MSI GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING X TRIO Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,601
MSI GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING X TRIO Review

We review MSI GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING X TRIO in the latest 2018 games using all the RTX features capable at this time. We compare performance at 1440p and 4K with an overclocked GTX 1080 and RX Vega 64. DXR Reflection Ray Tracing in Battlefield V and Adaptive Shading RTX technology in Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus.

If you like our content, please support HardOCP on Patreon.
 
Thanks for another great review!

Nice performance gain over the 1080, but also a ridiculously large gain in price...and that dismal RT performance gives zero justification for the sheer cost of the thing, imo.
 
I like this colour scheme a lot more than the old red/black theme (or were those only the Radeon variants that had that scheme?)

But, yeah, hard to want to upgrade from my 1080 with that price bump.
 
on2wheels said:
Did you purposely not compare to a 1080ti because it's so similar to a 2080?
Click to expand...

They did do that in this article:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/10/22/rtx_2070_vs_2080_gtx_1080_ti_1070/

And the conclusion:
One thing is for sure, the value of the RTX 2080 has gone down after looking at the performance of a factory overclocked GTX 1080 Ti and what it offers you in comparison. For a price tag of $100-$150 cheaper, the factory overclocked GTX 1080 Ti offers the same performance, which makes it the better value at this time. The RTX 2080 is just priced outside the range of its performance levels to be honest.
Click to expand...
 
Disappointed with the gold award. The DXR performance is bad, and downright unplayable in Battlefield V. I paid $840 for a water cooled 1080 Ti last December, which was right as the mining craze was starting to really hurt gpu prices. I understand why the 1080 Ti wasn't included, but the 1080 and Vega 64 are an entirely different pricing class. I guess what I don't get is why it was awarded gold for features that may be useful in the future, but right now are a complete dud. It's entirely possible these features may never be playable, like Battlefield V today. Maybe because the 1080 ti is effectively not available to purchase anymore in most spaces (I looked at newegg, b&h, and amazon?)
 
arnemetis said:
Disappointed with the gold award. The DXR performance is bad, and downright unplayable in Battlefield V. I paid $840 for a water cooled 1080 Ti last December, which was right as the mining craze was starting to really hurt gpu prices. I understand why the 1080 Ti wasn't included, but the 1080 and Vega 64 are an entirely different pricing class. I guess what I don't get is why it was awarded gold for features that may be useful in the future, but right now are a complete dud. It's entirely possible these features may never be playable, like Battlefield V today. Maybe because the 1080 ti is effectively not available to purchase anymore in most spaces (I looked at newegg, b&h, and amazon?)
Click to expand...
Award is for the card built by MSI, not the GPU alone. That said, as we have stated many times, awards are fully subjective. You are not required to print it out, hang it on your wall, or to include it in posts about our review. Bottom line is no matter what product we give an award to, someone always disagrees, and quite frankly we do not care what you think about our award or lack thereof.
 
This review further shows how the 2080(ti) series is abysmal from a price/performance perspective.
 
It will be interesting to see how this goes with the new patch Dice has released for Ray Tracing. It looks like a descent performance increase on the 2080Ti. Will be looking forward to see your results.
 
After buying a 1080ti 1.5yrs ago, I'm still ok staying up. Not willing to spend $850 for these cards. Nvidia is drunk with power. Hopefully the Navi rumors are not wrong and AMD can start to compete a bit more in the midrange/higher end area. They may not take the crown, but if the best Navi can compete wtih the 1080 for $250 they will have a big winner.
 
Thanks for the review. This looks like a well build card, but the GPU just does not look compelling enough to make the investment. My current Gaming X 1080ti should give me pretty comparable performance (especially at 4k). I am thinking picking up my 1080ti on Ebay for $550 a couple of months ago was a good decision.
 
So a little more than 1080ti performance, with a bit less power draw for a much higher than 1080ti launch price. Mmm... monopolistic progress.
 
Teenyman45 said:
So a little more than 1080ti performance, with a bit less power draw for a much higher than 1080ti launch price. Mmm... monopolistic progress.
Click to expand...

In the [H] 2080 review (also posted above), it's essentially the same performance as a 1080Ti (in the realm of what many may consider margin of error differences), making the price tag even that much more ridiculous, imo.


Kwaz said:
TRIO?

X?

XXX?

I see what you did there MSI.
Click to expand...

It's a clear homage to what nVidia's new pricing does to their customers! :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
If they got this kind of gains, even with the cards volt locked, image what a 7nm fab is going to be able to achieve next generation when factoring in standard engineering bumps in the architecture. I know everyone is salivating at the AMD RUMORS recently running around, but let's not forget that Nvidia ISN'T Intel, and they won't be sitting idle when big brother vega 20 finally drops ~2020. Take into account the bump in graphics we're finally going to get from a new console generation, that will carry over to pc, and these are really exciting times to be a hardware enthusiast again after a bit of a lull for the last few years.

