2080 prices

[HaRdSTyLe_83]

in here the 1080TI is still selling (brand new) for around 900€ and the cheapest one from ichill, is going for 780€. The 2080 is going from 920€ down to 799€ for the Dual.

if i needed a GPU, i would go with the 20 series, but since my 1080 is still enough for me and doesn't seem like a big enough upgrade to be worth doing, i will either go with the 2080ti or none at all.

 

if the 2080TI in 1080p barelly pushes enough fps in ray tracing, i wonder what is going to be the performance of the 2080 is going to be ?

[Dryspace]

@HaRdSTyLe_83

 

That's rough! A new 1080 Ti for ~$1050 USD? Here are some recent Newegg prices:

 

MSI GTX 1080 Ti OC: $599.99 Free S/H 9-13-2018

Gigabyte AORUS GTX 1080 Ti: $629.99 Free S/H 9-16-2018

EVGA GTX 1080 Ti: $629.99 + $4.99 S/H 8-24-2018

EVGA GTX 1080 Ti SC Black Edition (Plus Destiny 2): $649.99 + $4.99 8-24-2018

 

I honestly would not give a thought to NVIDIA's ray tracing. It's not actual ray-traced lighting, it's just a proprietary, case-by-case effect which is used to apply real-time reflections to specific hand-picked surfaces. More importantly, the incredibly massive performance hit eliminates any desirability in my eyes. We're talking about a 2080 Ti not even reaching 60 fps at 1920x1080. For real-time reflections. Something we've had in, well, PC games at least, since 2004 and earlier.

 

Ray tracing has its usefulness, and fully ray-traced lighting for games is something to get excited about, but as it stands now, this is nothing more or less than PhysX or HairWorks. To be honest, I am very displeased that this is what NVIDIA is touting as their next big thing in gaming. Somebody needs to get foveated rendering to market, and yesterday, because foveated rendering will be the single biggest game changer since the introduction of the GPU. With foveated rendering, virtually any GPU will be able to render any resolution: 4K, 8K, 64K+. Full ray-traced lighting in games would become a reality. VR development would no longer be limited by GPU power as it is now.

 

No, I'm not impressed by NVIDIA's "RTX". I'm hoping that the hardware can be efficiently put to use in other areas, such as calculating sound propagation throughout environments, something that could well provide a much larger gameplay benefit with a much lower performance penalty.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Dryspace

[HaRdSTyLe_83]

2 hours ago, Dryspace said:

That's rough! A new 1080 Ti for ~$1050 USD? Here are some recent Newegg prices:

 

its the f*%ing taxes

ex: the EVGA 1080TI costs 869.90 because im paying 162.66 of taxes.

 

at 599$ each, i would go crazy and do a 1080Ti in SLI lol

[DEALUX]

Yeah. I paid $925 for a 1080 Ti. Import tax is theft godamn it.

I was actually going to buy high end STAX headphones but I would have had to pay upwards of $400 along the $2.2K. The Chinese hi-fi company offers to cheat on taxes basically but even that's risky since whoever looks at the package might look up what you bought online and if you get caught you can get in trouble. I'll just have to save up for new headphones next year.

[Dryspace]

@Dealux

 

Out of curiosity, have you ever tried intra-aural earphones? I discovered them years ago, and have never used headphones since. If you like bass all the way down to ~20 Hz, the only options are very large subwoofers or intra-aural earphones. No headphones are capable of producing low bass.

[DEALUX]

You mean IEMs? Yeah, I tried a bunch and now I own a $250 pair of AKGs that are better than most IEMS. At least until you get close to $1K IEMs. I'm not a bass freak honestly. The AKGs that I have can dig down all the way to 32 Hz but you don't hear a lot of it since the drivers have a fair bit of harmonic distortion (they go up to 1% by the 20 Hz mark).

 

What makes STAX special is the technology. Electrostatic headphones are the tech of the future. Incredible impulse response which gives you very low distortion levels (as low as 0.005%) but they are a bit of a hassle to work with since they require a special amp to work. Although by most accounts, they sound better than almost anything (except some more expensive, $4K, planars, maybe) in terms of detail, which is what I was after.

[Dryspace]

@Dealux

 

I don't know whether all in-ear monitors are true intra-aural earphones. An intra-aural earphone is fundamentally different from headphones or earbuds (earbuds are the worst possible way to get sound into your ears, but you sound like you know that).

