My first inclination is to be disappointed by the price increases, and that their only performance comparisons were in relation to ray tracing. I would love it if ray tracing could become...
My first inclination is to be disappointed by the price increases, and that their only performance comparisons were in relation to ray tracing. I would love it if ray tracing could become commonplace, but it's not worth a $200+ increase in price to me. I don't think I can pass judgement without seeing benchmarks for regular games, though.
I saw that a leaked source said the 2070 was 40% faster than the 1070 and 17% faster than the 1080 in terms of real world performance. They just announced it, so of course they are going to focus...
their only performance comparisons were in relation to ray tracing
I saw that a leaked source said the 2070 was 40% faster than the 1070 and 17% faster than the 1080 in terms of real world performance.
They just announced it, so of course they are going to focus on the ray tracing because this is a huge leap forward, but I suspect we'll get some real world FPS comparisons in games as soon as reviewers get the cards in hand, which should be soon given the release date in 1 month.
I 100% understand focusing on raytracing, but I don't understand why they wouldn't at least mention the cards' other performance improvements unless they're mediocre. Either way, I guess we'll...
I 100% understand focusing on raytracing, but I don't understand why they wouldn't at least mention the cards' other performance improvements unless they're mediocre. Either way, I guess we'll find out soon enough.
They want to highlight an important breakthrough - this is the first card that can actually do real time raytracing. Remember, this is a convention where they are announcing new tech - they are...
They want to highlight an important breakthrough - this is the first card that can actually do real time raytracing. Remember, this is a convention where they are announcing new tech - they are going to focus on the new part pretty hard.
If they somehow also made a leaps and bounds tech advancement that brought 50% more FPS in all games, I'm sure they'd announce it as well. But breakthroughs typically don't happen on so many fronts that quickly. We're likely to see roughly a 10-15% performance on the 70 over last years 80 card, and 30-50% more performance on comparable (80 to last years 80, ti to ti, etc.) as this is typically what happens.
This video shows one way to reduce the computational power necessary for ray tracing. If these GPUs have special hardware that can compound this performance boost then maybe even low end card will...
This video shows one way to reduce the computational power necessary for ray tracing. If these GPUs have special hardware that can compound this performance boost then maybe even low end card will be enough for real time ray tracing.
My worry is that Nvidia will once again create their own hardware tech and proprietary software that's incompatible with other graphics cards, especially AMD's. I saw part of their Battlefield V...
My worry is that Nvidia will once again create their own hardware tech and proprietary software that's incompatible with other graphics cards, especially AMD's. I saw part of their Battlefield V presentation which looks impressive but smells like "hairworks" all over again. They sell "RTX" like it's their own, proprietary tech, not just utilizing generally high performance of their cards for Direct X/OpenGL or whatever.
The fundamental problem as I see it though is that it goes against the GPU convention to build in such specialized hardware pipelines, rather than allocating that die space to General Purpose...
The fundamental problem as I see it though is that it goes against the GPU convention to build in such specialized hardware pipelines, rather than allocating that die space to General Purpose Compute. It's inevitably going to produce a propriety API, and even more concerning - what if tomorrow we discover a better occlusion/lighting method than ray tracing? It just makes the hardware and API useless. I mean, you could argue that we already have better dynamic lighting methods right now, which don't really need ray tracing to look good. Sure, if you are making a movie or heavy CAD work it might be nice, but I'm really not sure how this really improves gaming over what we have now.
But more to the point, if we want to start dedicating die space to specialized compute tasks, then why not just move to FPGA-based rendering hardware and be done with it? That way any game engine can come with all sorts of hardware-logic modules which focus on specific tasks important to that engine. The purpose of a GPU is supposed to be general purpose though, and the more we get away from that, the less portable these compute engines becomes, and the more we risk vendor lock-in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_(graphics) ELI5 version: Ray tracing is following the path that light rays take and then simulating how those light rays interact with different materials...
