the features that make the difference between the 2080 and the 1080Ti, (RT, DLSS) are still not available because there´s no software/games that use them! So the 2080 is almost pointless...
Like i already said before, this release was a complete mess from Nvidia´s part...

 

Real time reflections in ARK (on water surfaces) are actually quite good. Except horrid sides of screen due to missing geometry. So yes, I think that having defect free screen-space effects at 120~140fps would be pretty competitive with 60~80fps lower resolution raytracing.

That raytracing we saw in BF5 showcase was definitely great, had good resolution. But as they said, it was for showcase purposes and final game will have it at lower quality.
Taking into consideration that there it was ~60fps on 2080Ti and they stated 35% gain from some fix, they have to reduce quality as they stated, otherwise 2070 would not get to those 60fps. (And seeing that UL's benchmark... I was not impressed at all at resolution of reflections.)

Then take all those high-end gamers on 1440p screens. Choice between raytracing and properly working screen-space effects is much easier there.

 

Thanks for the great review H there's nothing i can add that hasn't already been said ,and i will be skipping this years upgrade as i just won't pay the price tag for the 2080ti as its the only logical upgrade for me ,at least i will be making the most out of 1080ti and still have 3yr warranty left .

 

Considering both cards crush 1080p i dont see why not, specially the 1080ti which runs almost as good as a 2080 anyway. Sure games are getting prettier and harder to run as time goes along, but no GPU is ever going to be future proof. None ever has been, but it just depends what you need them for, 1080p 60? sure could last a long time, if you need it to be 1080p 240hz then yeah you might snag some issues unless u dont mind turning down the settings

 

So even ARK's implementation does not solve the issue of sides.

Given your approach works, that is. What do you end up doing for objects that are way out of screen space, way beyond 5-10% outside the active area? Also, we don't know the final, stable implementation performance of raytracing which is currently running at native resolution, same framerate, and not in asynchronous mode (which means any raytracing incurs a slowdown because the render is currently in serial) in an early implementation. We also don't really know how your proposed solution would perform.

Do you have an idea why no games use the potential solution you have provided?

That raytracing we saw in BF5 showcase was definitely great, had good resolution. But as they said, it was for showcase purposes and final game will have it at lower quality.
Taking into consideration that there it was ~60fps on 2080Ti and they stated 35% gain from some fix, they have to reduce quality as they stated, otherwise 2070 would not get to those 60fps. (And seeing that UL's benchmark... I was not impressed at all at resolution of reflections.)[/quote]
Yes, one of the fixes and not all of them. Some developers aren't even using the denoising from the Tensor cores yet. Let's wait before jumping the gun on asserting what sort of performance we're going to see from raytracing at what quality level.

Depends on how raytracing runs in the final implementation we get as end users.

 

Yeah, the prices are all wrong. NVidia seem to have staked too much value on the ray tracing and DLSS portion of the cards, those features aren't really worth that extra cost. If these cards were priced at the same launch prices of Pascal then this launch would be easier to swallow with the Ray Tracing capabilities making up for the relatively small increase in shader power. If this was the case then of course they'd have to lower the prices of their now 2yr old Pascal cards which they're still selling, which only sounds fair & right, but they're not doing that.

 

I think some folks have unrealistic performance expectations. Expecting ~50% gain every gen is great when you start out...

 

Wow GamerNexus didn't benchmark Vulkan, that's a huge overlook, i'm quite disappointed. APIs with lower driver overhead are a huge indicator of raw available performance. Big hopes for future drivers on RTX.

 

As I wrote, it takes rendering of additional pixels at sides. What's so hard to understand on it? You can take that game and fix it in as showcase. You know that around 8% of pixels at side will simply not have proper reflections. So render at higher resolution than screen has, and then cut inner rectangle which matches screen resolution. This removes screwed up reflections. no magic, simple. That's why I clearly wrote that data for 1920x1080 resolution output would be rendered with wider and taller viewport and at 2304x1188.

Actually 1st simple solution I wrote about would perform exactly in know way. Because it is just regular rasterization we know. So, you can take fps for each card at 2560x1440 from this very thread. And rendering at 2304x1188 would have smaller impact on performance.