Pricing aside, I'm really impressed with the generational performance leap over the 1080. I went with a 2080ti for 4k and even compared to the 1080ti it replaced I can notice an improved experience in virtually every current game I play.

It's going to be interesting to revisit these gaming numbers again a year from now when dlss and other performance forward features are being utilized. The 2080 with a heavy oc could be a sleeping giant at 4k.
 
oldmanbal said:
If they got this kind of gains, even with the cards volt locked, image what a 7nm fab is going to be able to achieve next generation when factoring in standard engineering bumps in the architecture. I know everyone is salivating at the AMD RUMORS recently running around, but let's not forget that Nvidia ISN'T Intel, and they won't be sitting idle when big brother vega 20 finally drops ~2020. Take into account the bump in graphics we're finally going to get from a new console generation, that will carry over to pc, and these are really exciting times to be a hardware enthusiast again after a bit of a lull for the last few years.

Pricing aside, I'm really impressed with the generational performance leap over the 1080. I went with a 2080ti for 4k and even compared to the 1080ti it replaced I can notice an improved experience in virtually every current game I play.

It's going to be interesting to revisit these gaming numbers again a year from now when dlss and other performance forward features are being utilized. The 2080 with a heavy oc could be a sleeping giant at 4k.
Click to expand...
I won't disagree with this logic. However, my counterpoint would be.... When will that be??? And.... For how much Nvidia is charging I think people are just let down in general at the overall price/performance "gains". My comment on the anticipation of AMD and 7nm is based on my user scenario. I don't play AAA titles and mainly use my gpus for CSGO, DCS flight sim, and my son's computer is a Fortnite computer. So we don't need 2080ti's or ray tracing. I run a 1080ti mainly b/c I could afford it and wanted it, and for DCS it's better vs the 1070 I had. I think Nvidia just priced themselves out of "part" of their market with the 20x0 series GPU's.

I also wonder if AMD could ever get their "chiplet" design to work with multiple navi gpus w/out SLI/X fire issues and we could be dealing with a gamechanger for price/performance. Maybe just a pipe dream ;)
 
JNavy89GT said:
I won't disagree with this logic. However, my counterpoint would be.... When will that be??? And.... For how much Nvidia is charging I think people are just let down in general at the overall price/performance "gains". My comment on the anticipation of AMD and 7nm is based on my user scenario. I don't play AAA titles and mainly use my gpus for CSGO, DCS flight sim, and my son's computer is a Fortnite computer. So we don't need 2080ti's or ray tracing. I run a 1080ti mainly b/c I could afford it and wanted it, and for DCS it's better vs the 1070 I had. I think Nvidia just priced themselves out of "part" of their market with the 20x0 series GPU's.

I also wonder if AMD could ever get their "chiplet" design to work with multiple navi gpus w/out SLI/X fire issues and we could be dealing with a gamechanger for price/performance. Maybe just a pipe dream ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah the one thing I'm not on board with is the new pricing scheme. It's broken, and the market will play that out over the next year. There's just not enough people in the world to support $800+ graphics cards in perpetuity, and that sweet spot of around $300 is a gaping black hole right now. Again, with Nvidia conflating their 'gamer' market with overpriced retail cards being sold to crypto miners, they have essentially priced out their largest audience. If their core audience (gamers) could pick up a 2070 for $379, all of these pascal overstock woes would be an afterthought.
 
oldmanbal said:
Pricing aside, I'm really impressed with the generational performance leap over the 1080.
Click to expand...
This doesn't make any sense. You might as well be even more impressed by the performance leap this has over 1050.
 
oldmanbal said:
Pricing aside, I'm really impressed with the generational performance leap over the 1080. I went with a 2080ti for 4k and even compared to the 1080ti it replaced I can notice an improved experience in virtually every current game I play.
Click to expand...

oldmanbal said:
Yeah the one thing I'm not on board with is the new pricing scheme. It's broken, and the market will play that out over the next year. There's just not enough people in the world to support $800+ graphics cards in perpetuity, and that sweet spot of around $300 is a gaping black hole right now. Again, with Nvidia conflating their 'gamer' market with overpriced retail cards being sold to crypto miners, they have essentially priced out their largest audience. If their core audience (gamers) could pick up a 2070 for $379, all of these pascal overstock woes would be an afterthought.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. I'm not willing to put pricing aside, open my wallet, and buy a new card that I think is $400 overpriced in terms of price/performance. To put it in perspective, the 1070 was released at $379 and gave you 980Ti performance. Now to get 1080Ti performance with the new gen you have to spend $700-850 depending on the card you buy. Quite honestly, that's unacceptable to me, and they aren't going to get my money until the pricing corrects itself.