In computer graphics, ray tracing is a rendering technique for generating an image by tracing the path of light as pixels in an image plane and simulating the effects of its encounters with virtual objects. The technique is capable of producing a very high degree of visual realism, usually higher than that of typical scanline rendering methods, but at a greater computational cost. This makes ray tracing best suited for applications where the image can be rendered slowly ahead of time, such as in still images and film and television visual effects, and more poorly suited for real-time applications like video games where speed is critical. Ray tracing is capable of simulating a wide variety of optical effects, such as reflection and refraction, scattering, and dispersion phenomena (such as chromatic aberration).
ELI5 version: Ray tracing is following the path that light rays take and then simulating how those light rays interact with different materials and objects. So for example there would be very realistic reflections and shadows because they were essentially made "naturally". The problem is that they are really resource intensive and haven't been able to be done in games yet.
Which is sort of misleading though. I can do real-time ray tracing on a CPU, just not with many rays. The real nuance here is that as things currently stand, you can use 100% of a GPU's general...
Which is sort of misleading though. I can do real-time ray tracing on a CPU, just not with many rays. The real nuance here is that as things currently stand, you can use 100% of a GPU's general compute pipeline to do real time ray tracing, get mediocre results, and not have any compute time left for rendering anything else. Now they are offloading this to specialized hardware so you can do shitty real-time ray tracing without completely killing other render performance. It's not magic though - it's more like they are putting a hardware cap on ray tracing.
That die space could have still been used for other things though, and will essentially be wasted for applications where ray tracing isn't used.
Meh, Nvidia skipped volta for this so they can be the first on the market. Pretty sure I remember Intel and msft showing off some Ray tracing demo a while back. Don't expect massive performance...
Meh, Nvidia skipped volta for this so they can be the first on the market. Pretty sure I remember Intel and msft showing off some Ray tracing demo a while back. Don't expect massive performance gain outside of Ray tracing situations. I will expect Intel to focus on this with their new gpu, not sure what AMD will do though they've been stuck for a while now riding on the rx580 and Vegas.
You know, if Nvidia would support FreeSync instead of pushing their absurdly overpriced GSync, I’d be more excited about this. But as it stands, my monitors are FreeSync and for the foreseeable...
You know, if Nvidia would support FreeSync instead of pushing their absurdly overpriced GSync, I’d be more excited about this.
But as it stands, my monitors are FreeSync and for the foreseeable future, I’m an AMD man.
I just got a Dell Gaming monitor with GSync for a decent price. I paid about $450 for a 27" 2K 144Hz monitor with GSync. I might have gone FreeSync but I didn't see any with comparable specs.
I just got a Dell Gaming monitor with GSync for a decent price. I paid about $450 for a 27" 2K 144Hz monitor with GSync. I might have gone FreeSync but I didn't see any with comparable specs.
Honestly I'm not sure. I used a 60Hz monitor for a decade before buying my new monitor and it was a huge difference from what I'm used to so I don't have much of a basis of comparison. I should...
Honestly I'm not sure. I used a 60Hz monitor for a decade before buying my new monitor and it was a huge difference from what I'm used to so I don't have much of a basis of comparison. I should give it a try with GSync disabled and see if I do notice a difference.
My first inclination is to be disappointed by the price increases, and that their only performance comparisons were in relation to ray tracing. I would love it if ray tracing could become commonplace, but it's not worth a $200+ increase in price to me. I don't think I can pass judgement without seeing benchmarks for regular games, though.
I saw that a leaked source said the 2070 was 40% faster than the 1070 and 17% faster than the 1080 in terms of real world performance.
They just announced it, so of course they are going to focus on the ray tracing because this is a huge leap forward, but I suspect we'll get some real world FPS comparisons in games as soon as reviewers get the cards in hand, which should be soon given the release date in 1 month.
I 100% understand focusing on raytracing, but I don't understand why they wouldn't at least mention the cards' other performance improvements unless they're mediocre. Either way, I guess we'll find out soon enough.
They want to highlight an important breakthrough - this is the first card that can actually do real time raytracing. Remember, this is a convention where they are announcing new tech - they are going to focus on the new part pretty hard.
