Nvidia's 3000 Series RTX GPU [3050, 3060, 3070, 3080, 3090 now with TIs]

Given Ampere got a full-node shrink advantage, it got a standard gain.

Things to think about are the non-Ti using the huge Tx102 die (TU104 - 545mm2@12nm vs TA102 - 628mm2@8nm) and of course the awful (more than the Vega 64 furnace!) TDP.

 

I might even be willing to take slightly slower performance on an amd card but with 16 gigs of ram vs the 10 gigs on the 3080. The vega 56 is going into my wifes computer so it will get another 3 years or so of life. The 3080 or amd card i purchase next will eventually go into her machine also so ram can play a much bigger diffrence at that point

 

Overpriced, yes. 2080ti and 2080 were quite literally the best performing gpus you could buy. To characterize turing as "bad" because nvidia abused their market position with high prices is unfair. It's not a bad architecture or bad performance.

It looks like it's much more efficient than that. When computerbase normalized the power to 270W with the 2080ti, the architecture looks to be about 25% more efficient. They're basically shipping the card well beyond the best point in its efficiency curve which makes it look less efficient than it is.



https://www.computerbase.de/2020-09...gramm-control-effizienzvergleich-in-3840-2160

Literally no one has pre-ordered because pre-orders are not available.

 

All of what you've said seems pretty solid to me - I'm upgrading from a PC built in 2012 that's had a CPU and GPU upgrade, so my plans are very similar though I think ray tracing is less exciting as a feature now than it was before 2000 series launched (hype effect) - Crysis Remastered ray tracing shows that judicious usage is vastly more important than the checkbox feature, so I expect performance/visual aspect of ray tracing is less compelling than ultra-high-res game worlds with massive draw distances and no pop-in.

It sounds like you're planning to play at 4K, like me (I'm upgrading from 1080p). It seems likely, though, that with 10GB you'll be turning down textures and geometry detail even when using DLSS. Ray tracing may also have to be scaled back if it really does use a lot of memory.

Anyway, you're playing the waiting game. Let's see if AMD pokes NVidia/AIBs into larger memory setups for the cards below 3090...

 

40% increase compare to a card that is 2+ years old and that it's performance was a disappointment? I cannot call it a victory. Surely the better competition we expect from AMD has save the buyers hundreds of dollars but still....If a product is bad any comparisons with that will look good.

 

https://www.igorslab.de/en/nvidia-g...-step-ahead-and-the-gravestone-for-turing/12/

 

Well being the "best performing gpus you could buy" does not mean that you can sell it at any price and it will be good. ppl paid a extreme premium to have a feature that was for the must part unusable just to found Nvidia development. What was the diff, between performance vs price increase? something like 30%/60%?

About the efficiency you can do the same with literally any GPU or CPU on the market, playing with the power/voltage curve will give you different efficiency gain or loses on any arh or node. the comparative needs to be stock vs stock. And even then 25% for a 2+ years of arch development + a new node doesn't seem something we can be surprise of. AMD's claimed 50%(not counting the rumors of 60%) on a refine Arch and refined node now THAT is a efficiency gain that we should praise, if its true.

 

100/60 - 100% = 67% increase.

 

Yeah, it would be an embarrassment if none of that panned out and the performance uplift was less than a RTX 3080.

 

that's the most interesting metric to me! @jayco posted something similar, gotta check Eurogamer.

Talking of efficiency, money cost per frame the 3080 obliterates everything.

 

Even if it's true, it would seem to be because Navi's efficiency was terrible at launch.

 

Maybe adjust your expectations? Node shrinks will get harder, and architectures that are already efficient will not receive easy gains. 25% gain over the top end card at the same TGP and for something like 60 or 70% of the price looks really good to me.

I hope the AMD card is a monster, but this is an Nvidia thread.

 

PCI EXPRESS 4.0 TESTING

https://pcper.com/2020/09/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-founders-edition-review/

 

For those concerned about VRAM use, Kiguru has this:

https://www.kitguru.net/components/...s/nvidia-rtx-3080-founders-edition-review/24/

Some games getting close to the limit at 4k max settings but very few, and none passing it. Its also possible the games are requesting more memory than they need simply because its available. That said, I'd personally feel more comfortable with 16GB+.

 

are they going to use eye tracking ? otherwise how do they know what part of the screen to render in high res

 

I'm torn. It is certainly very fast. But hobbed by horrible power consumption and too little memory.

I guess it would work fine for me at 70-80% power limit at 1440p but the 3080 just isnt good enough to buy without seeing the competition first.

 

Another thing to consider with regards to RAM size is that at the start of the current generation, the fastest GPU's available were sporting only 2 and 3GB vs the consoles 8. 10GB vs the new consoles 16GB is far better.

 

IPC benchmark
Founders Edition RTX 3080@2000MHz/19.8GT/s (792GB/s) [380W] vs MSI RTX 2080 Ti Gaming Z@2000MHz/18GT/s (792GB/s) [340W]


https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Gefo...Tests/Raytracing-Vergleich-DLSS-Test-1357418/