• Hardware
  • RTX 2080ti - Nvidia "Turing" Upgrade

ManOwaRR wrotethere was only Malit GALLARDO 3 Fans

well i have been playing shadow of tombe raider , i tried 4k with TAA Anti aliasing seems to hold 57-60fps most of the time around 18-20fps more than 1080ti , but that heat coming out of the pc is scary temp going up till 80 , seems to be safe though i'am not sure , i'm kinda reading about it right now

i can give some early numbers based on 2 games with a bit of overclocking to keep the heat in check


for honor

average fps increase is 13.77

minimum fps is 27fps increase

max fps is 17.33 fps increase

1080TI was running @2050

2080TI running @1980-2025

Shadow of the tomb raider is between 15-20fps give or take .

More to follow after i walk the dog .

one downfall the from the 1080ti is the heat , pascal was reaching 60c under full load but yet again i have one of the best 1080ti on the market which cost new around 900-1000$
I will go strix mate for the cooling part.
#Facts

I9 9900k is the fastest mainstream gaming CPU out the box without OC hustle

RTX 2080ti is the 1st decent 2160p60fpsUltra Graphic Card beating the shit of the 1080ti @ 2160p60fpsUltra with bad minfps ~ 40fps , raw rasterization avg increase of 33% aside of RT and DLSS AA

Turing reduced the mass HDR latency induced by Pascal due to its HDR SW processing pipeline and Lack of HDR tone mapping

I5 9600K still beats the 2700x on gaming performance , where AMD is still struggling to push 4.5 Ghz per core speed where many AAA games still greatly benefit from single threaded core performance.

"EveryThing is Better Represented - Fullstop". On RT Low too vs none RT enabled. Digital Foundry 21 - 11 - 2018

https://youtu.be/nYLLvOFSHCU

Tightbudget and Fanboys will hate that but numbers speak louder than feelings.
Tech Guru wrote Tightbudget and Fanboys will hate that but numbers speak louder than feelings.
haha

Not spending 100$/fps is not tight budget, it's common sense.

I don't think you know what fanboy means.
Tech Guru wrote#Facts

I9 9900k is the fastest mainstream gaming CPU out the box without OC hustle

RTX 2080ti is the 1st decent 2160p60fpsUltra Graphic Card beating the shit of the 1080ti @ 2160p60fpsUltra with bad minfps ~ 40fps , raw rasterization avg increase of 33% aside of RT and DLSS AA

Turing reduced the mass HDR latency induced by Pascal due to its HDR SW processing pipeline and Lack of HDR tone mapping

I5 9600K still beats the 2700x on gaming performance , where AMD is still struggling to push 4.5 Ghz per core speed where many AAA games still greatly benefit from single threaded core performance.

"EveryThing is Better Represented - Fullstop". On RT Low too vs none RT enabled. Digital Foundry 21 - 11 - 2018

https://youtu.be/nYLLvOFSHCU

Tightbudget and Fanboys will hate that but numbers speak louder than feelings.
I wasn't going to reply to this because I ended up realizing it is not worth the effort to convince a fanboy, but I will do this for the sake of the other readers.

1* Because the main purpose of upgrading to 2080Ti is 4k performance it is naive to compare the CPU benchmarks at 1080p between AMD and Intel, just for the sake of logic information consistency shared from you in the same post, where benchmarks only shows couple of FPS difference between the almighty 9900k and the poor 2700x on 4k, a bigger but yet not significant margin of FPS can be seen comparing the 1% lows.

2* Regardless of the 2080Ti and regarding the 9600k point, the CPU with 6 cores and higher frequency will score a better result in games (comparing Intel to Intel), so an OC-ed 9600k (which can be done without a hefty power bill) will outperform the best god in the galaxies, I mean by that the 9900k

3* Comparing frequencies between 2 different CPU designs and also using it as a success measurement (struggling to push 4.5Ghz) is also naive considered that we used to have FX CPUs at 5Ghz when Intel was struggling at 4Ghz, and lets suppose Ryzen2 can bypass the 4.3Ghz mark, based on today's numbers, it will surpass the 5.1Ghz Intel at 4.7Ghz

