Nvidia Turing Product Reviews and Previews: (Super, TI, 2080, 2070, 2060, 1660, etc)

Huh? They developed it on Titan V which surely had DXR-drivers, why would it suddenly change because there's acceleration for it? It's still the same DXR

 

I believe the intent of it is being questions and rightfully so. Be it that you believe it's his "self interest" or not the public is gaining insight to inner workings of the cogs. As already mentioned nVidia uses a 5 year NDA. I've not heard/known the same from AMD.

Another point is that even if it's true AMD would be more justified in this approach as they've been shafted multiple times by reviewers who were bias. Even on this forum one brought us to light on just such occasion.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1472023/

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1472046/

And that goes back 8 years ago. So it's a bit obtuse to claim that AMD does it as well in the same like an nV when we know 1st hand that AMD would need to do it out of necessity IMO.

 

Kindly open a new thread relevant to the topic you want to discuss.

 

2080 Ti Timespy GPU score:



Seems about 20-25% faster than a 1080 Ti, so what we expected really.

 

Lol, fake. No link and no supporting drivers yet.

 

Guru3D reply to the "fake benchmarks" floating around:

https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/r...real-leaks-appear-online.422790/#post-5580623

 

So reviewers are going to end up with very little time to test?

 

They simply shouldn't publish their review until they have enough time to and put up a simple "Review coming later because Nvidia didn't provide in time" message and to act as a sort of de-hyper. I don't know why any of the testers and writers ever tollerate these hard deadlines, especially when they benefit the OEMs more than the review sites.

 

What are they supposed to do instead when many of them survive on page views? Aren't they really at the mercy of the hardware vendor? Especially with Nvidia basically having control of the market and dictating terms with NDA's.

 

The only way would be for all major reviewers to agree not to publish their reviews until a certain date. But that would be very difficult to achieve.

 

Is it better for them to rush out a review that won't cover anything unique and cover the same things as everyone else or to do it properly and offer unique perspectives?

 

We are living in the era of Generation TL;DR.

So yeah, the former.

 

A stock non OC 1080Ti scores around 9500, so this is a 35% uplift over it.

 

Especially since they can actually do both, which is precisely what a lot of them do: an initial review on launch day, with basic benchmarks, and a follow-up with more thorough, detailed content a few days later.

 

For them? Yes, absolutely.

If they can find some unique angle later on, they can always publish a second article, and the combined hits are almost certainly going to be larger than just publishing the second one.

 

None of that^ even matters, if nVidia's $1,200 graphics card... can not give us stable 75 ~100+ frames at 4k.

Most of us "advanced gamers" will just stick with our g-sync 3880 x 1440 & 3440 x 1440 gaming displays, and our 1080ti's (RTX is a bust)... and just wait 3 months until AMD releases their 7nm Vega 128 freesync2 cards for $1,200... then upgrade to a nice 4k display.

Nvidia's proprietary raytracing doesn't matter to the end gamer, when you have DX12, Vulkan, DXR and other open standards. Nvidia is just using marketing propaganda to sway people away from performance and focused on visuals.




Gamers want/demand lower latencies & better sustained frames, not higher reflection & lighting fidelity...

 

You presume to speak for all gamers? That's courageous.

 

So is your presumptions...

 

If the articles are worth reading [maybe] you get multiple ad-impressions per page-view.
Except if you think your readership has the attention-span of a "resting" Kolibri ... by god's design, instead of ... media's own vicious circle design. It's not a feedback loop. The so called marketing research has no interest in the people's true desires and needs, and all the interest in strategically splicing a second here and there from the peoples already stretched time-budged. Giving 100 articles in an hour to a consumer - or was it cattle? - is obviously of higher value than 1 article for 100 hours. Exposition means proof of activity, "reading" a page for a long time can also mean someone had a long workday. Anyway. /OT Sorry. If I say I lament Nvidia's decision to jump on this train themselfs ... I guess it's not really more OnT.