DavidGraham
Veteran
So a Titan V is massively underperforming compared to even a 2070 and possibly even a 2060. Good to see those RT cores being put to use.
So a Titan V is massively underperforming compared to even a 2070 and possibly even a 2060. Good to see those RT cores being put to use.
You call a speed up of 2 achieved from fixed function hardware 'massive'?massively
Yes. If your pay increased by doubling, you'd call that a massive pay rise! 10% improvement is significant. 25% is lots. 50% more is a Big Deal. Twice as much is massive. I think these are defined in one of the later IEEE standards...You call a speed up of 2 achieved from fixed function hardware 'massive'?
Can you find some sources? I mean, likely there is no 'Bid Deal' or 'Massive' words in IEEE standarts , but i'd like to know seriously...Yes. If your pay increased by doubling, you'd call that a massive pay rise! 10% improvement is significant. 25% is lots. 50% more is a Big Deal. Twice as much is massive. I think these are defined in one of the later IEEE standards...
So, tell me what you want but a speed up of 2.5 is poor, and i am not impressed.
This train of discussing loose, subjective definitions is fruitless. Whether you label 2x improvement massive or not, the point is the fixed function hardware provides this level of acceleration. To determine if it's worth it, compare the size of that silicon to the size of silicon needed to achieve the same results without that. As I vaguely understand it, the FF units are guessed to be 10% of the 2070, so some 45 mm² to double performance raytracing. The value of software acceleration given more flexible hardware is impossible to determine until we have software algorithms running on compute to compare.Can you find some sources?...So, tell me what you want but a speed up of 2.5 is poor, and i am not impressed.
Would be lovely for them to provide a proper graph on what hardware is actually doing each frame.Does a doubling of score in 3dmark actually translate in to a halving of frame times? I'd genuinely like to know, because I hate these arbitrary scores.
If that's true then the improvement is pretty incredible, especially when you'd be comparing a 2070 to a TitanV. You're talking about a card with half the shading power, half the texel rate, and 74% of the fill rate getting roughly 1.46x the performance?
RTX 2070
shading units 2304
tmus 144
rops 64
pixel rate 103.7 Gpixel/s
texture rate 233.3 Gtexel/s
FP32 7.465 TFLOPS
TitanV
shading units 5120
tmus 320
rops 96
pixel rate 139.7 GPixel/s
texture rate 465.6 GTexel/s
FP32 14.899 TFLOPS
But that's how the industry works, isn't it?what you're really bench-marking is how well the software maps to the hardware. It's not how well the hardware runs the software, it's how well the software runs on the hardware.
What would you care about performance counters?I think benchmarks really should be providing more detail about utilization, stalls, bottlenecks to make them more useful.
I did that, no change in performance when I dropped textures from Ultra to High. Did it @1440p Ultra DXR.Would be cool to see a test on 2080. It's an 8GB card. Maybe a 4k/1440p test with rtx on with textures ultra to low.
I did that, no change in performance when I dropped textures from Ultra to High. Did it @1440p Ultra DXR.
The secret to that, is dropping texture quality from Ultra to High, as DXR heavily consumes VRAM, the 6GB of the 2060 is not enough to hold Ultra textures and DXR together.