 

What makes them unique is that they insert into the ear canal like earplugs and form a seal. This seal makes all the difference in the world, because it effectively creates a small enclosed chamber consisting of the ear canal and the interior of the earphone. Thus, frequencies down to 20 Hz or lower can be produced literally as loud as you can handle--as loud or louder than any subwoofer, and clear. It can produce clear ultra-low bass because very little power is needed in order to excite the tiny enclosed air volume. If the seal is compromised even a bit, the low bass response disappears, which means they must be inserted correctly and snugly. The other benefit is that it functions exactly like earplugs, drastically reducing ambient noise and thus increasing immersion, and also reducing the necessary listening volume.

 

Clearly, intra-aural earphones are not able to produce a tactile sensation upon the body any more than headphones can, but that's not hearing music, it's feeling it. Having said that, I have often combined my intra-aural earphones with a subwoofer upon which I place my feet so that I can achieve tactile sensation in games (I've been meaning to add tactile transducers to my chair).

 

Even if you prefer something else for music, I would never recommend anything but intra-aural earphones for gaming because of the isolation of environmental noise as well as the full frequency response. If you can find a pair of Klipsch S3m, you won't be disappointed. Don't be fooled by the more expensive Klipsch models--I've tried them and there are serious manufacturing defects right now.

 

Regarding the electrostatic headphones, I'm wondering what media you use? I suppose vinyl or high-quality tape (I have an RT-707) would benefit, but clearly it wouldn't make sense listening to MP3's on a $2,500 pair of headphones.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Dryspace
Clarification

[DEALUX]

For gaming either my 8" coaxial monitors or AKG headphones will do. I use TIDAL which offers lossless streaming but I buy CDs from time to time.

[Dryspace]

Apparently availability of the 2080 Ti (but not the 2080) is going to be delayed by one week.

 

I wasn't going to be buying before performance is even known, so that doesn't affect me; I'm just hoping that there aren't inventory issues if I do decide to buy one within the next few weeks. I wouldn't think there would be availability issues (Have there ever been for a new card? I don't know?), but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Dryspace
Typo

[SilverRST]

I think I'll go for MSI 1080Ti. I couldn't care less about that ray tracing bullcrap and if I want to go for 2080Ti, it's f*cking €1400 here, I mean, for real? F*ck that.

US should investigate on nVidia's monopoly as they have a lot of marketshare. The prices makes zero sense, period.

Edited September 17, 2018 by SilverRST

[Dryspace]

@SilverRST

 

I think you're right about the ray tracing. For now, it's nothing more than an extremely computationally expensive proprietary feature a la PhysX and HairWorks. I've said it and I'll say it again: Unlimited resolution, fully ray traced lighting, VR--all of this and more will be possible on normal GPUs once foveated rendering is implemented. That is what needs to be introduced before any thought is given to ray tracing. I would wish that NVIDIA had introduced it instead of RTX, but I can't help thinking that Huang would have made it proprietary.

 

As far as a monopoly, NVIDIA doesn't have one, but even if they did, it would have been the result of customers freely choosing to purchase NVIDIA products instead of competing products--the result of freedom, in other words. If a "monopoly" is the result of people exercising their freedom of choice, the only way that government can interfere is by limiting the customer's freedom of choice. I put "monopoly" in quotes because even if NVIDIA had 100% market share they wouldn't have a monopoly on GPUs, they would only have 100% market share. Nothing stops any individual or business from opening up shop and competing against NVIDIA and AMD, if one thinks he can offer a better product at a competitive price. In fact, I believe Intel is doing just that.

 

NVIDIA can not monopolize the manufacture of GPUs--only government can do that. Governments love to do that, in fact, with money taken by force, rather than given willingly in the case of NVIDIA or any other business. There are very few justifications for government involvement; things would need to be pretty bad in order to think that politicians could do a better job.

[HaRdSTyLe_83]

 

On 9/17/2018 at 4:50 PM, Dryspace said:

I wouldn't think there would be availability issues (Have there ever been for a new card? I don't know?)

 

i dont remeber a time were there weren't (on launch day). unless you pre-ordered it, you are going to be lucky to find it in stock.

im seeing alot of people say f**k it, and go with th 1080ti so maybe with the outrageous prices of the 20 series there will be some stock !??.

