Just wanted to point out that the GPU Memory Restriction setting seems to be doing something with my 2080 Ti. In single player it is keeping VRAM usage to right around 10GB, but when I turn it off it is using all 11GB constantly. I cannot tell what, if any, settings the game is altering to keep VRAM usage in check, but I'll be damned if I can tell any difference at 4K with DXR Ultra. I just got the game to test if anything funky is going on with the PG278Q, so I have yet to spend a whole lot of time with it (including diving into multiplayer).
Man, the graph at the bottom of page 6...
Even 2070 can't hit 60FPS with low DXR @ 1080p.. Forget the 2060.
Makes you wonder why anyone would pay $350 for a hobbled card that is memory bottle-necked almost always.
As always, fantastic testing and insight from [H].
Thanks for sharing. Can you tell us more?I know everyone here Loves these multiplayer games with huge maps, sadly I am not one of them. Never have been, never will be. Closest I come to multiplayer is DDO and EVEOnline. that is it, I do not bother with anything else. Quite frankly, I dont even know what all the joy is about them? PUBG, BF V, FN. give me a good single player game and awesome eye candy. Be nice if someone would do a write up on that instead of all these MMOFPS versions of a game.
I can only imagine how the RTX 2060 struggles with ray tracing when my newly acquired RTX 2080 8GB Founders Edition renders a mere 25FPS @ 1440P in the 3DMark Port Royal benchmark. The system I'm running this on is a Threadripper 1950X overclocked to 4.0GHz on all cores, 64GB DDR4 @ 3000MHz, Gigabyte X399 Aorus Gaming 7, and a Corsair H100i v2 liquid cooler with Noctua 2000 RPM industrial fans. This system is no slouch, though I'm sure others have better machines. So far I'm unimpressed by the RTX 2080 8GB, and I'm coming from an EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 11GB. If anything, this feels like a downgrade. This is by no means my only system, and I don't game much. Unless someone can tell me if there is any application that can take advantage of those Tensor cores, or if I can access the RT cores for rendering without having to fork over a lot of money for a Quadro RTX card, this thing will be returned and I'm popping my GTX 1080 Ti back into this machine.
For those of you who didn't get to experience the full awesomeness that the NVIDIA RTX technology is, and the wonders that it can do for gaming today, in its current implementation, I uploaded a short video of the 3DMark Port Royal benchmark that I ran. Enjoy!
The logical upgrade path from a 1080Ti, is a 2080Ti. There were plenty benchmarks showing that there is really no difference between the 1080Ti and the 2080, besides RT cores and less VRAM with the 2080. Plus TR is not a great gaming or benchmarking CPU unless you like playing CB15.
Next time do your research.
If only we had a good source for real gameplay.....The logical upgrade path from a 1080Ti, is a 2080Ti. There were plenty benchmarks showing that there is really no difference between the 1080Ti and the 2080, besides RT cores and less VRAM with the 2080. Plus TR is not a great gaming or benchmarking CPU unless you like playing CB15.
Next time do your research.
Yeah, well... you see... I'm not made of money. I paid $800 for the EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 11GB over a year ago. At that time a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB Founders Edition was $699 on GeForce.com. To follow your upgrade path logic I would have to pay $400 more this time around to get the Founders Edition RTX 2080 Ti, while and EVGA RTX 2080 Ti FTW3 now costs $1500 or more, depending on where you decide to buy it from. You might as well recommend the TITAN RTX, which by the way is the only RTX GPU that actually has a decent amount of VRAM, but it's way overpriced.
I did my research, and if you'd paid attention, I mentioned that this isn't my only machine. No worries, this POS RTX 2080 8GB FE doesn't benchmark any better when installed in a system with a 9900K overclocked to 5.0GHz either. The score is slightly higher, but that FPS is still garbage with RTX ON.
I did pay attention. You came into a 2060 thread, complaining that your TR based, "POS" 2080 can only do 25fps in PR, and that it feels like a downgrade from your 1080Ti.
Not to derail this thread any more than we have, but you say your not made of money, sounds to me like you are since you paid $800 for RT instead of more performance.
Especially if you wanted more performance then your 1080Ti, the 2080Ti is a no brainer. I think if I was paying $800 for an upgrade, I would of done my research a lot better than you have.
You have no one to blame but yourself.
Tag Brent_Justice is you want more explanation, that he will surely be more than happy to give you. Full transparency is our game."Above are the exact in-game settings used to test here today."
Was the wrong screen shown on these? I did not see the settings which I assume is in the advanced tab.
I was curious to see what settings were needed for 1080p low dxr to beat 720p ultra dxr and almost match 1080p dx12 max settings.
The GTX 1060 is clearly a lost cause, but I imagine the 8 GB cards would do well with something like high dxr on medium settings at 1080p and perhaps low dxr on medium settings with 1440p.
Seeing as my 2080 Ti is borderline playable with DXR (1080p UW), it's no surprise the 2060 is a no-go.
