XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,566
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
RTX support coming to GTX 10 series cards.
- Thread starter Krenum
- Start date
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
DirectX FL12_1 (FULL support, not partial) is required for DXR by Microsoft:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/api/d3d12/ne-d3d12-d3d12_raytracing_tier
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,002
The 980Ti (2nd Gen Maxwell) is a FL12_1 part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D#Direct3D_12
https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-980-ti/specifications
Why wouldn't it work?
It's actually brilliant. The performance will be mediocre at best with no tensor cores however it will allow people to see RTX and what it actually does for possibly the first time. Could be enough of a gimmick to get people to upgrade for better RTX performance. I have a 1070 but no, I don't really care
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,002
I don't see Maxwell Gen2 having any extra red on there compared to Pascal, do you? Perhaps you could clarify.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
There is a few places where Maxwell has lower tier support than Turing...and Pascal....eg Conservative rasterization Tier 1 vs Tier 2 (Pascal) and Tier 3 (Turing)
It doesn't need to be red to be different
My guess is that the intern architechture is not well suited for Raytracing...the CUDA cores per SM, cache etc.
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,002
With respect to your guesses, I'm not sure that you actually have an answer to my question. Do you know if the slight difference in conservative rasterization support between Pascal and Maxwell Gen2 is actually what limits Raytracing support? Do you know if this is what constitutes the barrier between full and partial FL12_1 support? I'm not claiming that you are wrong, but there is a difference between knowing what you are talking about and wild speculation, and I'm not looking for the latter.
cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,789
It could just be a business decision and nothing technical.
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,566
Probably the same set of reasons that made Freesync incompatible with 9x0 series: new GPU's are more power efficient and they are green company and want you to upgrade older cards to never more environment friendly models
All these features like Freesync support and RTX@GTX are to grab even more market share from AMD.
With Freesync support they took large pro argument for getting AMD card and with software based DXR they repeat PhysX move along with promoting use DXR instead of custom solutions => good for NV which is only company that have product on the market hardware DXR support and it is in their best interest to make it as much used as possible.
On the other note: in other people compared RTX with PhysX which made no sense at that time because RTX was hardware feature.
Now with software RTX this is finally becoming very much like PhysX
At least until AMD get its sh*t together and make their own DXR implementation to their cards, hardware for new cards and software for old cards.
JMCB
Gawd
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 651
What are your other settings? I don't see this kind of performance on my 2080 Ti.
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
Everything is set to "high" , "ultra" on effects. I also have DLSS on, its ok I guess, kind of blurry but its supposed to add extra performance, which I'm on the fence about.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Nvidia could give a rats about AMD's marketshare. They need to expand the market size to really grow; AMD graphics exist because Nvidia chooses not to drive them out of business.
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,566
Obviously with Intel soon entering discrete GPU market Nvidia have less incentive to hold back now.
It is good time for Nvidia to make their sub 300$ products as interesting as they possibly can and get as many people get them as they can. Every current Nvidia user is more likely to stick with Nvidia later on even if Intel have good products.
Or whatever... this is money and more money the merrier
Market size expanding is a tiny bit harder than taking candy from AMD...
...basically anything is harder than taking market share from AMD GPU division because they keep the same GPU architecture for past 7 years and their next architecture will be surprise surprise: also GCN
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
What does this have to do with anything?
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,566
It might be the last chance NV have to grab as many clients for their products and as we all know people are most likely to stick to one brand so each client gained is potential future client.
There was no time in GPU history when Nvidia had technological advantage as huge as right now.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Introduction of the Geforce? The 8800-series?
Honestly they just have to keep delivering, and AMD will screw up at their regularly scheduled interval, if history goes to serve.
[I'd prefer AMD to take a decisive lead every once in a while, but that hasn't happened since their graphics division was named ATI...]
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Yeah beside the R9 290X was not only faster
it was better then what Nvidia offered and before you start again about it being loud and hot , the custom cooler versions were available and quite good.I have one still using one today. Running Anthem HDR at 1440p (mix medium low settings) and still works very well with my freesync 2 monitor
When there is hardly any budget for the gpu side of things at AMD that set them back and over all the years when AMD had something better people just bought Nvidia.
Auer
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2018
- Messages
- 1,972
Yeah beside the R9 290X was not only faster
I have one still using one today. Running Anthem HDR at 1440p (mix medium low settings) and still works very well with my freesync 2 monitor
When there is hardly any budget for the gpu side of things at AMD that set them back and over all the years when AMD had something better people just bought Nvidia.
I really really wish AMD would have a better GPU market share. But you really can't blame consumers for AMD's lack of that.
I had a RX 580. Because at one point it was as good as anything Nv had in that bracket and priced well.
And I would have bought AMD again.Even thought of buying something used to get me to Navi's launch. Vega 56/64. Oh well.
Hoping for a better future for AMD. And my next workstation will be a Ryzen based build. GPU will be whatever is the best bang for the buck atm.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
Yeah beside the R9 290X was not only faster
I have one still using one today. Running Anthem HDR at 1440p (mix medium low settings) and still works very well with my freesync 2 monitor
When there is hardly any budget for the gpu side of things at AMD that set them back and over all the years when AMD had something better people just bought Nvidia.
