kram36

Cool GTX
Value is in the eye of the person doing the purchasing
 
Over Priced ?  Um, not really. 

I paid about the same price my Nvidia Titan X Pascal cost & My EVGA 2080 Ti have More Power
 
20 series are on a much larger chip, FAB cost rose due to yield issues.  Assembly lines need to be reworked because of the Chip size

One can hope future production improvements = lower prices
 

Agreed 100%. People just don't see what you're actually getting for the money, but looking at the card's name only.
 
Like you said you got better performance along with RTX and DLSS features for the same price of the previous gen $1,200 video card.
 

LOL you again you know you are correct for spending the same amount regardless on the naming scheme he got a better performance for paying 1200 dollars. So yes the the RTX 2080 ti is better perfomance than the Titan XP and the 1080ti was better perfomance than the titan X, But wait you would have spent less to get better perfomance than the last gen model. Also I think the better question would be if someone was paying 700 dollars does he get a perfromance upgrade to last year 700 dollar card? The answer is no he would not he would have to spend 500 dollars more to get better performance than his previos generation but he would get better perfomance for raytracing than the previous gen model. So really its all realtive on how you look at it glass half full or half empty but its nice to see that there might be option for Raytracing with older cards.

Gold Leader
DLSS is quite terrible to be very honest, it decreases image quality by quite a fair margin, Image quality is better when RTX is off, Crytek's solution sems to be an even better choice in the end.
It looks much better, image quality wise than NV's so called hardware Ray Tracing "RTX On "solution, even being  NV's Ray Tracing method is not even full ray tracing either, it's partial, what Crytek managed is lots more, even it runs fine on a AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, all thanks to  CryEngine 5.5 :)

And thanks to this, there no need to waste on RTX Gimmick tech that ruins your image quality, yet the RTX boards are greatly overpriced, for a feature that barely does 50 fps at 1080p, 1440p/1600p & 2160p/2400p is not even plausible, even NV did do false marketing that you can get 60fps @ 4K reso's the lies rofl
UDF Tech explains and and proves it, and I know there will always be that lot won't agree with it, that's fine, they just make themselves look funny, just by denying the facts that professional reviewers have proved.
I prefer actual facts over marketing and propaganda nonsense, that always wins in the end
UDF tech isn't the only one that proved it Gaming Nexus & JayzTwoCents did as well as many others.
 
Also Ray Tracing even worked fine with the Amiga 500, it's nothing new, just old tech being reused for marketing, yet the three games that do support RTX, don't look great due to sheer image quality loss due to DLSS, just disable it for the better picture I'd be like.
NV could just of released the GTX 1180 / GTX 1180 Ti without the RTX nonsense and then these overrated prices would of been far better as well, most people I know game with RTX off simply due to the image quality loss DLSS gives.
 
Crytek's solution won't have to suffer from that major image quality loss issue NV's DLSS is camping with either, so all in all, Crytek has the answer everyone has been waiting for

Great helpful videos and info. Thank you for posting hard honest, in your face, facts Gold Leader
This explains why AMD did not went ahead with the RT and DLSS fiasco.  
Crytek pretty much slapped Nvidia in the face with the RT Demo running with a less expensive GPU AMD Vega64.
Man this made my day. I going to grab a brew-stoskis for celebration.

So, it this just another proprietary RTX/DXR/whatever? Crytech is a dumpster fire, why would any dev want to invest so deeply into an experimental render option done by an engine dev that is on such thin ice? Are they still paying their employees with IOUs?

And look what just happened
 
https://www.pcmag.com/new...er-gtx-10-series-cards
 
Granted it will not be as fast as the RTX, but still I think nvidia is starting to realize they are being called on there own bull with weak sales and now crytek showing them up.
 
 

asmodyus
And look what just happened
 
https://www.pcmag.com/new...er-gtx-10-series-cards
 
Granted it will not be as fast as the RTX, but still I think nvidia is starting to realize they are being called on there own bull with weak sales and now crytek showing them up.
 
 

Wait until we see the benchmarks. You assume that the 1080ti will preform like a 2080Ti in ray tracing. We could be looking at unplayable frame rates.

atfrico

asmodyus
And look what just happened
 
https://www.pcmag.com/new...er-gtx-10-series-cards
 
Granted it will not be as fast as the RTX, but still I think nvidia is starting realizing there being called on there own bull weak sales and now crytek showing them up.
 
