For those who have 2080 or 2080ti and have BF5, please try RTX ON option and let me know the results? The BF5 RTX patch is out today. Thank you.

This is the thread the_Scarlet_one mentioned


Battlefield V with RTX Initial Tests: Performance Halved

BF5 is the only game I care about with RTX. RTX=Failure!

Unless they figure out a way to have it running @ 120 FPS+ with Ultra settings and Ray Tracing for 1440p/4K, I think I'll be bowing out this run unfortunately.  

scott@bjorn3d
Runs fine on medium RTX on 2080TI at 1440.  Going to play around with higher levels later today.

Define "runs fine". 40-60FPS might be fine for some people but not for me. I need it steady at 90+FPS.

I'm only getting 50-60 fps on my ultra-wide 2560x1080 display with ultra settings and DXR set to ultra. Totally unacceptable for a $1200 video card. Sure, it's "playable" but hardly enjoyable at those frame rates. They really need to get DLSS up and running with DXR to get better frame rates with these cards. There are 544 Tensor cores doing nothing as of right now on a RTX 2080Ti, only the 68 RT cores for ray tracing are doing anything. We've already seen some massive performance uplifts with DLSS in the FFXV benchmark, hopefully they can do the same with this and other games that use DXR as it's becoming quite clear these cards, even the $1200 flagship just aren't enough for real time ray tracing without any helping hands like DLSS. 
 
I feel bad for anyone buying the RTX 2070 and expecting to actually use any ray tracing features period. 

CraptacularOne
We've already seen some massive performance uplifts with DLSS in the FFXV benchmark, hopefully they can do the same with this and other games that use DXR as it's becoming quite clear these cards, even the $1200 flagship just aren't enough for real time ray tracing without any helping hands like DLSS.

I've been wondering whether RT+DLSS would perform better than RT with traditional AA. Probably not if RT is the limiting factor. I don't have BFV or FFXV, but I'd love to see BFV numbers with RT enabled and all traditional AA disabled.

You guys are misunderstanding what DLSS does exactly. It's not AA per se, it's basically using AI to upscale the image allowing the game to render at a lower internal resolution without loss of quality. That's the promise of DLSS. 

Tullagh

CraptacularOne
You guys are misunderstanding what DLSS does exactly. It's not AA per se, it's basically using AI to upscale the image allowing the game to render at a lower internal resolution without loss of quality. That's the promise of DLSS. 

In that case, shouldn't RT+DLSS perform significantly better than RT alone? Seems like it should, given that RT performance appears to be very sensitive to resolution.
 
I understand that you consider DLSS a crutch, and I agree, but if it mitigates RT overhead without loss of quality, I'm not sure why it's bad. 

Absolutely it should perform better with RT+DLSS. I'm not against DLSS at all, I hope they get it working so we can get some respectable frame rates out of these $1200 cards is what I'm saying.

"I'm only getting 50-60 fps on my ultra-wide 2560x1080 display with ultra settings and DXR set to ultra. Totally unacceptable for a $1200 video card. Sure, it's "playable" but hardly enjoyable at those frame rates"
For argument's sake, this is why as early hardware adopters should never expect too much of new technologies especially when there is no real concrete data upon release. And more and more now, it seems like so many PC gamers are far too entitled. Because 60FPS is bad? dang really? I don't know about you, but I think back to the Geforce FX and Geforce 6800 days, and back then it wasn't uncommon to have to play certain games at 1024x768 -1280x1024 to even break above 40FPS, and 1600x1200.......time to lower settings big time, but it sure never ruined my gaming experience. How about all the console gamers for years and years stuck at 30 FPS? the most popular way of gaming, and yet millions of people seem to have a great time. Now the PC MASTERRACE people go out and spend $1200 on a single PC competent and complain about the performance impact of a heavily demanding feature, and say 60FPS isn't enough I mean no disrespect, but Jesus man! The vast majority of gamers will NEVER even get the satisfaction of gaming on a whopping $1200 GPU with a 144Hz Ultra Wide Monitor. 