I'd like to see what other developers do, maybe BFV is not the best game for this technology.
Would like to see some games using Vulkan based Ray Tracing. It seems to have a lot more performance than the Dx12 version. Enlisted was the only game that Nvidia demonstrated that was using Ray Tracing at 4K. And it used Vulkan.
As for the review of the 2060 here, great review as usual, but, I wonder was there anyone out there expecting anything different with regards to Ray Tracing? Like you say the 2080Ti is just good enough what hope has the 2060?
The should have stuck with an 8Gb x60 card without any Ray Tracing.
Absolutely, yes, more games to test. There are none, four months later.I think we should all see how RTX cards perform on other games when they are released with ray tracing. Basing opinions of a whole product range on one game could be unrealistic.
The Bottom Line really does sum up RTX 2060 and even RTX 2070. What is the point of buying a card for a feature that it can't even make usable.
Nvidia really should have found a better game to show off RTX, like a story driven adventure game where things could be slower paced and where you would stop to take in the scenes.
A fast paced shooter seems pointless for this feature.
Looking forward to the full review of this MSI card.
As for DLSS, technique for rendering at lower resolutions then up-scaling is nothing new in purpose for performance increase - the real question does it give better IQ or results from the methods already available now?
Nice Review! Totally agree. Been saying it since the day they announced it that for 350 and 6GB of ram its a tragedy. Then I had people troll me about it how it won't matter for this card. I guess only Nvidia can sell a card for 350 and 6GB of ram. If it was AMD internet would be in fire lol.
Same issue with 2070 and 2080 that only have 8GB. To be honest even 2080ti should have had more than 11GB as that isn't enough for 4K with high DXR. It is highly disappointing that there were no VRAM increase over previous generation especially given how these new technologies need so much of it. I bet it would have been better off with more VRAM using GDDR5X than less using GDDR6. Bandwidth increase isn't that great and definitely won't help compensate for lack of physical memory.
Real Time Ray Tracing from NVidia is an attempt to mainstream it, nothing else. They've given the tools to programmers to make use of it but honestly, it'll be a generation or 2 before we see it pump the power required to run the games using it now. It's the Crytek of GPU offerings. To be honest it should have remained off of the current generation and have been implemented through an add-on card, like Ageia PhysX originally was, prior to implementing it onboard. The option would have been nice over being force-fed the steaming shitheap of performance which is RTX
Just a thought
Maybe NVIDIA should have released prototypes of the cards (along with drivers) in advance
Look at the Vulkan path tracing for Nvidia implemented by a post doc researcher for quake 2
If people like him had these cards/drivers in advance, then maybe, the games would have been ready by the time of official release of cards, maybe !?
Kudos to the team who built BF5 and attempted to implement ray tracing, but from what I've seen and read from the different devs building games using ray tracing it takes an aweful lot of trial and error to have it run.
The bandwidth increase over the last gen is rather significant, especially going GTX 1070 to 2070 where it is massive.
So now 8GB is not enough? I suppose you could have given the 2070 and 2080 cards 12 GB of ddr5x but they would likely perform worse in most games. And the only option for the 2080ti to have good bandwidth and capacity would have been HBM2.
Just take a look at the newest review for RE2 which is said to use up to 13.7GB, according to the game:
On the top end, the GTX 2080 matched the 1080ti at 4k with max settings.
View attachment 138276
The GTX 2060 is doing just fine at 1440p agains the GTX 1080. In fact, the bandwidth deficiency of the GTX 1070ti had a greater impact against the GTX 1080, even if you factor in the fewer CUDA cores.
View attachment 138277
A similar story an be seen at 1080p comparing 4, 6, and 8GB cards. 4GB is on the edge here as the FuryX suffers and all 4GB cards suffer at 1440p, though that is not their target. Remember too that all of these tests are done with Max settings.
*Snip hardware unboxed RE2 stuff
You are using a single game for comparison which doesn't appear to be particularly visually intensive either. Personally, it looks very dated but that isn't unusual for Capcom games (my opinion). Anyway, it does depend how a game engine is designed to stream its textures so depending on that and other settings will use VRAM differently (remember RAGE?). DX12 games also use more VRAM from what I've seen. Clearly this game isn't VRAM size limited but looks at various other reviews especially with ray tracing enabled and look at how much ram they demand. It is a lot! I also highly doubt that typical end user who is in the market for 2070 or higher is going to be running 1080p, likely not even 1440p. I'm not sure what point there is to argue that higher end cards especially in their price segment surely could have had more VRAM as 8GB is pretty old stuff and have been available for years and also many games easily push that.
I guess the point is that I have yet to see a game (other than BFV running dxR) that is crippled with 6 GB of vram, much less 8 GB.
The biggest issue with games lately has been the awful dx12 implementation. Both BFV and RE2 are getting huge performance and vram penalties with dx12. It seems that Hitman 2 didnt even bother with it as stated in another thread.