4*Using a CPU that is designed and priced to be OC-ed, in out of box state (stock), to claim virtual crowns and trophies is absurd, this shouldn't be a something to be proud of but after the 95W tdp bluff from Intel, suddenly we started to see these terms back from the fanboys which will seek even the lowest draw looking for excuses to support the brand they cheer for.
ok , after testing the card for few days now playing 8-10 hours a day

i will be brief , if you have the money to spend yeah it's a good card not because of the average fps increase , it's because of the minimum fps increase in my limited game testing

downside of the card reaches 79-80c under full load , its doesn't seem to throttle or anything though and no issues whatsoever , still i'am not liking the heat the card is producing .

do i recommend people to buy it , no , for the people who can afford it yes go for it in the end it's an enjoyable gaming experience .
Tech Guru wrote#Facts

I9 9900k is the fastest mainstream gaming CPU out the box without OC hustle

RTX 2080ti is the 1st decent 2160p60fpsUltra Graphic Card beating the shit of the 1080ti @ 2160p60fpsUltra with bad minfps ~ 40fps , raw rasterization avg increase of 33% aside of RT and DLSS AA

Turing reduced the mass HDR latency induced by Pascal due to its HDR SW processing pipeline and Lack of HDR tone mapping

I5 9600K still beats the 2700x on gaming performance , where AMD is still struggling to push 4.5 Ghz per core speed where many AAA games still greatly benefit from single threaded core performance.

"EveryThing is Better Represented - Fullstop". On RT Low too vs none RT enabled. Digital Foundry 21 - 11 - 2018

https://youtu.be/nYLLvOFSHCU

Tightbudget and Fanboys will hate that but numbers speak louder than feelings.
Dude stop bringing budgets into the debate. I'm more than certain quite a few on these forums can easily afford a 2080ti, but chose not to because for them value for money is important. Nothing to do with tight budgets.
Guys, let's say that if you are buying a new machine, it is worth it to get the 2080 ti.
However, if you are upgrading from 1080ti, this generation leap is not worth it and better wait for the second or third generation of RTX cards. Seeing that turning on RTX on BFV will drop the performance to sub-60 fps is enough proof that the tech is not yet ready but promising.

Finally, If you have money to spend to get that 10% increase with every generation, be it if it has value or not, it's your own money and you can buy anything you want. You don't have to justify or preach that this is what everyone should go for, different people have different priorities.
ManOwaRR wroteok , after testing the card for few days now playing 8-10 hours a day

i will be brief , if you have the money to spend yeah it's a good card not because of the average fps increase , it's because of the minimum fps increase in my limited game testing

downside of the card reaches 79-80c under full load , its doesn't seem to throttle or anything though and no issues whatsoever , still i'am not liking the heat the card is producing .

do i recommend people to buy it , no , for the people who can afford it yes go for it in the end it's an enjoyable gaming experience .
I agree with you ,that what I was trying to point in the passed couple of weeks.



At the end it depends on each person gaming needs , I like to enjoy 1st Person AAA titles story line on 2160p /ultra /60fps with HDR 10 enabled on a compatible HDR 10 screen , as such I got the Sony 55" inch x930e - very enjoyable exprience to me that is hampered by the 1080ti strix (heavily OC'd) to 2050mhz core and 11.7Ghz Memory -hampered by the min fps added to that the induced latency with HDR when enabled on Pascal - no dedicated HW pipeline to process HDR and no HDR Tone Mapping ,all done by S/W.

Far Cry 5 , Assassin Creed Origin / Odyssey etc.. looks awesome to me on a big screen with HDR 10 enabled - personal preference sure.

And for MP competitive gameplay I am leaving it to the PG 348Q ( Which I will upgrade to PG 35Q - 3440 × 1440p @ 200Hz with HDR 10 ) thus the i9 9900k + Rtx 2080ti combo in my soon upgrade will help me in that too.

Note that: On a 2160p 55" Screen I need AA too ( not the blurry FXAA) since the PPI is ~ 80 on 55"@2160p compared to ~ 163 on 27"@2160p screen , that is about (163-80)/80 × 100 % = + 103.75 % increase in PPI. This will increase headover on the graphic card too.
anayman_k7 wrote
Tech Guru wrote#Facts

I9 9900k is the fastest mainstream gaming CPU out the box without OC hustle

RTX 2080ti is the 1st decent 2160p60fpsUltra Graphic Card beating the shit of the 1080ti @ 2160p60fpsUltra with bad minfps ~ 40fps , raw rasterization avg increase of 33% aside of RT and DLSS AA

Turing reduced the mass HDR latency induced by Pascal due to its HDR SW processing pipeline and Lack of HDR tone mapping

I5 9600K still beats the 2700x on gaming performance , where AMD is still struggling to push 4.5 Ghz per core speed where many AAA games still greatly benefit from single threaded core performance.

