Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 and RTX 2080 Ti Official Performance Charts Leaked

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,077
Videocardz has leaked the Nvidia Official Reviewer's Guide Performance Charts. More numbers and charts at the link.

In GeForce RTX reviewer's guide, NVIDIA is not using any other resolution than 4K. So all benchmarks (except VRMark Cyan Room) were performed at 3840x2160 resolution. In fact, the RTX 2080 series were 'designed for 4K', as the document claims. NVIDIA reference system includes: X299 Rampage VI Apex, Core i9-7900X 3.3 GHz, Corsair 16GB DDR4 (no frequency specified), Windows 10 (v1803), NVIDIA 411.38 drivers.
 
I expect all the Day-1 reviews to show exactly these levels of performance, and to skip little details like what settings are used for each card. I also wouldn't put it past NVidia to do a little driver magic to make sure the old cards look bad.

So, I'm just going to wait until we get a little [H]ard info on the new cards.
The truth will be out there, but not on Day-1.
 
While Nvidia wasn’t really that far off with the 1080ti launch, I will still wait for non biased 3rd party reviews.

OTH I am liking the “leaked” results, at first I was not going to upgrade and now I might pull the trigger...
 
performance gains about what i was expecting there even though it's a best case scenario.

Assuming that holds true its gonna hinge on DLSS and NVLink if I buy or not.
 
ChadD said:
[H]old please.

I'll wait to see real reviews. Can't trust anyone that has signed on the dotted line.
Click to expand...

Viedocardz is fairly reliable. Forget his name, but he is pretty active on OCN and from what I've gathered talking with him there he is a pretty stand-up guy.
 
lBrvn6d.gif


Take with this much salt.
 
Interesting that lower quality YUV 422 is slower than RGB.
 
Will these cards work in Win 7/8 at all?

"NVIDIA reference system includes: X299 Rampage VI Apex, Core i9-7900X 3.3 GHz, Corsair 16GB DDR4 (no frequency specified), Windows 10 (v1803), NVIDIA 411.38 drivers."

That CPU, what???

Nenu said:
Interesting that lower quality YUV 422 is slower than RGB.
Click to expand...

I believe we already knew this from 1080Ti + PG27UQ / X27. Something about the conversion taking a bit of gpu resources.
 
pcgeekesq said:
I expect all the Day-1 reviews to show exactly these levels of performance, and to skip little details like what settings are used for each card. I also wouldn't put it past NVidia to do a little driver magic to make sure the old cards look bad.

So, I'm just going to wait until we get a little [H]ard info on the new cards.
The truth will be out there, but not on Day-1.
Click to expand...

If you head over to Videocardz you will see the setting for all the games listed. Of course, it is still claimed to be from the NVidia reviewers guide, technically a leaked embargoed document under NDA, so take it for what its worth. But there is data to look at. Better to wait for many reviews, of course.
 
I can believe the Tomb Raider numbers for the 1080Ti. That is what I am getting on my rig when I ran it at 4k 4:4:4 mode on my TV. It was gorgeous but 42-43fps is low so I wouldn't want play the game at that resolution. I'd rather run it at 1440 HDR 4:4:4 and upscale it to 4K. To me it looked just as good on a 65" TV from 7-8 ft away.
 
Chris_B said:
Reviewers guide so absolutely best case cherry picked scenario.
Click to expand...

True but its 14 games that are relevant to most gamers so that is worth considering. It's not something obscure that nobody will ever use like AoTs.
 
If the numbers are real, then it's quite clear that the majority of gamers who are playing at 1080p or 1440p don't need this card in the least (500FPS or some such number?). I can only hope that the prices of the 10 series drop, because that's where the value will be. Ray tracing won't be seen meaningfully in games for a year or two, so that point is moot.

What we need is monitor tech to advance.
 
5150Joker said:
True but its 14 games that are relevant to most gamers so that is worth considering. It's not something obscure that nobody will ever use like AoTs.
Click to expand...

indeed but its not as if they just play the game and report frame-rate, in a lot of instances they find areas of the game that gives them the best fps then those numbers get slapped into a guide like its an overall average for that game as a whole.

