M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,031
Wouldn't 4X Performance have to mean 4X the FPS ? I mean 4x performance that does not impact fps, wth does that mean?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
NVIDIA Ampere to offer 10-20% IPC increase over Turing, 4x RT performance with minimal FPS impact, up to 2 GHz OC clocks, and an overhauled software
- Thread starter erek
- Start date
Wouldn't 4X Performance have to mean 4X the FPS ? I mean 4x performance that does not impact fps, wth does that mean?
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,031
But since the bottleneck with RT games is RT performance 4x RT performance would have to mean 4x FPS in RT enabled games, no? Or at least the FPS the game has without RT.
It's not rocket science it is stupid wording. I assume what they mean is due to the 4x RT performance enabling RT in games has minimal FPS impact. But in this context it doesn't read like that.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,031
Be careful, you might fall off your imaginary high horse.
Not necessarily since the bottleneck with RT might only be slight. So let's say you have a game that runs at 80fps with everything turned on including whatever ray tracing it does, and the RT is the limiting factor. However if you turn off RT, it then only runs at 90fps because now the limit is the fill rate on the ROPs. In a case like that, getting 4x the RT performance wouldn't increase the framerate 4x, since you'd run in to the fill rate limit again. You'd also need to increase that nearly 4x to get a 4x improvement, and that's assuming you didn't hit another roadblock.
Now on the other side you could have a game that runs at like 30fps with RT on and 120fps with RT off. In that case, having 4x the RT performance might just bring performance with RT up to 120fps, though there might be other issues that keep it a little lower.
It will all depend. Some games are hard limited by one factor and that is really the only limit and removing it would lead to much faster performance. However many are not like that. While there's always a single bottleneck, in well designed games often the other things are not far behind. You make as much use of everything as you can.
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
Thats simply not true. In a monopoly the market pays what the manufacturer wants (within reason). That’s why competition is so important. I desperately want AMD and Intel to come out with competing products so that consumers have choice and aren’t constantly at NVs mercy.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
Like AMD/Intel would act differently lol
AMD is not your friend(nor is Intel)...the first company to charge +$1000 for a CPU.
If ANY company can earn money, they will...hillarious how some people think a company has their best "interest" in mind.
They care about stockholders...and they are a business, not a charity.
I don't think that's what he said. What he said was that if AMD comes out with a competing product, they aren't at nVidia's mercy and he's right. If AMD has a card that trades blows with nVidia's then nVidia has a reason to keep their price down, lest they want to lose customers to AMD.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
Ah...we are back to "Wait for...".
Excuse me while I fall asle...zzzzZZZZzzzz...
...are you high?
Nebell
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 2,382
Eh, if 3080Ti only is 20% faster than 2080Ti, then I'm gonna sell my desktop pc, get a cheap laptop for photo editing and PS5 and wait on better times.
But Nvidia would do this only if AMD has nothing coming up.
I don't think they would wait, get comfortable and then fail like Intel.
AMD while not being competitive have still been in the game in GPU.
But Nvidia would do this only if AMD has nothing coming up.
I don't think they would wait, get comfortable and then fail like Intel.
AMD while not being competitive have still been in the game in GPU.
Thunderdolt
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,015
Let's take a situation where 80% of the time spent computing a frame is due to the shaders and 20% is due to the RT cores crunching.
If you quadruple the RT performance, then RT cores would be down to 5%, which is a total frame time reduction of 15%. That means that the same frame now takes only 85% of the time to compute as the original, which is a 17% boost to frame rate.
In a frame where the time split is 50/50, the quadrupling would result in a 60% boost to frame rate.
This is all assuming that no other bottlenecks are encountered along the way.
Wonder if they'll bump the x50 series cards up to the x70 price tier, like how they bumped the x60 cards to the x70 price tier last time around.
Maybe will look something like this:
X50 at the past x70 prices
X60 at the past x80 prices
X70 at the past x80 prices
And so on
The more you buy the more you save (tm)
Maybe will look something like this:
X50 at the past x70 prices
X60 at the past x80 prices
X70 at the past x80 prices
And so on
The more you buy the more you save (tm)
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,752
It's in your wallet.
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
I never said that AMD and Intel are different. In a monopoly either of those companies would act exactly like Nvidia. What I in fact said was that competition drives down prices and benefits consumers.
It’s just basic economics.