"EveryThing is Better Represented - Fullstop". On RT Low too vs none RT enabled. Digital Foundry 21 - 11 - 2018

https://youtu.be/nYLLvOFSHCU

Tightbudget and Fanboys will hate that but numbers speak louder than feelings.
I wasn't going to reply to this because I ended up realizing it is not worth the effort to convince a fanboy, but I will do this for the sake of the other readers.

1* Because the main purpose of upgrading to 2080Ti is 4k performance it is naive to compare the CPU benchmarks at 1080p between AMD and Intel, just for the sake of logic information consistency shared from you in the same post, where benchmarks only shows couple of FPS difference between the almighty 9900k and the poor 2700x on 4k, a bigger but yet not significant margin of FPS can be seen comparing the 1% lows.

2* Regardless of the 2080Ti and regarding the 9600k point, the CPU with 6 cores and higher frequency will score a better result in games (comparing Intel to Intel), so an OC-ed 9600k (which can be done without a hefty power bill) will outperform the best god in the galaxies, I mean by that the 9900k

3* Comparing frequencies between 2 different CPU designs and also using it as a success measurement (struggling to push 4.5Ghz) is also naive considered that we used to have FX CPUs at 5Ghz when Intel was struggling at 4Ghz, and lets suppose Ryzen2 can bypass the 4.3Ghz mark, based on today's numbers, it will surpass the 5.1Ghz Intel at 4.7Ghz

4*Using a CPU that is designed and priced to be OC-ed, in out of box state (stock), to claim virtual crowns and trophies is absurd, this shouldn't be a something to be proud of but after the 95W tdp bluff from Intel, suddenly we started to see these terms back from the fanboys which will seek even the lowest draw looking for excuses to support the brand they cheer for.

I respect your points mate. However ,

- Every One Has his Gaming Needs
- I owned the i7 8700k along with 3200mhz + 1080ti , and i do know the limitations from experimenting in my gaming experience.

The I9 9900K according to all technical reviews is "fastest gaming mainstream processor" , it is registering the highest AVG Fps and MIN Fps. It simply due to its high clock speed per core by a default boost without any OC. the i9 9900k nail that not on 1 or 2 cores but all 8 without any OC too for games who benefit from multiple high speed cores too. Name it product A , B , Intel ,AMD or anything - Eliminating any Fanboysim - you need a good board z390 simply to get the most of it. The i7 8700k is great chip , now the great becomes greater with the addition of two cores and the increase of freq# per core across all cores without any OC hustle.
I just want to add this: 1440p 144Hz > 4k 60Hz.
Bottom Line - Jay2Cent : "Lot of People there are super negative rather than seeing the advancement of technology we are getting here" , "& Unfortunately , Now I have seen real time ray tracing in person , Screen Space Reflection are .. disgusting" , Is It playable : For me the Answer is personaly Yes .. " 23 - 11 - 2018 , Card Used: Asus Rtx 2080ti Strix

https://youtu.be/BJznsmQtwVI

Digital Foundry

"EveryThing is Better Represented - Fullstop". On RT Low too vs none RT enabled. 21 - 11 - 2018

https://youtu.be/nYLLvOFSHCU

Some People are mixing up , RT is not part of Nvidia Gamworks ( HBAO+ , Hairwork , Percentage-Closer Soft Shadows - PCSS , HFTS - Hybrid Frustum Traced Shadows , Grass Turf Effects etc..)

Real time Ray Tracing has been existing for years and heavily used in Hollywood movies. It needs a lot of computational power away from baked cubic maps used for shadows and reflections on regular rasterization rendering. Now RT is available to the gamer end , which is a technological leap in graphical realism & fidelity.
I don't understand the point being made in this thread. Is the RTX 2080 ti the fastest gaming card today ? probably yes.

Is it faster than the 1080 ti ? yes. Does the price justify the performance increase? Definitely no. Would you buy it ? why not.... Would you upgrade from a 1080 ti ? think twice before spending your money restlessly.

Benchmarks at 4K 60 FPS are a waste of time and money.

Gaming @ 4K 60Hz is to 1440p 60Hz as FLAC is to 320Kbps audio file. Is there a difference? probably... Can you see/hear it? Some people claim they do although every blind test on earth confirms the opposite.

In fact, the benchmark world is focusing on catching up with the crazy high resolutions when the truth is that 1440p @ 144Hz gives you a much smoother and enjoyable gaming experience.

