Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti Versus GTX 1080 Ti Benchmarks Are Out

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,487
According to Turkish tech website PC Hoc TV, they have conducted testing on the new Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti and compared it to an Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti at 4K resolutions. They experienced a 20% - 25% uplift in performance from the RTX 2080 Ti upgrade. Of course we don't know which driver version they were running during the testing and [remember that Kyle said "If you are seeing any benchmarks between now and the ~20th (we think the 2080 launch and 2080 Ti launch will be split on different days possibly), you are likely not seeing cards benchmarked with its launch driver. So keep that in the back of your mind as you see performance leaks come forward."

Tested on the system with 7700K processor, the RTX 2080 Ti showed 20% - 25% more performance than the 1080 Ti display card. NOTE: The test has been performed at 4K resolution, so the data is eliminated in this way. Test System: GPU: RTX 2080 Ti CPU: Intel i7 7700K Windows Version: Windows 10 RAM: 16 GB 3200 MHz.
 
If nothing else, they look better than the old cards. :D

I like the simple lines over the "transformer look".
 
jfreund said:
About the performance boost we've come to expect from one generation to the next. The sticking point is the 70+% increase in price from the 1080Ti.
Click to expand...

It’s really just filling the Titan slot. I wonder if it’ll drop to ti levels in six months when the ti usually launches.

I wonder how much OC room this thing has. The base boost is really low.
 
I'm going to guess this test doesn't use DLSS... that will be the really interesting thing with Turing. How many games is it compatible with and what is the actual real world improvement?
 
Dayaks said:
It’s really just filling the Titan slot. I wonder if it’ll drop to ti levels in six months when the ti usually launches.

I wonder how much OC room this thing has. The base boost is really low.
Click to expand...

I'm betting it's likely around the same 2.0 to 2.1 GHz range the 1080 and 1080 Ti had. Perhaps a bit more, but with those TDP and core counts...
 
Their numbers are off. It's closer to 40%. Do you even statistics, bro?

upload_2018-8-30_16-6-1.png


This is inline with what I and others have been saying. The increased ROP count probably has a lot to do with the much improved minimums.
jfreund said:
About the performance boost we've come to expect from one generation to the next. The sticking point is the 70+% increase in price from the 1080Ti.
Click to expand...
980 Ti to 1080 Ti was 60-70%. The increase in price is primarily due to the size of the chip. They're likely only getting around 30 chips from a silicon wafer compared to 70-80 with the 1080 Ti.
Bobert said:
I guess they should be available on ebay for about $1500. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
They're going for between $1,599 and $1,999 USD on eBay.
 
jfreund said:
About the performance boost we've come to expect from one generation to the next. The sticking point is the 70+% increase in price from the 1080Ti.
Click to expand...
Why not bother to do a few seconds of research before making ridiculous claims acting like 20 to 25% is what we normally get? Pascal gave us 75% over Maxwell and Maxwell gave 45% over Kepler.
 
Hope they can make their Titan replacement go faster against the small 1080ti card. Oh boy.

If the 2080ti was 700$ (what my 1080ti fe evga cost) I might upgrade. However for over 1k and having that same TitanXp gap I would agree to pass.

If they do some nodding on the driver and boost it to 50% I might bite.
 
Armenius said:
Their numbers are off. It's closer to 40%. Do you even statistics, bro?

980 Ti to 1080 Ti was 60-70%. .
Click to expand...

Well your 980Ti one is way off bro. I paid 649.99 for mine, then 649.99 for the 1080Ti. I agree, the chip is bigger more expensive. But $550 dollars bigger? Not hardly.

People don't have patience any more. What won't a 1080Ti play till 2020 at 4K? Developers aren't going to hang themselves to give RT at 1080p/60fps priority over the general populace. Don't buy this 2080Ti bullshit, 2080 hmmm....yeah okay maybe.

But remember, we are 14-15 months away from a potential full blown GPU war at 7nm. Enter Godzilla/Chipzilla......AMD enters.......Nvidia lurches forward with second gen on 7nm......~~~~~Let them fight!~~~~

Save your money, buy a Evga 1080Ti and if you see a big difference between it and the regular 2080, then use Evga's 90 day step program. But honestly, I am done for now and going to invest in display technology now that projectors are coming out at IFA in True 4K not e-shift b.s. Still nothing like playing these games on a 4K 100 inch screen. :)
 
arestavo said:
I'm betting it's likely around the same 2.0 to 2.1 GHz range the 1080 and 1080 Ti had. Perhaps a bit more, but with those TDP and core counts...
Click to expand...
I couldn't tell if Tom Petersen said 2.13 or 2.3 ghz OC durin ght interview with hot hardware.
 
jfreund said:
About the performance boost we've come to expect from one generation to the next. The sticking point is the 70+% increase in price from the 1080Ti.
Click to expand...