 

When I was reading the article this came to my mind below about those who own the RTX finding out about this

 

Watch the RTX GPU prices compare to the GTX series prices after those drivers are released.
 
@ Gold Leader thanks for that PM and you are spot on that 200%
 
 
 

No worries man I just know my GPU's thanks to 34 years of experience, and for those that disagree I shall always have my laughs, good for the amusement
You won't see me waste money in over capitalized hardware that has tech that is barely used or left alone seen as rather useless

rjohnson11
RTX cards will give you the best ray tracing results, but CRYTEK has shown that ray tracing can work with other GPUs even the lowly AMD Vega 56.

They didn't show nothing new actually and no one ever said dedicated hardware is required (DXR works with any DX12 GPU), there is even a game released in October 2017 that use raytracing not just for reflection but for primary pass (so it's not even an hybrid approach), AO and shadow but no one is talking about it.
I think that CryTek is trying to generate some hype as they didn't release any detail and they are dodging technical questions while they plan to gradually release more info, usually developers don't act that way unless they want to build hype (which, BTW, is completely legitimate).

So what happened is Nvidia spent a ton developing Tensor Cores for their AI cards. Depending on what type of data you’re working with it does a phenomenal job at matrix math at 16-bit precision. Orders of magnitude faster than 32-bit traditional techniques. Having developed this tech, the goal was to figure out how to implement in the gaming environment.

I am NOT bashing Nvidia for this. I actually think ray tracing is very cool and as gaming engines start to offer more support to devs trying to use this feature it will be a huge leap in the gaming experience.

But for standard rasterization / 32-bit, it doesn’t look like Turing offers a huge leap over Pascal. You are seeing performance improvements from gddr6 over 5x.

Note that Tensors only seem to have marked improvement over dense data - such as images... exactly what gaming offers.

Another nice video coming down with hard facts:


And I know AMD also did their mistakes, but in the end I am probably not stupid enough to fall for NV's false marketing
GeForce RTX is the biggest failure since the GeForce FX of 2002, great marketing gimmick, yet quite useless in the real world, yeah yeah 3 games support it. but  they all have issues, everything is either too dark or too much light is used, the image quality is lowered to get a better fops.. what is the entire point?
Thus you pay 1.5K EUR for that? Pretty sad then...
So in the end that is what is taxing buyers, useless tech that is barely useful for 1080p gaming ina year that where 1440 & 1600p would be the norm...
 
And for those wondering why NV's GPU's are so expensive this video also by not an apple fan clearly explains it in full details, he does swear a lot, but that is obvious to the cause of it.
So no one needs to watch it if they don't want to, but this the result after how NVIDIA has been lying to people and mistreating them with careless false marketing, mainly ripping people off for products being made as cheap as possible ...

NVIDIA owns 82% of the Marketshare:


When I buy a card of 1250 a 1500 Eur I expect all games to reach 125 - 150fps+ @ 4K with all eye candy on, finding out that RTX On on a 2080 Ti won't do more than a measly 55fps at 1080p...
That was a major disappointment, and the lower end RTX cards are all too underpowered to get max use out of RTX, as Kyle Bennett from Hard OCP found out, here a lovely review about the RTX 2060
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2019/01/20/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_rtx_2060_performance/
 
He also did one for the RTX 2070 , which also had disappointing performance when using RTX & DLSS:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/12/17/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_rtx_2070_performance/4
 
here the RTX 2080 review even this card seems to be too under powered to get the max out of RTX:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/12/25/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_rtx_2080_performance/3

As Kyle writes:
"The RTX 2070 is under-powered for NVIDIA Ray Tracing in Battlefield V. In our previous review that GPU cannot allow us to play the game at any level of DXR, even down to 1080p. The RTX 2080 is an upgrade over the RTX 2070 in terms of NVIDIA Ray Tracing performance. It seems 1080p is the sweet spot for RTX 2080 with DXR enabled in Battlefield V."
 
So yeah that is a card of around 800 a 950 euros all depending what model you  are getting...
This card is the successor of the GTX 1080 that cost me 680 Euros...
So for the performance increase compared to the price increase it's a disappointment.
 
