NVIDIA RTX Reviews are hitting

Arstechnica, Engadget, The Verge, etc. The consensus mostly seems to be that the 2080 is around the same performance as the 1080ti, which is a little odd as it's retailing for $100 more than the 1080ti launched at in March of 2017. The 2080ti is the clear winner in terms of performance, but it's also $1200. Now that the bitcoin craze has died down a bit, it seems more likely than not that all of these cards will be findable at the retail price, but unless you absolutely must have 4k/60fps performance it still seems like a 1080ti is a good bet for the near future, at least until more games support raytracing and the higher-end features. If I were buying a PC now I'd shoot for 1440p/144hz as the sweet spot, which a 1080 or 1080ti should hit reliably for most games.

That said, the raytracing stuff does look pretty:

Well, they had to figure-in those Raytracing cores, so these cards are a bit of a compromise. It is a hard sell though because the chicken & egg issues of the cards have to come first so people can buy them before developers will code games to show off ray tracing. ...but why buy cards without software. We all can see the logic.

I have no-doubt at all that Ray Traced graphics will take over, just as polygon w/ texture mapped graphics took over from animated sprites. But, it will be a few years before even "enthusiasts" need a cards with ray tracing. If fact I would not buy a ray tracing card until Nvidia, AMD, and Microsoft hammer out some API standards. Do you think developers are really going to work hard to code games where they game won't work on AMD cards? I don't think they will, publishers ESPECIALLY won't put money behind this unless they can get these games working "well enough" on consoles...which sure-as-shit will be AMD manufacture SOCs.

I'm sure DirectX has its APIs in good order, but we all know that no matter how small AMD is their percentage will be enough to have all publishers and developers wary until the API issues are completely ironed out so games mostly work on whatever RT capable card you have. And, like it or not consoles will matter in ray tracing adoption because that is still where hundred of millions of people play and AMD has a grip on the CPU/GPU side.

@monkeyking1969: it’s probably true that most developers won’t put in the extra effort for ray tracing, but nvidia could easily just pay them to do so. It seems like for quite a while a lot of games have claimed to run better on nvidia or amd since they pay to have their features implemented.

I haven't even upgraded to a 1440p monitor yet and I have a 1070 ti.

I'm really conflicted about Turing in general. On the one hand, it's exciting to see NVIDIA offer something genuinely new and the fact that we're even talking about the use of real-time tracing in games is kind of crazy. On the other hand, these cards seem like a terrible value proposition no matter which way you slice it — not enough of a performance delta from Pascal to justify the cost in traditional rasterisation tasks, and seemingly not good enough at raytracing to maintain the kind of resolution and performance you'd expect from a super high-end video card.

I think for digital artists these cards are going to be great for early adopters. Maybe not so much for game enthusiast.

I think that nearly all of the Metro shots look better with RTX off. I know that RTX might be more realistic, but there's something to be said for artistic interpretation as opposed to direct realism. The scenes look incredibly washed-out with RTX on. There's also a pretty clear framerate hit.

1080ti is not enough for 1440p 144hz unless the most demanding game you play is Overwatch.

With that said these new cards is not worth the investment unless you need to have the absolute best and want to upgrade again every 3-6months.

What exactly do you mean by this? Even a 1080 does an excellent job at those settings.

Anyone know when the 3rd party cards release?

@dgtlty: it most certainly does not. The games i get 144fps with in 1440p i can count on one hand. Unless you count pixelartgames, 10+ year old games like CS etc.

The latest Tombraider i get around 80fps even with AA turned off and thats far from 144fps. I didnt even hit 144fps in the previous Tombraider game either....

If you turn down everything but the resolution i can probably hit 144fps in a bunch more games but then i would do fine with a 1070 aswell.

When RTX is on it looks all washed out and the framerate goes down.

@rethla: It's interesting that you consider sub-144 FPS performance inadequate. With a high refresh rate (144hz) I would consider Tomb Raider at 80 FPS to be enough but my standards are obviously not as high as yours. 80 vs 144 FPS at that refresh rate is fairly indistinguishable and G-SYNC makes screen tear a non-issue.

Still happy with my 2080Ti preorder. If you already had a 1080Ti I can see why you'd cancel, the price isn't worth the improvement, but for me going from a 980 to the 2080Ti is going to be huge and it should blitz anything on my new 3440x1440p 120Hz G-Sync monitor. Colour me hyped, and I can't wait to see whether DLSS turns out good, because the gains could be even bigger if it "just works."

@dgtlty: 80fps with g-sync aint 144hz, its 80hz.....

Im perfectly happy with my 80fps 1440p gaming but if you want 144 one 1080ti is not enough.

@bollard: the 2080ti is quite alright but but a 2080 is just a failure when you can get 1080ti for half of that and the raytracing is just a marketing buzzword.

They are overprised like hell though. They have basicly released 2070 and 2080 at Titan prices. I wonder what the new Titan will be like, is the pricing of Titan V the new norm?

Hey man that's good news for me because I upgraded to a1080 ti a couple months before these things were announced and I really don't wanna fucking hate myself right now.

I find that about 2 out of 10 games require any kind of significant hardware power. In other words I'm getting 1080/60 no problem with my i5/gtx970. EX. DQ11, Dead Cells, Rocksmith - aaaaand that includes necessary power to stream to twitch at the same time.

Agreed, seems like there is literally no place in the market for the 2080. Lord knows what the point of the 2070 will be. If you purely look at performance then clearly the cards are overpriced but I feel like you have to factor in the R&D and actual silicone costs of adding the RTX and Tensor Core parts to the chip. It's a lot of hardware and complicated tech, they just need to persuade developers to make use of it now.