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,552
Keep in mind that most of the DXR games out there run slower with raytracing enabled not only because of the lack of RT cores, but because it increases shader demand as well.
This is why, in my mind, along with just needing more shader power anyways for higher resolutions, nvidia should be focusing more on DLSS 2.0 as a feature that can be enabled in most games more easily through the driver control panel.
If we could get across the board frame rate doubling with no visual quality loss in every title regardless of developer support, that would be amazing.
This is why, in my mind, along with just needing more shader power anyways for higher resolutions, nvidia should be focusing more on DLSS 2.0 as a feature that can be enabled in most games more easily through the driver control panel.
If we could get across the board frame rate doubling with no visual quality loss in every title regardless of developer support, that would be amazing.
D
Deleted member 82943
Guest
Hot damn I want 2080 Super performance from a 350 USD card!
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,031
As someone else said: It's not rocket science.
Assume the game runs at 120 fps without RT, but if you turn RT to the max setting the FPS drops to 30, due to the limited RT capacity. Which is not an unrealistic scenario given that people were struggling to get 30fps out of some games.
Now if ampere has 4x RT performance then that game would have to run at 120 fps, because we already know that without RT it can do 120fps.
Mylex
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2018
- Messages
- 852
I'm seeing 1000 dollars TI level cards being a norm going forward. If you don't want to pay then they know someone will and they will still get whatever you were willing to spend on a lower product of theirs.
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,552
I mean, most people don't need the 1k card anyways. You really only need it if you've got 4k+ resolution. My wife's system which is plugged into a 1080p HDTV (Which is still the most common resolution these days) is just fine with a 1660 Super.
People complain about the prices, but the average person still on a 1080p display has plenty of decent cards still at the $200-$300 range. Crap, you can even get something down in the $100-$200 range now and still be good for 1080p. It's just that we've also got ultra high-end choices for those users that really need the extra juice.
People complain about the prices, but the average person still on a 1080p display has plenty of decent cards still at the $200-$300 range. Crap, you can even get something down in the $100-$200 range now and still be good for 1080p. It's just that we've also got ultra high-end choices for those users that really need the extra juice.
Thunderdolt
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,015
Ugg the low amount of raster horsepower increase looks quite disappointing. I hardly play any "RTX" games. I run 3840x1600 at 160Hz/FPS which is very demanding and would like at least a 50% raster performance bump with a RTX Titan II over my RTX Titan. I doubt that is in the cards though.
Nebell
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 2,382
Here's why I think that 3080Ti won't be only 10-20% faster than 2080Ti:
Therefore, I call BS on 10-20% performance increase.
While 4x RT performance would be nice, there aren't enough RT games out there to sell lackluster rasterized performance. By the time RT becomes mainstream we'll be looking at 5xxx gen.
And because 4x RT performance means 2080Ti will tank in price, people will buy $500 2080Ti over $1200 3080Ti which is only 10-20% faster.
And because 4x RT performance means 2080Ti will tank in price, people will buy $500 2080Ti over $1200 3080Ti which is only 10-20% faster.
Therefore, I call BS on 10-20% performance increase.
When you are dealing with a monopoly over a product you really don't have a market. A market by definition is voluntary. When there's no choice, the nature of it being voluntary vanishes, and pricing of products is no longer dictated by the consumer. Halo products are not really dictated by the consumer especially without competition. If a vast majority of people can't afford your product then there is no decision to be made. Halo products are designed for marketing not mass sales.
If competition leads to the same question "Do you want to buy this thing?" and there's a lack of compeition then obviously the impact of the "market force" would be impacted would it not?
Thunderdolt
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,015
A monopoly on a luxury good isn't the same as a monopoly on a necessity. Simply not buying a video card is always an option. Maybe high pricing means upgrading on a 4 year cycle instead of a 2 year cycle. Maybe it means falling back on buying used GPUs or waiting for integrated graphics to catch up. There are loads of examples of monopolies which failed simply because the target market was no longer interested in the product.
If [H]'s naive concept of economics were correct, then Nvidia would be charging $5k for their lowest level card. I mean, they have a monopoly, right? So, like, you're literally forced to give them money, right?
Competition doesn't always drive down pricing. Look at cars for a couple hundred examples of this. Or gaming monitors. Or gaming mice. Or [.....]