The RTX 2080 Ti is even more expensive that card seems to do better at 1440p but that is also really it:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2019/01/07/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_rtx_2080_ti_performance/4
 
But anyways there you have the real numbers, even that driver fixes have been made I won't expect much in difference to what Kyle Bennett proved.
So I really hope the RTX 3000 series based on the 7nm Ampere will at least shed some light for the NVIDIA Georce RTX series, thereby if more API's like CryTek get ray tracing support without the need of hardware ray tracing, prices should drop significantly as well and that is what we need, if we'd ever want to see a healthy market again.
 
Only these these cards might be worth picking up, even though RMA's are still happening with large numbers so for my I am skipping the RTX 2000 series hereby hoping not the same mistakes will be made with it's successor the RTX 3000s series as I am speculating.
 
And if people say they get 60 to 80fps with Ray Tracing enabled what settings are you using?
Also to see some evidence would be nice to confirm it, not something I seen from those that been saying this or that, all these reviewers clearly prove otherwise that the numbers these cards punch out are below the 60fps mark, except the 2080 Ti ding around 62 fps at 1080p which is still meh for a card that goes over 1250 to 1500 euros... it's still disappointing, hence what one would need to pay for something like that, not even plausible for 90% of the gamers out there.

As CryTek's Ray Tracing Tech Demo goes, it's just a demo and not a game, but it is a good example going in the right direction,so I am expecting other game engines to do similar things.

Gold Leader
Another nice video coming down with hard facts:


And I know AMD also did their mistakes, but in the end I am probably not stupid enough to fall for NV's false marketing
GeForce RTX is the biggest failure since the GeForce FX of 2002, great marketing gimmick, yet quite useless in the real world, yeah yeah 3 games support it. but  they all have issues, everything is either too dark or too much light is used, the image quality is lowered to get a better fops.. what is the entire point?
Thus you pay 1.5K EUR for that? Pretty sad then...
So in the end that is what is taxing buyers, useless tech that is barely useful for 1080p gaming ina year that where 1440 & 1600p would be the norm...
 
And for those wondering why NV's GPU's are so expensive this video also by not an apple fan clearly explains it in full details, he does swear a lot, but that is obvious to the cause of it.
So no one needs to watch it if they don't want to, but this the result after how NVIDIA has been lying to people and mistreating them with careless false marketing, mainly ripping people off for products being made as cheap as possible ...

NVIDIA owns 82% of the Marketshare:


When I buy a card of 1250 a 1500 Eur I expect all games to reach 125 - 150fps+ @ 4K with all eye candy on, finding out that RTX On on a 2080 Ti won't do more than a measly 55fps at 1080p...
That was a major disappointment, and the lower end RTX cards are all too underpowered to get max use out of RTX, as Kyle Bennett from Hard OCP found out, here a lovely review about the RTX 2060
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2019/01/20/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_rtx_2060_performance/
 
He also did one for the RTX 2070 , which also had disappointing performance when using RTX & DLSS:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/12/17/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_rtx_2070_performance/4
 
here the RTX 2080 review even this card seems to be too under powered to get the max out of RTX:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/12/25/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_rtx_2080_performance/3

As Kyle writes:
"The RTX 2070 is under-powered for NVIDIA Ray Tracing in Battlefield V. In our previous review that GPU cannot allow us to play the game at any level of DXR, even down to 1080p. The RTX 2080 is an upgrade over the RTX 2070 in terms of NVIDIA Ray Tracing performance. It seems 1080p is the sweet spot for RTX 2080 with DXR enabled in Battlefield V."
 
So yeah that is a card of around 800 a 950 euros all depending what model you  are getting...
This card is the successor of the GTX 1080 that cost me 680 Euros...
So for the performance increase compared to the price increase it's a disappointment.
 
The RTX 2080 Ti is even more expensive that card seems to do better at 1440p but that is also really it:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2019/01/07/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_rtx_2080_ti_performance/4
 
But anyways there you have the real numbers, even that driver fixes have been made I won't expect much in difference to what Kyle Bennett proved.
So I really hope the RTX 3000 series based on the 7nm Ampere will at least shed some light for the NVIDIA Georce RTX series, thereby if more API's like CryTek get ray tracing support without the need of hardware ray tracing, prices should drop significantly as well and that is what we need, if we'd ever want to see a healthy market again.
 
Only these these cards might be worth picking up, even though RMA's are still happening with large numbers so for my I am skipping the RTX 2000 series hereby hoping not the same mistakes will be made with it's successor the RTX 3000s series as I am speculating.
 