Which is why i prefer to wait for actual reviews as opposed to marketing guff.
 
Prisoner849 said:
If the numbers are real, then it's quite clear that the majority of gamers who are playing at 1080p or 1440p don't need this card in the least (500FPS or some such number?). I can only hope that the prices of the 10 series drop, because that's where the value will be. Ray tracing won't be seen meaningfully in games for a year or two, so that point is moot.

What we need is monitor tech to advance.
Click to expand...

The 2080 at 1440p is perfectly justifiable.

What we NEED is fast ray tracing at 1440p.
 
So I can buy a new $1200 GPU that is exactly double the price my $600 GPU cost more than 2 years ago and it's not quite 2x the performance. Wow. Amazing.

Usually things move FORWARD in a new generation.
 
I'm still on the fence for an upgrade. Kyle, please, please do a 2080 SLI/NVLink review. Most of the games you had in the generational performance articles support it. That's probably what my budget will allow. BTW Shadow of Tomb Raider supports SLI in DX12 day 1(pre-release even). My 1080's were averaging around 25% usage at 4k/HDR and mostly 60 fps with AA off v-sync on but everything else manually set to max. Turned off lens flares and motion blur though.

If these are numbers are accurate then here's what I have to compare. Both my Strix 1080TI and G1 2x1080's are OC'd on air using some great tips from Kyle. The 1080TI stays around 50-55c at 2012MHZ/11.67MHZ and the 1080's at 60-70c and 2038MHZ/10.6MHZ.

At those specs:
OC'd 1080TI= FE 2080
OC'd SLI 1080's= FE 2080TI

If these RTX scale similarily then 2 2080's OC'd would be really impressive for even the most demanding 4k games. My only worry is vram then.
 
Prisoner849 said:
What we need is monitor tech to advance.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I am getting a new monitor till the end of the year and if a good fast 32" 4K model is not to be found I will get a 1440p as a stopgap solution and be done with it. For sure my 1080Ti will suffice this way. Don't know really. I am just saving money on the side so no harm waiting it out.
 
Advil said:
The 2080 at 1440p is perfectly justifiable.

What we NEED is fast ray tracing at 1440p.
Click to expand...

Are these cards not performing good for what they're built for? I have a 1440p monitor. If it can't handle RT at 1440p, then what's the point?
 
Nenu said:
Interesting that lower quality YUV 422 is slower than RGB.
Click to expand...

Over the years I've seen similar things going back to my 970's with 1080p T.V.'s. It's almost as if the cards are having to crunch some numbers to downgrade to 4:2:2 or 4:2:0. Always happy when I get a panel and it supports RGB. 4:4:4 is usually the safe performance bet but occasionally I've seen some strange scaling or crash issues, rare but happens more than RGB. When testing RE7/HDR on my HiSense HDR/4k it would constantly go black if I didn't have it set to anything but RGB. I could alt-tab and go back to fix but annoying.
 
Krenum said:
Are these cards not performing good for what they're built for? I have a 1440p monitor. If it can't handle RT at 1440p, then what's the point?
Click to expand...

Ironically that's what NV bragged about but it's looking kind of scary performance wise. Minesweep with RT anyone?

DLSS and a real performance increase is all I'm looking forward to. RT is looking like a pipe dream for awhile further unless the credible reviews say differently.
 
...so 4k will still pretty much suck, as these mean there will still be lots of drops of below 60fps. With the crack pipe pricing I can't see too many adopting...maybe they'll push 1440p at 200+ fps easily though, so who knows.
 
DF-1 said:
So I can buy a new $1200 GPU that is exactly double the price my $600 GPU cost more than 2 years ago and it's not quite 2x the performance. Wow. Amazing.

Usually things move FORWARD in a new generation.
Click to expand...