Not to mention that almost nobody sits close enough to the screen to benefit from ultra high resolutions.
Kareem wroteI don't understand the point being made in this thread. Is the RTX 2080 ti the fastest gaming card today ? probably yes.

Is it faster than the 1080 ti ? yes. Does the price justify the performance increase? Definitely no. Would you buy it ? why not.... Would you upgrade from a 1080 ti ? think twice before spending your money restlessly.

Benchmarks at 4K 60 FPS are a waste of time and money.

Gaming @ 4K 60Hz is to 1440p 60Hz as FLAC is to 320Kbps audio file. Is there a difference? probably... Can you see/hear it? Some people claim they do although every blind test on earth confirms the opposite.

In fact, the benchmark world is focusing on catching up with the crazy high resolutions when the truth si that 1440p @ 120Hz gives you a much smoother and enjoyable gaming experience.

Not to mention that almost nobody sits close enough to the screen to benefit from ultra high resolutions.

it depends on your gaming needs mate

I am a 2160 60fps Ultra / HDR Gamer for single player AAA titles campaigns on a big hdr 10capable screen.

A 1440p / 144hz / Gsync and 3440 × 1440p /100hz/ Gsync both ultra , the 1080ti failed short in all three tipping those high refresh rates and weak min fps on 2160p on many AAA titles. I experienced every scenario and I know the potential of the card " heavily OC'd with a high end CPU & 3200+ mhz rams to prevent any bottlenecks.

From the PG 279q to the PG 348Q + Sony X930E.
Tech Guru wrote

it depends on your gaming needs mate

I am a 2160 60fps Ultra / HDR Gamer for single player AAA titles campaigns on a big hdr 10capable screen.

.

Well no offence then but you certainly represent the minority. I'm pretty sure you came across this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehvz3iN8pp4
Can't seem to justify any of this hardware.

People should understand that these setups are a massive overkill and have terrible value for money (for gaming).

The only reason you'd want such a setup is if you could afford it.

1080ti was already overkill and still is. As Kareem said, I personally can barely tell the difference between 1440p and 4K but can notice a huge difference between 144hz and 60hz.
Kareem wrote
Tech Guru wrote

it depends on your gaming needs mate

I am a 2160 60fps Ultra / HDR Gamer for single player AAA titles campaigns on a big hdr 10capable screen.

.

Well no offence then but you certainly represent the minority. I'm pretty sure you came across this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehvz3iN8pp4
Watched already mate,

Remember 2160p 144hz is now possible every thing above 60fps on a 144hz screen is tengible and the 2080ti tips that in many titles on 2160p.

No one is wrong or right in my prespective

3840 × 2160p / 60hz/ ultra / hdr on a big 55" inch for Single Story Driven

2440 × 1440p 16:9 / 144-165hz / Ultra / G-Sync or 3440 × 1440p 21:9 - Ultra Wide / 100hz ( soon 200hz when I upgrade to PG 35VQ when it is released) / Ultra / G-Sync

For Multiplayer like R6 , PUBG , Monster Hunter , BF 5 etc..

My point here rtx 2080ti vs 1080ti , definitely to me the rtx 2080ti + i9 9900k combo will leverage my gaming experience on high refresh rate and on 2160p simultaneously. Plus , they are in favor with my next monitor upgrade

PG 27uq or PG 35VQ

Note: Price / Performance is not fixed , you can grab now an RTX 2080ti EVGA Black @ 999 USD.
well of course there's difference between 4k and 2k screen resolution .

since i own both 1080TI and 2080TI i did some heavy testing and i can conclude , while the 2080ti is terrible value for money its indeed a great card.

i tried to play 2k/144hz for honor 1080TI heavily overclocked dip to 110-115fp while maintining 138fps , the 2080TI on the other hand is 144fps all the time no dips whatsoever , that alone in multiplayer games is something nice to have

about 4k the 2080TI can do 60fps almost all the time , while 1080TI can only maintain that much in few games and u have to tweak the settings lowering bunch of them.

is it worth the money to buy the new card if you can afford it sure it is , if u're pushing your monthly salary and have more important things to do , don't bother with the 2080TI better skip it
5 days later
Wait don't buy the 2080Ti, the new RTX Titan is about to be launched which will give you more performance, because "When your whole life flashes before your eyes, how much of it do you want to not have ray tracing?" Also it costs 2500$ but money is not an issue to enjoy the leap of the technology