And if people say they get 60 to 80fps with Ray Tracing enabled what settings are you using?
Also to see some evidence would be nice to confirm it, not something I seen from those that been saying this or that, all these reviewers clearly prove otherwise that the numbers these cards punch out are below the 60fps mark, except the 2080 Ti ding around 62 fps at 1080p which is still meh for a card that goes over 1250 to 1500 euros... it's still disappointing, hence what one would need to pay for something like that, not even plausible for 90% of the gamers out there.

As CryTek's Ray Tracing Tech Demo goes, it's just a demo and not a game, but it is a good example going in the right direction,so I am expecting other game engines to do similar things.

Yo! This is great info man, thank you for posting another outstanding post. This is worth reading and learning. I understand your point, you are not posting to bash the owners of the RTX series but to Nvidia itself for offering fail tech at premium price.

Not everyone bought an RTX strickly for RT folks.  Some of us just needed an upgrade.  Was the price high?  Sure but that still doesn't mean it wasn't forth for some.

rtx generation is overpriced.
 
you can tell what ever you want inside your own head. you can lie to yourself as much as you want to convince yourself you are right in very philosophical ways.
truth and reality is i haven't read a single kind article about this 2000 generation anywhere.
and crytek managing ray tracing without these uber expensive cards is another nail in the coffin.
 
even a freaking major pc component store here in my country did not recommend me the damn thing. gfx dying and many costumers wanting refund due to "no performance improvement in games overall"...
me and my girl where amazed at his attitude and we where like: " whoa the dude doesn't want to sell the product? he doesn't want my money?!"  " what is he doing? he needs to sell!" "is he crazy?"
 
i wanted it.. badly. i really did as i am a nvidia fan since 2002 perhaps... but the truth is.. after some web researching... that dude at the store saved me at least 1200€ (2 months salary).
 
nvidia can put the price they want on their new cards. its their right.
but that does not mean they are worth it and they can make all he propaganda they want that still is not worth it.
i am not giving and extra 350-500€ for a 2080Ti (1080Ti from 750€ to 900€)  for 20 to maybe 25% gfx gain and a brand new gfx feature that clearly is able to be available in other cheaper gfx cards and that only a few games support it and at the cost of many fps in performance.
 
will i buy nvidia in the future? sure! hell yes! (ampere generation) as it seems mems for those cards are in the making. but have i opened my eyes lately? sure i did. it hurt but i did.

Tensor cores - for DLSS
RT cores - for raytracing

Tensor core is not RT core

Also half of these people wouldn’t be complaining here if 2080Ti would cost 700 dollars so it all comes down to cost.
All these “skip turing and waiting ampere” claimers would immediately change their statement if ampere would make same price increase as it was pascal > turing.

ampere won't be cheaper
 
7nm process is more expensive and gddr6 is not cheap and you be looking at 16gb-32GB for the card - so at least 25% more cost there
and if navi is good they may go for a bigger die again - which raises the cost because there is less silicon per wafer
 
ram manufacturers are reducing output to raise ram prices - sort of like opec does for oil
you have oligopolies that like to keep prices high
not enough competition anymore
 

ComboSlicer
Tensor cores - for DLSS
RT cores - for raytracing

Tensor core is not RT core

Also half of these people wouldn’t be complaining here if 2080Ti would cost 700 dollars so it all comes down to cost.
All these “skip turing and waiting ampere” claimers would immediately change their statement if ampere would make same price increase as it was pascal > turing.

Xavier Zepherious
ampere won't be cheaper
 
7nm process is more expensive and gddr6 is not cheap and you be looking at 16gb-32GB for the card - so at least 25% more cost there
and if navi is good they may go for a bigger die again - which raises the cost because there is less silicon per wafer
 
ram manufacturers are reducing output to raise ram prices - sort of like opec does for oil
you have oligopolies that like to keep prices high
not enough competition anymore
 

ComboSlicer
It was always known that DXR which was developed by Microsoft as part of dx12 api doesn’t need any hardware based raytrace accelerators at all.
It is nvidia’s approach to use hardware based accelerator we know as rt core.
Nvidia itself explained that without rt cores the turing die size should’ve been 3x larger in order to get same perf in raytracing with rasterization power.
Yes Amd can use software based acceleration but the perf will be very bad.

+1 Finally some logic.