I have no idea why 1st solution is not used as it is quite easy to implement. Taking into consideration that games like Battlefield have actually ability to render at up to 200% and they still perform quite well. They have spare performance to render wider and taller viewport.

I do agree that there is space. How much remains to be seen. I had quite disagreement in one of other threads because nVidia states their 6 to 10 Gigarays/s. That was because while BF5 demo looked great, it looked nowhere near that kind of performance. Mere 6 Gigarays/s means 48rays per pixel on 1080p screen while doing 60fps. Then you take into consideration that reflective surfaces where BF5 uses raytracing cover usually small potion of screen, and budget would be 100rays per pixel or more. That's plenty of reflections/refractions and secondary hits from them.

In contrast to that you have this "Metro Exodus" Official video where they say that they use budget of several hundred thousands of rays per second. And that it is "around 3 rays per pixel per frame".

That's huge difference. And I have an idea why. Maybe that 2070 can really do 6 giga checks of hit or miss per second, but it has to be done against particular object. And in this case it is "bounding volume", then another set of smaller ones inside it. And again till it gets to actual object listed in that smallest bounding volume.
This kind of hit or miss check can quite quickly turn 48rays available per pixel into 3 actual hits of real object. All it takes is to check against 4 bigger bounding volumes, then 4 smaller, again 4 even smaller, and then some actual geometry.
(Apparently, this is theory as I do not know how advanced those units are. But considering Huang talking about boxes in boxes in boxes...)

And I remembered BF5 dev guy's talk. He mentioned that for performance purpose they had to put as much geometry as they could into one instance (object).

 

This pretty much sums up what I was about to say myself. I'm kind of left scratching my head and wondering why they released it now, due to all the above reasons mentioned already + the large amount of GTX 1000 series GPUs on the market now, both new and secondhand after the 2017 mining boom.

 

I think many people are thinking the same. I thought I would see some ray-traced benchmarks in today's review and was surprised to see none. After spending so much time and effort trying to convince us that ray-tracing is needed in our life they release it no game support! I mean, RTX is the only thing that justifies the prices of these products so one would think they would ensure that at least some games were ready. I guess we now see why they were delaying things of late.

I think the 20-series is indeed a rushed product, and those who preordered are putting an incredible amount of faith in Nvidia to make their investment worth it. Speculation will continue about RT performance, and by the time games come out with it those who preordered would have most likely already received their card.

Like others, I'll most likely wait for the 7nm GPUs. Not only will they be cheaper, faster and more power-efficient but RTX games might actually exist at that point! To those who are buying the 20-series, thank you for being the beta-testers

 

- Here's a GPU that costs more than a 1080 Ti but performs the same.

- OK, what do I get for that?

- 1080p 60FPS when you enable the new features.

Brilliant.

 

Absolutely, but the point was it still skews perception of the cards. Imagine if the regular clocked cards were reviewed @ 3-5% lower scores, especially in the case of the 2080 vs 1080ti.

 

I'm seeing videos on youtube and also some screenshots taken by various who have received 2000 series samples that in the two demos ( Infiltrator and FF ),
DLSS is noticeably more blurry and with visual errors than TAA. In some cases pretty bad actually.



Video:


@Hilbert Hagedoorn can you confirm the quality degradation ?

 

Here is a interesting test, all @1850MHz

https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.p...x-2080-founders-edition-im-test.html?start=26

 

I wouldn't buy anything from Ngreedia, just curious about the performance of the cheaper RTX.

 

@wavetrex There's literrally a page with FFXV and infiltrator running both DLSS and TAA in HH reviews.
While in FFXV you keep a lot of the sharpness of the raw image using DLSS over TAA, you do notice some minor aliasing on worst case scenario aka thin oblique lines.

In Epic Games integration however DLSS looks clearly much better without any apparent aliasing and a performance boost from 10 to 40 frames per seconds: scene with face close up of 2 characters at beginning go as low as 17 fps in TAA as far as remember, while staying around 60 with DLSS.