Ever wonder why there's the phrase, "Vote with your wallet?" Hint: it isn't about smashing that like button with your crypto stash.
You always have the “choice” to not buy a graphics card. It’s not bread or rice.
Just now saw this. Correct.
There's competition at the bottom everywhere AMD, Nvidia and Intel compete in the space.
Competition has driven all of those prices downward.
If there's only one choice then you aren't voting.
You have several choices. Sure you are not getting the best but you got other choices.
Rockenrooster
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2017
- Messages
- 955
Nvidia doesn't really have a monopoly at all, there are choices. But in a very limited mindset (2080Ti perf) they do, and can command their pricing on that. But thats hardly the definition of a monopoly, that would happen if AMD/Intel ceased to exist in the GPU market.
Sure they have higher market share, more profitable, etc, but those are indicators that there are indeed other competitors.
Sure they have higher market share, more profitable, etc, but those are indicators that there are indeed other competitors.
Domingo
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 22,632
The phrase "vote with your wallet" has grown into a farce. I can't think of a single time where I've heard or seen it that wasn't a massive lost cause. It's up there with voting libertarian and a pair of non-Power 5 schools playing for the College Football Championship on the scale of hopelessness. Whenever anyone takes the time to write or say it, know that your cause is lost.
As far as this card goes, I'm expecting a boost of around 20-25% but HDMI 2.1 integration and significant DLSS and Ray Tracing improvements.
As far as this card goes, I'm expecting a boost of around 20-25% but HDMI 2.1 integration and significant DLSS and Ray Tracing improvements.
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,552
Nvidia only owns the ultra high end market. 2080ti is basically the only card AMD can’t match. It’s not a monopoly. It’s like saying Jaeger-LeCoultre has a monopoly on watches because they’re the only ones that make an ultra high end watch with a flying tourbillon and tiny mechanical gongs.
I’ll point out 2080ti/titan only exist in any scale because we’re getting the leftovers from the professional compute lineup that companies pay out the ass for.
I’ll point out 2080ti/titan only exist in any scale because we’re getting the leftovers from the professional compute lineup that companies pay out the ass for.
Last edited:
Exactly, the GPU market is nowhere close to a monopoly. If you look at just gaming it’s far from a monopoly with many platforms available for gamers to choose from.
Prices of discrete GPUs aren’t going up because of a monopoly. They’re going up for several reasons, one of which is that buyers are willing to pay more. People seem to be ignoring that important factor.
Last edited:
I think the end of this year is going to get interesting. Consoles are getting higher refresh rate options, crossplay, and mouse/kb support thats more broadly adopted. If I can get 100 frames with 99% less hackers, I may not give a shit about a 3080ti.
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,552
I don't know, most of the cross-platform AAA titles on PC are fairly hacker free. Be it COD:MW, Sea of Thieves, etc. They've gotten pretty sophisticated on locking things down on the PC. I haven't seen many hackers in these games, and because they are crossplatform it means playing console won't save you from the PC hackers anyways. In fact, playing console just limits you because of frame times and if you use a controller you're extra boned.
Moving forward you won't see many MP games left that are locked down to one platform. So the cheating impacts everyone.
I'll point out you can get 100 frames in most games @ 4k with a 2080ti if you just render the game at a lower resolution, which is what these consoles will be doing regardless of the fact that they'll be shipping with a decent GPU. A 2080 Super ain't running any of these games at 4K 60 FPS unless the game is rendering at a lower resolution.
Last edited:
Gideon
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,548
Well some are willing to pay more, volume is down quite a bit, but profit per unit is up so it's balancing out. Will be interesting if they dare to test it further by increasing prices again.
Volume at which price point though? There are great options for all budgets these days.
Gideon
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,548
Prices are up at every range these days, but the low end has always been the highest volume. But my comparison has more to do with a comparison to Pascal and the steam numbers after launch where you can see Turing is trailing quite a bit. Even giving Turing more sales time then Pascal, Pascal is still doing better at only a little over 1 year in. It's not a perfect view of the graphic world but it does show Turing is not selling nearly as well in all categories. Profit margin is helping it look like they are doing as well tho. Does show many people sticking to old cards, which kind of tells you the truth that many thought this generation of cards were over priced for the performance they gave.
https://wccftech.com/steam-hardware-survey-2017-nvidia-amd-intel-gpu-cpu/
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/