 

my wallet is ready, but i cant find any reason to put my 1080 aside and upgrade to a 2080Ti, even with the performance boost, i will end up not using it, i play @ 3440x1440p 100hz and the 1080 still does the job more then fine, ill probably just skip this Gen and get one of this monitors

 

 

i already pre ordered the new assetto corsa, and with forza horizon4 coming up....

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by HaRdSTyLe_83

[SilverRST]

3 minutes ago, Dryspace said:

@SilverRST

 

I think you're right about the ray tracing. For now, it's nothing more than an extremely computationally expensive proprietary feature a la PhysX and HairWorks. I've said it and I'll say it again: Unlimited resolution, fully ray traced lighting, VR--all of this and more will be possible on normal GPUs once foveated rendering is implemented. That is what needs to be introduced before any thought is given to ray tracing. I would wish that NVIDIA had introduced it instead of RTX, but I can't help thinking that Huang would have made it proprietary.

 

As far as a monopoly, NVIDIA doesn't have one, but even if they did, it would have been the result of customers freely choosing to purchase NVIDIA products instead of competing products--the result of freedom, in other words. If a "monopoly" is the result of people exercising their freedom of choice, the only way that government can interfere is by limiting the customer's freedom of choice. I put "monopoly" in quotes because even if NVIDIA had 100% market share they wouldn't have a monopoly on GPUs, they would only have 100% market share. Nothing stops any individual or business from opening up shop and competing against NVIDIA and AMD, if one thinks he can offer a better product at a competitive price. In fact, I believe Intel is doing just that.

 

NVIDIA can not monopolize the manufacture of GPUs--only government can do that. Governments love to do that, in fact, with money taken by force, rather than given willingly in the case of NVIDIA or any other business. There are very few justifications for government involvement; things would need to be pretty bad in order to think that politicians could do a better job.

Another big problem is that ray tracing might stay proprietary. So if anyone of us wants ray tracing: we are obligatored to buy nVidia RTX GPU. I have no idea about PhysX but that one died a long time ago? I haven't heard from it since a long time and HairWorks, that one is in a Witcher game too, right? I won't use HairWorks anyway.

 

It would be nice if a lot of PC gamers would move to consoles to teach nVidia a lesson. RTX2080Ti is priced almost 4 times as a consoles wtf?

[Dryspace]

@SilverRST

 

I wish NVIDIA would be taught a few lessons, but moving to a console would make things much worse. The RTX 2080 Ti is priced more around 2.5 times more than an XBox One X, not almost 4 times, but at any rate, what does that mean, exactly?

 

A 2080 Ti, or even a 980 Ti, allows one to achieve resolutions and refresh rates at graphical settings that are simply not possible with an XBox One X or PS4 Pro. All I'm saying is that if one wants to make comparisons, one has to do more than just look at price. GPUs aren't food and water. I'm just happy that such a marvel of technology is available at any price reasonably affordable by a consumer. Similar processing power to a 1080 Ti just 15 years ago cost $150,000,000 - $750,000,000 USD in 2018 dollars (ASCI White and the Earth Simulator). Remember, the 8800 Ultra was $700 in 2007, which is ~$875 in 2018 dollars. And I think we can all agree we've come a long computational way since then.

 

Personally, I prefer freedom over having literally every aspect of my video gaming experience controlled by my Console Overlord: framerate, resolution, graphical options, options in general, advanced tweaking, whether or not I can mod, how long I have to use hardware before I am deemed worthy of an upgrade, what hardware I get in the first place, having to pay for online access, which input device I use, having to control a camera with an analog stick, having to be called a peasant by "master race" asshelmets.....in short, I love freedom. I don't like the prices of the new cards at all, but this isn't a crisis yet. Let's see what happens to the price of cards over the next few years.

[SilverRST]

3 minutes ago, Dryspace said:

@SilverRST

 

I wish NVIDIA would be taught a few lessons, but moving to a console would make things much worse. The RTX 2080 Ti is priced more around 2.5 times more than an XBox One X, not almost 4 times, but at any rate, what does that mean, exactly?

 

A 2080 Ti, or even a 980 Ti, allows one to achieve resolutions and refresh rates at graphical settings that are simply not possible with an XBox One X or PS4 Pro. All I'm saying is that if one wants to make comparisons, one has to do more than just look at price. GPUs aren't food and water. I'm just happy that such a marvel of technology is available at any price reasonably affordable by a consumer. Similar processing power to a 1080 Ti just 15 years ago cost $150,000,000 - $750,000,000 USD in 2018 dollars (ASCI White and the Earth Simulator). Remember, the 8800 Ultra was $700 in 2007, which is ~$875 in 2018 dollars. And I think we can all agree we've come a long computational way since then.