This isn't just an Nvidia thing either. I thought Vega was way overpriced at launch. Now at $399 for a Vega 64? That's a decent price compared to performance.
 
kirbyrj said:
That's the thing. I'm not willing to put pricing aside, open my wallet, and buy a new card that I think is $400 overpriced in terms of price/performance. To put it in perspective, the 1070 was released at $379 and gave you 980Ti performance. Now to get 1080Ti performance with the new gen you have to spend $700-850 depending on the card you buy. Quite honestly, that's unacceptable to me, and they aren't going to get my money until the pricing corrects itself.

This isn't just an Nvidia thing either. I thought Vega was way overpriced at launch. Now at $399 for a Vega 64? That's a decent price compared to performance.
Click to expand...


Well put. Given these serious cost increases, I think it's hard for many consumers to just set price aside, only to settle for a lower tier part for the last gen flagship performance and price tag.
 
Interesting the fps was so low for BFV ray tracing and on multiplayer too (for me multiplayer runs faster).

I run 2.5x the pixels but a 2080ti. I wonder if part of my success holding 60fps at 3440x1440 is I bios and shunt modded my card.

Awesome [H] tested multiplayer with actual gameplay. Most sites stare at a puddle in single player which is nonsense.

Very interested in the BFV review with the new patch!
 
Ranger101 said:
Cueing the inevitable whining about RTX cards was a foregone conclusion before I read this article. Perhaps you guys should add a dedicated tab for it to the HardOCP homepage?
This was a good review as usual but for a more realistic perspective on Battlefield V raytracing I suggest the following:
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/d...-performance-patch-released-(benchmarks).html
Click to expand...

Guru3D said:
Overall what NVIDIA and DICE have achieved here is interesting at the very least. They have lifted DXR performance into more acceptable metrics.
Click to expand...

You can call it whining, but when the signature feature that you have to shell out somewhere in the $300+ range for has merely "acceptable metrics" people are going to complain. I can forget that RTX will give me shiny puddles with an extra $300 in my pocket.
 
katanaD said:
i have the RTX 2070 from MSI you reviewed, and have to agree. MSI has done a superb job with these cards. MY 2070 can run 100% usage.. cool and quiet.

and whats funny.. the card it replaced was from MSI as well. didnt realize it till i took it out to put the 2070 in.
Click to expand...
Congrats on your purchase, I don't think you will regret buying into the RTX series. If I'm not mistaken you should be good for nearly 60fps @ 2K DXR low in BFV if you decide to try it. Happy hunting.
 
kirbyrj said:
You can call it whining, but when the signature feature that you have to shell out somewhere in the $300+ range for has merely "acceptable metrics" people are going to complain. I can forget that RTX will give me shiny puddles with an extra $300 in my pocket.
Click to expand...
Two things:
1. Complaints about RTX pricing are to some extent merited, the rest (e.g." 60fps with 2080 TI raytracing at 1080p is a joke/ray tracing is just a gimmick/who wants to cut their frame rate in half" etc etc and all that crap)....yawn...IS.....WHINING.
2. I'm sure you are aware of this, but there is a lot more to ray tracing than "shiny puddles."
 
Dayaks said:
Interesting the fps was so low for BFV ray tracing and on multiplayer too (for me multiplayer runs faster).

I run 2.5x the pixels but a 2080ti. I wonder if part of my success holding 60fps at 3440x1440 is I bios and shunt modded my card.

Awesome [H] tested multiplayer with actual gameplay. Most sites stare at a puddle in single player which is nonsense.

Very interested in the BFV review with the new patch!
Click to expand...
I hope it's not taboo or anything to mention his name here , but Jayz echoes your experiences regarding multiplayer running faster. I actually found his single player puddle staring observations quite interesting ☺
 
arnemetis said:
Disappointed with the gold award. The DXR performance is bad, and downright unplayable in Battlefield V. I paid $840 for a water cooled 1080 Ti last December, which was right as the mining craze was starting to really hurt gpu prices. I understand why the 1080 Ti wasn't included, but the 1080 and Vega 64 are an entirely different pricing class. I guess what I don't get is why it was awarded gold for features that may be useful in the future, but right now are a complete dud. It's entirely possible these features may never be playable, like Battlefield V today. Maybe because the 1080 ti is effectively not available to purchase anymore in most spaces (I looked at newegg, b&h, and amazon?)
Click to expand...
Yawn....
 