Your memory seems foggy:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/10/23/amd_radeon_r9_290x_video_card_review/16
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/07/nvidia_geforce_gtx_780_ti_video_card_review/8
Might be a good idea to start fact checking you for every post....not the first time I see you bend facts...
Yeah, it would be great if AMD had a bit more of the market as that would help to drive genuine competition, which benefits the consumer. I don't blame consumers for AMD not being able to convince them that AMD is their best option - it's a combination of AMD's products not being up to scratch in some cases, and AMD's marketing not being compelling enough in others. AMD actually offers good alternatives to Nvidia (except at the high end, generally) but consumers still go with Nvidia because Nvidia have done a much better job than AMD of persuading them that they are the best option.
Like you, I hope that AMD can compete (and that Intel can, too) with Nvidia for GPU market share. I'll continue to buy whichever product suits my needs best, be it AMD or Nvidia, but first and foremost AMD need to produce the goods. They've done in with CPUs, but they've got a way to go before they do it with GPUs (for me, at any rate).
cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,789
AMD has been mostly playing catch-up to Nvidia, but some of their products are genuinely good.
For example, the Radeon VII is actually a pretty solid card and competes head-to-head with the RTX 2080 (or 1080 Ti). However, just matching Nvidia's price and performance is not enough to get people to switch.
FreeSync was just about their last marketing advantage, but Nvidia has mostly squashed that now with their support of FreeSync (very smart move too).
Maybe with Intel in the picture the landscape may change. I do have some doubts, but you have to remember that the vast majority of GPUs in use are technically made by Intel (integrated) so they do know a thing or two.
Not sure if Navi will be all we hope, maybe it will be. If priced correctly, and if the hardware is good, it can make a difference. See how quickly Ryzen jumped to the top. People will buy AMD if they deliver the goods.
For example, the Radeon VII is actually a pretty solid card and competes head-to-head with the RTX 2080 (or 1080 Ti). However, just matching Nvidia's price and performance is not enough to get people to switch.
FreeSync was just about their last marketing advantage, but Nvidia has mostly squashed that now with their support of FreeSync (very smart move too).
Maybe with Intel in the picture the landscape may change. I do have some doubts, but you have to remember that the vast majority of GPUs in use are technically made by Intel (integrated) so they do know a thing or two.
Not sure if Navi will be all we hope, maybe it will be. If priced correctly, and if the hardware is good, it can make a difference. See how quickly Ryzen jumped to the top. People will buy AMD if they deliver the goods.
Gideon
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,548
Maybe you should read the review as the 290X was a great card for the money at the time. Not only that but it forced Nvidia to release the 780ti and lower their prices, which seems like a win and what you want.
It is amazing how powerful the R9 290X is at Ultra HD 4K gaming resolutions when compared to the GeForce GTX TITAN. This is where the R9 290X truly shines. In the case of 4K gaming, the Radeon R9 290X is definitely a "TITAN killer."
If it weren't for the $549 price point that AMD has set, many would call this card disappointing. But AMD did the right thing and priced this card incredibly competitive. The GeForce GTX TITAN still has an MSRP of $999, and the GeForce GTX 780 is at $649 MSRP. The Radeon R9 290X at $549 is delivering TITAN performance at a savings of $450 compared to the TITAN price. The Radeon R9 290X is delivering performance better than the GeForce GTX 780 at a price savings of $100. The bang for the buck value is what makes the R9 290X a big winner.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
I wish they had the products to drive their marketshare. There is so much to like about their GPUs, but they're graphics division has always been a half-step or more behind since they aquired it (ATI).
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 9,773
Where they messed up with that card was using a blower. They tarnished the card forever... even after competent aib coolers came out the damage was done.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
By the time competent versions were released, it was superceded. And this is as close as AMD has gotten.
Gideon
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,548
Best part is you took the stupid blower fan off and water cooled it and that card excelled even more. But yeah that card ate power and needed cooling, but the bigger problem for it was that Bitcoin mining craze ate the supply and price went sky high. Great card and I loved mine and is still the most I ever spent on a video card. The Radeon VII is a good step in the right direction, still needs to come down in price a bit and then things get interesting.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,892
My guess is this will run like poop on anything below a 1080 Ti.
Yes, People forget this. The 290/x cards didn't fail because of the cooler or the performance. They failed because gamers couldn't get one. AMD weren't ready for that BITCOIN surge, to be fair nobody was. It came out of the blue. It was the worst thing to happen to AMD at a time where they were heading in the right direction. Gamers bought Nvidia cards because there was nothing else available. AMD then started over producing cards to try and meet demand, the bubble burst and AMD were left with a huge stock pile of cards. And that wasn't the only bad news, Nvidia were soon to be releasing the Maxwell cards, the 970/980. And that's when AMD's market share took a noise dive. They still haven't recovered from that.
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,566
DXR runs like poop on RTX cards. On GTX cards, also including 1080Ti, it will run like constipation