If they somehow also made a leaps and bounds tech advancement that brought 50% more FPS in all games, I'm sure they'd announce it as well. But breakthroughs typically don't happen on so many fronts that quickly. We're likely to see roughly a 10-15% performance on the 70 over last years 80 card, and 30-50% more performance on comparable (80 to last years 80, ti to ti, etc.) as this is typically what happens.
It will be worth $200+ increase in price for me if all my games support it, and there's no way WoW or most MMORPGs will on a 14 year old engine.
This video shows one way to reduce the computational power necessary for ray tracing. If these GPUs have special hardware that can compound this performance boost then maybe even low end card will be enough for real time ray tracing.
My worry is that Nvidia will once again create their own hardware tech and proprietary software that's incompatible with other graphics cards, especially AMD's. I saw part of their Battlefield V presentation which looks impressive but smells like "hairworks" all over again. They sell "RTX" like it's their own, proprietary tech, not just utilizing generally high performance of their cards for Direct X/OpenGL or whatever.
The fundamental problem as I see it though is that it goes against the GPU convention to build in such specialized hardware pipelines, rather than allocating that die space to General Purpose Compute. It's inevitably going to produce a propriety API, and even more concerning - what if tomorrow we discover a better occlusion/lighting method than ray tracing? It just makes the hardware and API useless. I mean, you could argue that we already have better dynamic lighting methods right now, which don't really need ray tracing to look good. Sure, if you are making a movie or heavy CAD work it might be nice, but I'm really not sure how this really improves gaming over what we have now.
But more to the point, if we want to start dedicating die space to specialized compute tasks, then why not just move to FPGA-based rendering hardware and be done with it? That way any game engine can come with all sorts of hardware-logic modules which focus on specific tasks important to that engine. The purpose of a GPU is supposed to be general purpose though, and the more we get away from that, the less portable these compute engines becomes, and the more we risk vendor lock-in.
Anyone ELI5 what ray tracing is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_(graphics)
ELI5 version: Ray tracing is following the path that light rays take and then simulating how those light rays interact with different materials and objects. So for example there would be very realistic reflections and shadows because they were essentially made "naturally". The problem is that they are really resource intensive and haven't been able to be done in games yet.
Hmm so mostly it would help on rendering 3d stuff (for example in blender) and not much in games?
That's how it was previously but this new video card can do it in real-time which is a big deal.
This is how we get Sword Art Online (the game, not the plot)
I certainly hope it's not the plot! But yeah that would be fantastic to have in VR.
I dunno with millennial humor what it is today maybe people want the plot too
LN 1-8 is a bit of a disaster, but 9-18 could be pretty dope if it were to happen
Which is sort of misleading though. I can do real-time ray tracing on a CPU, just not with many rays. The real nuance here is that as things currently stand, you can use 100% of a GPU's general compute pipeline to do real time ray tracing, get mediocre results, and not have any compute time left for rendering anything else. Now they are offloading this to specialized hardware so you can do shitty real-time ray tracing without completely killing other render performance. It's not magic though - it's more like they are putting a hardware cap on ray tracing.
That die space could have still been used for other things though, and will essentially be wasted for applications where ray tracing isn't used.
Meh, Nvidia skipped volta for this so they can be the first on the market. Pretty sure I remember Intel and msft showing off some Ray tracing demo a while back. Don't expect massive performance gain outside of Ray tracing situations. I will expect Intel to focus on this with their new gpu, not sure what AMD will do though they've been stuck for a while now riding on the rx580 and Vegas.
You know, if Nvidia would support FreeSync instead of pushing their absurdly overpriced GSync, I’d be more excited about this.
But as it stands, my monitors are FreeSync and for the foreseeable future, I’m an AMD man.
I just got a Dell Gaming monitor with GSync for a decent price. I paid about $450 for a 27" 2K 144Hz monitor with GSync. I might have gone FreeSync but I didn't see any with comparable specs.
Does GSync even make that much of a difference on a high-refresh rate monitor?
Honestly I'm not sure. I used a 60Hz monitor for a decade before buying my new monitor and it was a huge difference from what I'm used to so I don't have much of a basis of comparison. I should give it a try with GSync disabled and see if I do notice a difference.
Please report back when you've done it. Thanks.