 

Personally, I prefer freedom over having literally every aspect of my video gaming experience controlled by my Console Overlord: framerate, resolution, graphical options, options in general, advanced tweaking, whether or not I can mod, how long I have to use hardware before I am deemed worthy of an upgrade, what hardware I get in the first place, having to pay for online access, which input device I use, having to control a camera with an analog stick, having to be called a peasant by "master race" asshelmets.....in short, I love freedom. I don't like the prices of the new cards at all, but this isn't a crisis yet. Let's see what happens to the price of cards over the next few years.

I mistaken it with some "older" consoles like PS4 non-Pro and Xbox One -non-X

 

But of course they are very different. I hate consoles because they truely lack freedom. I cannot handle the damn controller and there are no KB+M support and if they are there, then it's a question wether game supports them officialy or not. So I'll never buy a console.

 

And everything you said in the 3rd paragraph, oh damn yes! All of that applies to me.

[DEALUX]

 

It looks like the leaked specs were right. The 2080 is about as good as a 1080 Ti or ever so slightly faster. It wasn't worth the extra $100 for me honestly.

 

[Dryspace]

I'm rather stunned.

 

Despite the fears that had been circulating about lacklustre performance, I told myself that it was simply illogical that NVIDIA could release new cards with the combination of such an awe-inspiring price point and blah-inspiring performance increase. One or the other, sure--an extreme price with genuinely impressive performance, or disappointing performance with an agreeable price.

 

But I really was certain that NVIDIA couldn't possibly do such a thing, as it seemed to me like it would be shooting themselves in the foot--it would be practically begging for the worst kind of feedback and press--not to mention poor sales.

 

And we're talking about 28 months. Literally twice as long as the average time between generations. I don't know what the real story is, but the more I think about this, the more I see this being a huge gaff. Nobody and their brother asked for 'RTX'. Ray tracing isn't needed. Raw performance for higher resolutions at solid framerates, as well as for VR, is needed. NVIDIA had two-and-a-half years to introduce some really impressively-performing cards, and what we ended up getting is a proprietary global illumination solution that's neither accurate nor terribly impressive, and a massive performance killer. Everyone reading this knows that it's going to be enabled just as often as HairWorks, and probably a lot less.

 

I don't know....it seems to me that NVIDIA started down an R&D road a couple of years ago that did not end up where they thought it would, and they found themselves in a position in which it was all they could do to salvage the existing expense. I'll admit that I thought they had way too much capital to get themselves into such a situation, but nothing else that occurs to me makes any sense.

 

Linus says "This seems rushed".....the results would suggest that, but in reality it was incredibly delayed.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Dryspace

[DEALUX]

Except that unlike HairWorks this technology will be worked on for years to come until ray-tracing is fully implemented in games. Rasterization is not a long term solution despite its various tricks.

[HaRdSTyLe_83]

only the price seems off tbh, the performance is what it was expected being the new 80's better the the last gen 80'sTi, i never expected the same jump that was Maxwell to Pascal

[Dryspace]

@Dealux

 

First, there's no reason to believe that it will be worked on for years to come, because like HairWorks, RTX is entirely proprietary. If the next generation of consoles aren't using it, there's no guarantee whatever that it will end up any more relevant than PhysX, 3D Vision, HairWorks, G-Sync, or any of NVIDIA's short-sighted proprietary schemes. That's just reality, not bias: I have bought nothing but NVIDIA since 2008: 2 GTX 260's, GTX 570, GTX 770, GTX 980 Ti, and now probably a GTX 2080 Ti for 4K.

 

If ray tracing is to become standard (and it will eventually), it will have nothing to do with NVIDIA's proprietary efforts. Keep in mind that RTX doesn't do ray traced lighting, only reflections, GI, and other modifications to the existing lighting.

 

Second, it makes no sense at all to implement ray tracing ahead of foveated rendering. With foveated rendering, we could conceivably have fully ray traced lighting on current hardware, or certainly within just a few years. Not to mention any resolution or refresh rate, and overall levels of graphical realism otherwise impossible any time soon. Foveated rendering requires a method of acquiring eye-tracking information, and this hardware is already a reality. Other than that, it is a matter of implementing the algorithms into display drivers, and ultimately into game engines in order to achieve the maximum possible performance increase.