No, it's not.

GTX 580 -> GTX 780 Ti was almost 90% (die shrink).
GTX 780 Ti to The 980 Ti was 45% (no die shrink).
GTX 980 Ti to GTX 1080 Ti was 85% (die shrink).

For no die shrink, this is a disappointment at half the performance increase of Maxwell's large chip. And that's because they wasted all the die space on raytacing dedicated units.
 
Seventyfive said:
I'm going to guess this test doesn't use DLSS... that will be the really interesting thing with Turing. How many games is it compatible with and what is the actual real world improvement?
Click to expand...

One thing I am curious about is if DLSS is something built in hardware, and can be used on older games. Otherwise... I have a backlog of 100+ titles, that (if it requires developers to update their games to be able to use) won't ever be able to take advantage of DLSS
 
defaultluser said:
No, it's not.

GTX 580 -> GTX 780 Ti was almost 90% (die shrink).
GTX 780 Ti to The 980 Ti was 45% (no die shrink).
GTX 980 Ti to GTX 1080 Ti was 85% (die shrink).

For no die shrink, this is a disappointment at half the performance increase of Maxwell's large chip. And that's because they wasted all the die space on raytacing dedicated units.
Click to expand...
The 680 came before the 780. The 780 came before the 780 ti.
 
d8lock said:
The 680 came before the 780. The 780 came before the 780 ti.
Click to expand...


You don't understand big die transitions. This is comparing the largest to the largest, to show performance increase of the architecture at max affordable die size.

Largest, highest-performance Fermi = GTX 580.

Largest, highest-performance Kepler = 780 Ti.

Largest, highest-performance Maxwell = 980 Ti,

Largest, highest-performance Pascal =1080 Ti.

Largest, highest-performance Turing is the 2080 Ti. You can't make the die any larger withotu ti costing several thousand dollars.

We're not counting release cadence here, just because Nvidia went back to the Fermi years and released the biggest boy on day one. It's still important to compare the biggest dies from one generation to the next.
 
Last edited:
d8lock said:
The 680 came before the 780. The 780 came before the 780 ti.
Click to expand...
Well he's comparing the true large chip successors. But even the dinky 680 using a mid-range chip was still 35% faster than the previous big chip flagship 580.
 
For god sake, wa
defaultluser said:
No, it's not.

GTX 580 -> GTX 780 Ti was almost 90% (die shrink).
GTX 780 Ti to The 980 Ti was 45% (no die shrink).
GTX 980 Ti to GTX 1080 Ti was 85% (die shrink).

For no die shrink, this is a disappointment at half the performance increase of Maxwell's large chip. And that's because they wasted all the die space on raytacing dedicated units.
Click to expand...
Your numbers are wrong. Take a look at the recent article from [H] comparing the 780Ti vs 980Ti and 1080Ti
 
defaultluser said:
You don't understand big die transitions. This is comparing the largest to the largest, to show performance increase of the architecture at max affordable die size.

Largest, highest-performance Fermi = GTX 580.

Largest, highest-performance Kepler = 780 Ti.

Largest, highest-performance Maxwell = 980 Ti,

Largest, highest-performance Pascal =,1080 Ti.

Largest, highest-performance Turing is the 2080 Ti. You can't make the die any larger withotu ti costing several thousand dollars.

We're not counting release cadence here, just because Nvidia went back to the Fermi years and released the biggest boy on day one. It's still important to compare the biggest dies from one generation to the next.
Click to expand...
Ah, my mistake.
 
Stoly said:
For god sake, wa

Your numbers are wrong. Take a look at the recent article from [H] comparing the 780Ti vs 980Ti and 1080Ti
Click to expand...


I just looked at them. For 4k gameplay,the performance of the GTX 980 Ti is about 10% faster than I was quoting (and thus the 1080 Ti 10% lower).

980 Ti = 55% faster than 780-Ti
1080 Ti = 75% faster than 980 Ti.

I was quoting launch-day reviews from TechPowerUp.

This doesn't change my original claim in the slightest - it just highlights how much shittier RTX is when Maxwell managed 55% performance with mature drivers. If the claim of just 20% speedup is true, then it's a dud.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top