Ranger101 said:
For it's worth, I meant the endless whining in the discussions of your recent RTX articles by forum members and not by you or your staff. While I'm not in complete agreement with your initial BFV analysis I found this review to be unbiased and refreshingly complementary regarding the RTX 2080.
Click to expand...
We are going to do GPU-specific articles for BF5 multiplayer now that the patch is out. We have learned that spending weeks on research on the first drop is usually rendered meaningless quickly.
 
Ranger101 said:
Two things:
1. Complaints about RTX pricing are to some extent merited, the rest (e.g." 60fps with 2080 TI raytracing at 1080p is a joke/ray tracing is just a gimmick/who wants to cut their frame rate in half" etc etc and all that crap)....yawn...IS.....WHINING.
2. I'm sure you are aware of this, but there is a lot more to ray tracing than "shiny puddles."
Click to expand...

I understand and I'm being facetious.

I think a bigger point and probably what I'm driving at is the question does a non-RTX world at very playable framerates equate to a more immersive experience than a "prettier" RTX one at somewhat lower and marginally playable framerates depending on your setup and expectations? And the followup...Is it worth $300-400 over existing cards?

Everyone gets that it is new technology and there are going to be some hits and misses with performance. Not everyone thinks being a beta tester is worth $300-400.
 
Review hit some big Key Points: DX 11 vs DX12, Evolving DXR performance which is also linked to DX12 API, actual testing of Adaptive shading (new tech and working/looking good) all under how one would experience it. Just very refreshing seeing Brent at work here.

I thought the performance stood out exceptionally well and looks like MSI did the 2080 right. It does look like the actual performance of the RTX series is increasing from AIB designs, Drivers and game developers. So still a work in progress. MSI is definitely gaining more and more of my consideration for future purchases.

My only critique was Vega DX 11 vs DX 12 performance? Was Vega hampered in Battlefield V and/or Shadow Of The Tomb Raider? If so by how much but I doubt that would really affect the 2080 review which was superb overall.
 
kirbyrj said:
I understand and I'm being facetious.

I think a bigger point and probably what I'm driving at is the question does a non-RTX world at very playable framerates equate to a more immersive experience than a "prettier" RTX one at somewhat lower and marginally playable framerates depending on your setup and expectations? And the followup...Is it worth $300-400 over existing cards?

Everyone gets that it is new technology and there are going to be some hits and misses with performance. Not everyone thinks being a beta tester is worth $300-400.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. For some people lower and less consistent frame rates are not going to be worth an arguably marginal increase in eye candy. It's possible I may even reach the same conclusion myself at some point but as an RTX owner, at least I will have been able to judge with my own eyes and I can always just disable DXR....best of both worlds.
I think that saying it costs an extra $300-400 to buy into RTX over existing cards is a little excessive unless I misunderstood your point. There is also the untapped potential of DLSS, variable rate shading, to at least consider going forward.
BTW your system spec seems extremely well balanced....RESPECT for not being seduced by the dark side and sticking to the Red pill ☺
 
Nice to see BFV in the mix as thats gonna be my defacto standard for FPS measurerment going forward. *Whew* I think that pricetag just gave me an ulcer though. I was looking through my old posts and it looks like I went 980 in 2015 for $400, 1080 in 2017 for $550(Just before the mining thing). It seems like the gtx1080 was around 40-50% faster overall. I mean...even with inflation $850 for 20-30% gain. Though its worth noting these aren't stock which I'm already seeing sales in $700 range for zotac etc.. I bow to the exclusive crowd. I got plenty of disposable income, but I can't justify that. I don't see there being enough demand for this. I bet anything these prices crash down to the nominal $500 range sooner rather than later.
 
Last edited:
Ranger101 said:
That's a good point. For some people lower and less consistent frame rates are not going to be worth an arguably marginal increase in eye candy. It's possible I may even reach the same conclusion myself at some point but as an RTX owner, at least I will have been able to judge with my own eyes and I can always just disable DXR....best of both worlds.
I think that saying it costs an extra $300-400 to buy into RTX over existing cards is a little excessive unless I misunderstood your point. There is also the untapped potential of DLSS, variable rate shading, to at least consider going forward.
BTW your system spec seems extremely well balanced....RESPECT for not being seduced by the dark side and sticking to the Red pill ☺
Click to expand...

I had a freesync monitor and at $400 for a Vega 64, I figure I would try VRR for once ;).
 
I mean it was obvious that the 2080 was gonna beat out the 1080. It would have been useful to include a comparison to the 1080 Ti to see just how closely the two video cards compare. But thanks for the review and the work you put into it, always good to see the data measured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top