 

Ray tracing without foveated rendering is like trying to win a regatta with a sea anchor deployed: A massive waste of effort.

[HaRdSTyLe_83]

@Dryspace

^^ only someone that never used G-Sync would call it that, argue the price all you want, but point me towards a sync that actually works

Edited September 19, 2018 by HaRdSTyLe_83

[Dryspace]

@HaRdSTyLe_83

 

Lol...call G-Sync what, exactly? I only referred to it as a short-sighted proprietary scheme, which is what it is. I didn't say anything about how well it works. I'm actually quite sure it's impressive, especially for those who didn't previously use vsync while keeping framerates above the refresh rate.

 

I just don't like that NVIDIA is concerned only with building a taller mast rather than helping to raise the tide for all ships. I have absolutely no problem with any company making as much money as it can, but NVIDIA's practices actually serve to prevent adoption in the long-term while only generating profit in the short-term.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Dryspace
Typo

[DEALUX]

Lol why do you spend so much talking about VR which is arguably as big a gimmick right now as the other stuff you mentioned.

 

G-sync isn't proprietary. It's just a marketing term for hardware based adaptive sync and it is necessary for high refresh rates. HDMI Forum was working to implement their version of adaptive v-sync in TVs and such with HDMI 2.1. AMD has their version of it as well.

[SilverRST]

Well, it looks I'll go for 1080Ti instead of 2080Ti. The price is just one big disappointment together with the ray tracing bullsh*t.

 

[Dryspace]

@Dealux

 

G-Sync is not just a marketing term, it's a patented method of reverse or adaptive synchronization which is not the same as FreeSync. If you look at the specs, you'll notice that the range of refresh rates is not the same. You might also notice that G-Sync does not function with anything but NVIDIA GPUs. That's what the term 'proprietary' means.

 

I can't imagine what you mean by me "talking so much about VR", but since you bring it up, why would you argue that VR is a gimmick?

 

@SilverRST

 

I agree with you about the price. I just wish I wasn't in the position of needing a card that can do 3840x2160 at above 60 Hz at maxed settings because of the OLED display I just purchased.

 

In the past, I was always able to just use a lower resolution with my CRT if I wasn't getting the framerate I needed. Since I can't do that anymore, I need as much GPU power as I can get. And sadly, a 2080 Ti isn't even enough.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Dryspace
Clarification

[SilverRST]

10 minutes ago, Dryspace said:

@Dealux

 

G-Sync is not just a marketing term, it's a patented method of adaptive synchronization which is not the same as FreeSync. If you look at the specs, you'll notice that the range of refresh rates is not the same. You might also notice that G-Sync does not function with anything but NVIDIA GPUs. That's what the term 'proprietary' means.

 

I can't imagine what you mean by me "talking so much about VR", but since you bring it up, why would you argue that VR is a gimmick?

 

@SilverRST

 

I agree with you about the price. I just wish I wasn't in the position of needing a card that can do 3840x2160 at above 60 Hz at maxed settings because of the OLED display I just purchased.

 

In the past, I was always able to just use a lower resolution with my CRT if I wasn't getting the framerate I needed. Since I can't do that anymore, I need as much GPU power as I can get. And sadly, a 2080 Ti isn't even enough.

Which OLED display did you buy? Currently I am waiting for Asus to release PQ22UC: https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/PQ22UC/overview/

Google it for more screens. Yes, I know it is a smaller screen but that's what I exactly want. But damn, that PQ22UC is so magnificent!

Whenever I use the PC for normal tasks such reading, writing, mails and so on, I'll use my regular monitor and when I want to game or wanna watch series/movies, I'll use that OLED monitor so less burn-in chances.

 

I already bought 55" OLED last month and since then, I'm in love. Yes, I know that Asus OLED monitor will high likely very expensive but I ripped the part of the 2080Ti's price.

 

Believe it or not, my 55" OLED tv is way cheaper than 2080Ti!

