2080 prices

[HaRdSTyLe_83]

they dont need to release a better GPU, they are "alone" in the GPU market. if Vega 64 had more power then a 1080Ti i bet this RTX2080 would already be out a long time ago without the raytracing at a more affordable price

[Dryspace]

@HaRdSTyLe_83

 

You are right about NVIDIA's position, but that doesn't change the fact that the new cards are a terrible value. I suppose we'll have to see what the lower-tier cards look like, but I really don't think the 2080 and 2080 Ti are going to sell well at all.

 

As far as RTX, I don't understand how anyone can want it to become successful. It's another proprietary tech. Do they really want to go from having to buy a GPU to play games to having to buy an NVIDIA GPU to play games? Alright, so maybe some of you understand this, and you see it as a catalyst--if NVIDIA gets this out there, it will impress everyone enough that other companies will start pursuing ray tracing as well.

 

That at least seems reasonable, except that I honestly don't see it happening. I don't mean at all--ray tracing will eventually happen, but I don't see NVIDIA's proprietary efforts having anything to do with it. Why exactly would anyone trust NVIDIA to handle it better than they have anything else? PhysX has never been optimized, thing like HairWorks are disabled by almost everyone, 3D Vision was handled abominably.

 

NVIDIA's list of 3D Vision games has always been fraudulent. The rating system is: 3D Vision Ready, Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, and Not Recommended, and believe it or not, beginning at the 'Excellent' level are games that have significant issues and/or entire aspects which have to be disabled such as shadows. That's the 'Excellent' level.

 

The only proprietary offering that isn't technologically a joke is probably G-Sync, but the truth is that G-Sync is a pretty simple technology. Rather than a display refreshing based upon an internal fixed-rate signal from a clock, it refreshes based upon an external variable-rate signal from the GPU. The fact that NVIDIA artificially prevents their GPUs from using FreeSync displays is the kind of business tactic that I find reprehensible. I prefer that a company make money by offering options, not by artificially limiting them.

 

That's funny--I don't remember there being a soapbox underneath me before...

...guess I better get down.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Dryspace
Typo

[HaRdSTyLe_83]

1 hour ago, Dryspace said:

You are right about NVIDIA's position, but that doesn't change the fact that the new cards are a terrible value. I suppose we'll have to see what the lower-tier cards look like, but I really don't think the 2080 and 2080 Ti are going to sell well at all. 

i doubt anyone can disagree on the price, well maybe that guy from TomsHardware.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dryspace said:

As far as RTX, I don't understand how anyone can want it to become successful. It's another proprietary tech.

if one company spent millions in reserch and development why would they share it ? its a business, not the red cross.

All im against is having to pay extra for a technology that i dont need and feeling that the bill from research and development is being forced to gamers.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dryspace said:

Do they really want to go from having to buy a GPU to play games to having to buy an NVIDIA GPU to play games?

they want to add value to their product by adding things that the competition dont have, nothing stopping AMD to spend money in R&D and do the same.

 

1 hour ago, Dryspace said:

I prefer that a company make money by offering options, not by artificially limiting them

Ray tracing is one of those options that they are offering, if its one you dont want/need, you can buy the 1080Ti.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dryspace said:

but the truth is that G-Sync is a pretty simple technology

simple, maybe. but G-sync is hardware, not software. Monitor manufacturers need to physically install the module, so it will always end up being more expensive.

 

1 hour ago, Dryspace said:

The fact that NVIDIA artificially prevents their GPUs from using FreeSync displays is the kind of business tactic that I find reprehensible

agree and i dont see what they win with that, but they do offer Fast Sync for non-Gsync and Freesync monitors, im on the market for a new monitor and probably going to be with Freesync.

 

 

 

i want Ray traycing but i dont want to pay for it

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by HaRdSTyLe_83

[Dryspace]

16 hours ago, HaRdSTyLe_83 said:

if one company spent millions in reserch and development why would they share it ? its a business, not the red cross.

I have no idea why a company would do that! My point is that I don't support NVIDIA investing in proprietary tech that can never amount to anything but helping to sell NVIDIA cards. I'm saying that I don't think that NVIDIA's pursuing of proprietary schemes has ever done anything but make some extra money for NVIDIA. I can't think of one that has had any real lasting benefit for gamers or for video games in general. Unless the market shifts toward PC (I really wish it would), ray tracing is not going to have any relevance for video games until consoles can handle it. And--assuming AMD is still providing the tech--that AMD produces viable hardware.

 

16 hours ago, HaRdSTyLe_83 said:

Ray tracing is one of those options that they are offering, if its one you dont want/need, you can buy the 1080Ti.