I have more cause for concern that Nvidia has clearly reformed their marketing strategy, and is now charging $1200 for a flagship GPU every generation, when it used to be $500. But people continue to dish out money to this company, who continues to do exactly what you are saying, time and time again! Too many promises with little to no delivery. People just go out and drop crazy amounts of money based upon what they tell you on paper. It's seriously insane at this point
 
Edit: And I didn't mean to step on your toes man, I am frustrated as you when it comes to the RTX series launch, just from an entirely different perspective. I truly meant no disrespect. Game on my friend! and I DO hope Nvidia get's their stuff together for the sake of RTX adopters.

CraptacularOne

joeymir
"I'm only getting 50-60 fps on my ultra-wide 2560x1080 display with ultra settings and DXR set to ultra. Totally unacceptable for a $1200 video card. Sure, it's "playable" but hardly enjoyable at those frame rates"
For argument's sake, this is why as early hardware adopters should never expect too much of new technologies especially when there is no real concrete data upon release. And more and more now, it seems like so many PC gamers are far too entitled. Because 60FPS is bad? dang really? I don't know about you, but I think back to the Geforce FX and Geforce 6800 days, and back then it wasn't uncommon to have to play certain games at 1024x768 -1280x1024 to even break above 40FPS, and 1600x1200.......time to lower settings big time, but it sure never ruined my gaming experience. How about all the console gamers for years and years stuck at 30 FPS? the most popular way of gaming, and yet millions of people seem to have a great time. Now the PC MASTERRACE people go out and spend $1200 on a single PC competent and complain about the performance impact of a heavily demanding feature, and say 60FPS isn't enough Not trying to be rude, but Jesus man! The vast majority of gamers will NEVER even get the satisfaction of gaming on a whopping $1200 GPU on a 144Hz Ultra Wide Monitor. 

Are you seriously saying we have no cause for concern after experiencing the drastically reduced performance from a feature that was HEAVILY touted and promised to us? Would you be OK with 50-60fps at barely over 1080p with a $1200 video card? If you would take that lying down be my guest. I don't care what the masses or everyone else is happy with. We purchased these cards on a promise and they are not delivering on said promise. Are you suggesting that just because we are the minority that actually buy these cards we shouls just shut up and be happy? 
 
Yes it's a very demanding feature no one will argue that, but clearly optimizations and getting the full feature set operational (RTX+DLSS) should be of utmost importance for Nvidia and their partners. 

I agree with you both.
 
To me, as a very long-time industry observer, RTX is an amazing achievement, and a sign of more amazing things to come. Like many earlier steps forward, the first iteration understandably comes with major trade-offs. Expecting to turn it on universally and permanently, and reap only its benefits, is a bit unreasonable. There are longstanding features that are still not ready for that.
 
On the other hand, RTX is also a product - an expensive one that demands and deserves responsible marketing. This is where NVidia has fallen down. Replacing the established GTX branding and charging a hefty premium focuses way too much attention on a feature that isn't ready for it. NVidia's leading position is what makes this move even remotely possible, so they should be walking a fine line. Going full-bore with RTX could be a costly and embarrassing mistake. Even worse, it could doom the feature. People are already saying "RTX RIP".

@CraptacularOne
In staid of taking it further, I will just leave you with I wish you a wonderful day & rest of the week. Hopefully Nvidia get's it together soon

thatKingKong
For those who have 2080 or 2080ti and have BF5, please try RTX ON option and let me know the results? The BF5 RTX patch is out today. Thank you.

What are you Seeing?
What are getting for a Benchmark?

I have been looking at reviews and posts on 2080S models (as mine will arrive in a couple days). I am not seeing low frame rates like these posted here. I saw 2 different rigs running battlefield in ultra at 2K and maintain 60 fps. Is this an EVGA card problem or just BF5?
Here is a quote from a competitor 2080 super from 1 week ago"

Overall Review: So far So good. This is an early review but I'm impressed. Played Metro Exodus and Wolfenstein for a few hours with no issues. Ran 1440P with Ray tracing on at a constant 60 FPS. Looked really good at 4K as well but frames did dip below 60 at times. Hardly noticeable and with Ray-tracing on high. Impressive.

 
According to PCGamer, BF5 on a 2080 should render 60 fps with rtx on med. and 32 fps in ultra, but using a  i7-8700K or higher. The cpu does make a big difference here.