Edited September 20, 2018 by SilverRST

[DEALUX]

2 hours ago, Dryspace said:

@Dealux

 

G-Sync is not just a marketing term, it's a patented method of reverse or adaptive synchronization which is not the same as FreeSync. If you look at the specs, you'll notice that the range of refresh rates is not the same. You might also notice that G-Sync does not function with anything but NVIDIA GPUs. That's what the term 'proprietary' means.

 

I can't imagine what you mean by me "talking so much about VR", but since you bring it up, why would you argue that VR is a gimmick?

The specific implementation is theirs, but the actual basic technology is not proprietary to them.

 

Because most games don't support it and it's not quite there yet.

[Dryspace]

@Dealux

 

"G-sync isn't proprietary." --Dealux 2018

 

G-Sync is, in fact, proprietary. There is no difference between 'specific implementation' and 'actual basic technology'.

 

Surely you're able to admit error? Because when one refuses to admit error, he proves that he's a fool (and everyone remembers it), whereas when one admits error, he only proves that he's human (and everyone forgets about it and moves on). Not to mention that spreading misinformation is very harmful, as having wrong information is worse than having no information at all.

 

"Because most games don't support it and it's not quite there yet."

 

But what you just described is called 'nascent technology', not a 'gimmick'.

 

@SilverRST

 

I bought an OLED55B7 after my CRT died and I couldn't find a suitable replacement. I've been gaming on the 55" inch display from a viewing distance of between 18" and 24", and it's an incredible experience.

 

That close to the screen, I have to dial the FOV way up in games to match the extremely high area of my actual field of view that the display fills, which is considerably higher than a Vive or Rift. For example, in Alice: Madness Returns I'm using an FOV of 125. [EDIT 9-22-18 I increased it to 130 yesterday.]

 

I don't think I can quite agree that the PQ22UC is magnificent, as it's only 21.6". Don't get me wrong--that's not unusable for gaming, but I was gaming on a display larger than that in 2005, but more importantly, once you go up in size, it's really hard to go back down.

 

I also have a W1070 1080p DLP projector at 110" which is really awesome for gaming, but I haven't used it since I got the 4K OLED55B7.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Dryspace
Edit

[SilverRST]

@Dryspace

I've got the A7V, love it. Can't stand LED LCD tv's. With OLED, you have no more problems with colors at every single angle and I'm talking about when you sit in front of your screen and you see the picture that's more lighter at above the screen angle. With curved monitors, you get 100% angle. Don't know how to explain it exactly but it's the screen uniformity.

 

Reasons why I prefer and love smaller screens: I've been using laptops, around 11 years to be precisely. For homeworks, playing games, watching movies and other content and even making/modding mods for GTA SA, also had a lot of fun with Midtown Madness 2 and Lego Racers. So ye, it's a bit hard for me to get used to bigger screens   Small screens are easy to take it anywhere else and also like how the brightness are and the pixel density. 1080p on 22" is sharper and looks nicer than on 24". I have both. I can't just take any 22" monitor out there, this one got VA panel which I like it more than IPS. TN will never ever be in my house again, such ugly sh*t smeared yellow crap if you move your head 0.1"

That PQ22UC is perfect I think, it got mini HDMI which would have no inputlag unlike other portable that uses USB-C for power and picture transfer at the same time, asus MB169C+ is it. Having both my current 22" monitor and PQ22UC is a win-win situation for me. For normal daily tasks: VA. For watching content and playing games: OLED.

So ye, I'm in a minority

 

Anyway, my choice has been made, I'll go for the MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X. Prices of the 2080Ti is a very very bad April Fool joke.

[Dryspace]

@SilverRST

 

I'm not claiming that I predicted this (I didn't), but especially when GPU prices were still a lot higher, I wondered to myself how NVIDIA was going to suddenly release a generation of cards at a "normal" price.

 

I agree that these prices are a really bad joke. Nobody asked for RTX, a lot of people desperately need more power, and NVIDIA's proprietary duct-taped-onto-the-top-of-a-game ray tracing is likely going to do just what every other proprietary duct-taped-on-top effect has done: make some short-term money for NVIDIA and go nowhere.

 

What Huang needs to do is actually listen to people, eat some crow, and bring out a GTX 2080 and GTX 2080 Ti that have no RT cores and no Tensor cores--just a massive number of CUDA cores which can produce raw framerates that gamers need right now and justify the near-30-month interim.

 

He can even set the prices exactly the same as the RTX cards, and the market can decide whether it wants to pay for weak performance and a promise, or usable horsepower right here and now.