I don't think you are acknowledging the point I'm making about NVIDIA's business practices, though. I don't think there is anything wrong with a company making a trillion dollars by offering a product that people truly want. What I don't like is a company attempting to make money by artificially crippling a product so that it can charge in order that the customer get the full use of the product.

 

It's not a matter of legal vs. illegal, just acceptable vs. despicable. It's like a TV manufacturer disabling several channels unless the customer pays to "unlock" the channels. Not pay for additional hardware--just for the use of what he already owns. The company could do that simply because it has no viable competitor and believes it can get away with it, just like I can run around and be a complete asshelmet if I think I can get away with it. Legal? Yes. Commendable? No, in my opinion.

 

16 hours ago, HaRdSTyLe_83 said:

simple, maybe. but G-sync is hardware, not software. Monitor manufacturers need to physically install the module, so it will always end up being more expensive.

Right. I didn't say anything about the cost of G-Sync, though. I said that as far as I can see, G-Sync is the only proprietary offering of NVIDIA's that works well and has a clear and obvious reason for existing. The needless prohibition of the owner of a $500 or $1000 GPU from using a FreeSync monitor is just one of many examples of practices I disagree with. It means that NVIDIA doesn't even believe in its own G-Sync monitors. It means that NVIDIA is convinced that its G-Sync tech won't sell--if it actually gives its customers a choice in the matter.

 

I want ray tracing, but I want foveated rendering first!

Edited September 23, 2018 by Dryspace
Clarification

[DEALUX]

It's not really that important. I mean if you can afford a high end NVIDIA card you can probably buy a G-sync monitor as well. Also, I'm pretty sure FreeSync is also implemented at driver level, so that's extra work for NVIDIA to add it as an option. Why do that when you already have your own tech?

 

HDMI Forum will release their Adaptive Sync solution with HDMI 2.1 at some point and I'm curious how it works exactly. It might actually work out of the box with HDMI compliant devices (which might include GPUs that support HDMI 2.1).

[Mexicola9302]

Gonna sit this one out, it's not worth it if you can't even play a game in 1080p with 60 FPS with this ray tracing crap activated.

 

Gonna stick to my 2 1070's for another year, probably gonna buy a RTX 2180TI when it gets released then. Maybe this can deliver enough power for this ray tracing crap then, maybe even in 4K then, who knows. Buying the first card with a new technology never is a good idea.

 

I always want at least a 100% performance boost everytime i buy a new gpu, it's unlikely that a single RTX 2080TI has 100% or more computing power than my 2 1070's.

 

It's always smarter to sit one generation out, and just live with lower game settings, than just wasting money on new sh*t.

[DEALUX]

The 4K benchmarks with the RTX 2080 Ti are crazy. Like holy sh*t I can't believe we actually have 4K at above 60 FPS now. They have to start making monitors that support DP 1.4 now and high refresh rates.

 

Edit: Actually those were SLI numbers. Still, pretty impressive.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Dealux

[SilverRST]

Look at this sh*t, ray tracing being pushed more and further than ever:

https://wccftech.com/mechwarrior-5-mercenaries-dev-nvidia-rtx-dlss/

 

And this is a very very sad launch. Ugh, I'm afraid what will happen to the future of GPU's for desktops.

[Dryspace]

7 hours ago, Dealux said:

It's not really that important. I mean if you can afford a high end NVIDIA card you can probably buy a G-sync monitor as well.

 

The first flaw in your reasoning is that you assume that the issue is price. Again, I mentioned nothing whatever about the price of G-Sync monitors, because I have no problem with the price.

 

The second flaw is that you assume all monitors are created the same, i.e. that the only difference between a G-Sync monitor and FreeSync monitor is price, when in fact there are any number of differences including manufacturer, panel type, size, resolution, refresh rates, build quality, UI, etc. When I purchase a $1200 GPU, I'd like to be able to choose which monitor I use, and not be railroaded into a few specific models--not out of necessity, but because NVIDIA refuses to allow me to interface with them.

 

7 hours ago, Dealux said:

It might actually work out of the box with HDMI compliant devices (which might include GPUs that support HDMI 2.1).

 

Maybe it will. Unfortunately that doesn't prevent NVIDIA from deliberately crippling the option as they did with 3D Vision (I own a 3D Vision 2 kit, to my chagrin).

 

3D Vision only works with certain displays. Not because it actually only works with certain displays, but because those certain displays are the ones whose manufacturers paid NVIDIA to "unlock" the 3D Vision capability in their drivers. A detestable business practice.

 

5 hours ago, Dealux said:

They have to start making monitors that support DP 1.4 now and high refresh rates.

 

I believe that NVIDIA-designed 4K 144Hz monitors will be releasing soon, but I'm not interested, primarily because they are LCD. They could be an upgrade, though, depending on what one is currently using.