45% faster + ray tracing/dlss I think qualifies as forward enough. The price could be lower and I suspect after Pascal inventory has depleted we'll see it drop. BTW AMD was recently asked about Turing and they completely deflected the question because they have absolutely nothing in the channel to compete in the high end. Instead they said their focus is in the data center market since that is where they will derive profits which essentially tells me they've given up on the consumer market with the exception of mid/low tier cards.
 
I wasn't trying to imply whether it will or wont, just stating what I'd like to see it do. Of course, we will have to wait for some benchmarks and games that use RT to really get a good 1440p picture. There's nothing so far but a bunch of 4k hype. I've really got no desire to run a 4k screen for gaming at this time.
 
Chris_B said:
Reviewers guide so absolutely best case cherry picked scenario.
Click to expand...

I'm sure glade I'm not cynical about this sort of thing. I wonder what anyone has to gain from lying about the amount of FPS? I don't get it.

Also, you have to take into consideration, overclocking and driver improvements along with game updates.

That's also gotta be worth 5 - 10 fps?

Not to sound like anyone's dad or that I'm trying to give some type of moral lesson but, I personally try not to be so sour or distrustful in general. That shit will eat you up.

Also, where are the red flags? I haven't seen any. Normally, the world wide community is excellent at leaving no stone un-turned. Something would have popped up by now.

9900K performance numbers were released today. I didn't see anyone questioning those. I'm seeing selective sourness and distrust when it comes to the 2080 ti.
 
Last edited:
Chris_B said:
indeed but its not as if they just play the game and report frame-rate, in a lot of instances they find areas of the game that gives them the best fps then those numbers get slapped into a guide like its an overall average for that game as a whole.

Which is why i prefer to wait for actual reviews as opposed to marketing guff.
Click to expand...

They have no reason to lie about the average FPS because it is reproducible and reviewers will also be testing the same games. What you see is what you will get, the only data missing is FCAT data/1% frametimes which will be covered by reviewers though I suspect it will be far better than Pascals numbers. I'm more interested in 1440p performance since I have zero interest in 4K right now and probably won't until a few more years when high refresh 4K panels are available at reasonable prices.
 
Well, since these cards are designed for 4K monitors I won't have to go out an buy one. :)

I've got 2 lowly 24 inch 1920x1200 Dell monitors and am pretty happy with them (and a Ryzen 1600x, curtsy of a [H]ardOCP drawing!). Since I've been building/programming computers since the '70s, I'm not as [H]ard as I use to be. I'll can wait till the prices come down a bit (a lot actually!).
 
SixFootDuo said:
I'm sure glade I'm not cynical about this sort of thing. I wonder what anyone has to gain from lying after the amount of FPS? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a whole lot of anti-Nvidia butthurt that this forum's become a bit of a lightning rod for, and it's rooted in something other than the merits of these new cards; therefore hard to take seriously.

People that are hoping these "cherry picked results" are going to be drastically or even measurably different than benches in so-called "trusted reviews" are going to be disappointed.
 
DPI said:
There seems to be a whole lot of anti-Nvidia butthurt that this forum's become a bit of a lightning rod for, and it's rooted in something other than the merits of these new cards; therefore hard to take seriously.

People that are hoping these "cherry picked results" are going to be drastically or even measurably different than benches in so-called "trusted reviews" are going to be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Careful you might get banned.
 
polonyc2 said:
the 2000 series will no doubt be great cards but I still think the best deal in all this is the 1080Ti (unless you're running 4K)...ray-tracing means nothing in this early stage...
Click to expand...

I agree. Should have called it the RTX Beta 2080. People are paying large amounts of money basically beta test the card for future releases.
 
Krenum said:
I agree. Should have called it the RTX Beta 2080. People are paying large amounts of money basically beta test the card for future releases.
Click to expand...

yup...it's going to take another 1-2 generations before developers use it in force and it gets all the kinks ironed out...playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider or Metro Exodus will be totally fine without ray-tracing...it's only noticable if you go looking for it and even then it looks a bit fake and exaggerated (in Battlefield 5's case)...ray-tracing is the future but the present is still rasterization
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top