 

 

5 hours ago, Mexicola9302 said:

I always want at least a 100% performance boost everytime i buy a new gpu, it's unlikely that a single RTX 2080TI has 100% or more computing power than my 2 1070's.

 

I absolutely agree. Obviously it's okay if a person has disposable income and wants to have a new card and a modest performance increase every generation, but I love upgrading after two or three generations and looking forward with excitement to a massive performance increase. The thing is, I don't have to play a game as soon as it's released, so I don't have to deal with poor performance, and in fact I never would deal with it. I just wait until I have the ability to play a game The Way It's Meant T--just kidding...until I have the ability to play without having to make any significant compromises.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Dryspace
Typo

[DEALUX]

The way it's been done in the past was that there were similar monitors (same panel and almost identical housing) with FreeSync and G-sync. I guess there is no reason why the same monitor couldn't support both at the same time, except for NVIDIA not wanting to do that deal. I'm no fanboy but I do love NVIDIA products. The company is...well, like most big corporations.

 

OLED isn't really all that great for gaming. Burn-in is pretty bad. They'd need to design game HUDs around that problem lol. 100% performance boost with every new generation sounds impossible. At least for a $1000+ price tag. Remember that they invested 3 billion in Volta. Who knows how much Turing R&D cost. I can't imagine how much more it would cost to develop a card that can leap that far in terms of performance.

[SilverRST]

Look at this f*cking sh*t:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=RTX+2080&_sacat=0

The f*ck has happened to those cancerous people being greedy AF? You even HAVE to pay for shipping!? I smell an extremely stinky sh*t.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Dealux said:

The way it's been done in the past was that there were similar monitors (same panel and almost identical housing) with FreeSync and G-sync. I guess there is no reason why the same monitor couldn't support both at the same time, except for NVIDIA not wanting to do that deal. I'm no fanboy but I do love NVIDIA products. The company is...well, like most big corporations.

 

OLED isn't really all that great for gaming. Burn-in is pretty bad. They'd need to design game HUDs around that problem lol. 100% performance boost with every new generation sounds impossible. At least for a $1000+ price tag. Remember that they invested 3 billion in Volta. Who knows how much Turing R&D cost. I can't imagine how much more it would cost to develop a card that can leap that far in terms of performance.

I keep reading about MicroLED but that's still 100 light years away. And they won't be in smaller screens from 21.5" up to 55"?

Edited September 23, 2018 by SilverRST

[Dryspace]

@Dealux

 

I've only purchased NVIDIA GPUs: FX 5200, GTX 260, second GTX 260, GTX 570, GTX 770, GTX 980 Ti. I used AMD (ATI, actually) briefly right before I built my first gaming PC in 2008, but it was given to me by my cousin. I have been happy with NVIDIA's cards, though while their driver/control panel is not as bad as AMD's, it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

But I'm not a lone voice here: It's not exactly a secret that NVIDIA's business practices have been...somewhat odoriferous.

 

I can say that, so far, I am pleased with my 55" OLED. The thing about burn-in, or image retention, is that it's not something that just happens. Whether it happens at all, and if so to what degree, is entirely dependent on the way the display is used. Therefore it's not accurate to say that burn-in is "pretty bad". It can be pretty bad--or not.

 

The two primary factors affecting burn-in likelihood are the amount of time static content is displayed relative to random content, and most importantly, the brightness setting (Called 'OLED Light' on the OLED55B7A). I use a setting of '0' for desktop use, and in games occasionally increase it to '25' or '30' which is more than bright enough. After the first couple of weeks, I actually noticed faint burn-in of desktop icons (only when purposefully displaying a 5% white screen), but that was because I had the OLED Light set to '80' or '100', which is blindingly bright. It's been over four months, and I have no burn-in issues at all, even after playing games with static HUDs for total playtimes of up to 50 hours. Time will tell, though.

 

The things that would make this display ideal would be 8K resolution and 120+ Hz (with foveated rendering), and pulsing rather than sample-and-hold in order to achieve the zero eye-tracking motion blur of a CRT. Twelve-bit color depth would be nice, as well.

[SilverRST]

@Dryspace

That's also why the Asus PQ22UC will come handy in such portable, when I wanna watch content or play games, I can just grab it and hook it up to my PC.

And after going OLED, you never wanna go back to LED LCD. I avoid watching tv channels with pretty intense logo's. For movies I got external HDD and Netlix.

Here in Netherlands some f*ck-ups still uses intense logo's for their tv channels, well, I avoid them. BBC got it aswell?

Anyway, I have set the OLED light on 40 for tv and Netflix/mp4/mkv on 50. My parents got an LED LCD tv and damn, that sh*t LED is really intense! It's like looking at the sun.

 

nVidia also got BFGD, Big f*cked-up Greedy Display. I forgot which they are exactly because they are totally not interesting at all to me.