Nvidia Thread

THIS is the way RTX SHOULD have launched... RTX 2060
JayzTwoCents
Published on Jan 7, 2019
2060 is here! But is it worth it?


Brandon Mercer 4 days ago
""More futureproof than 1070 ti" with 2gb less vram"

Robert Mitchell 4 days ago (edited)
"$100 cheaper and 2gb less VRAM than 1070 Ti I'll keep my 1070 Ti"

DrearierSpider 1 4 days ago
"So this is how the mid range dies...with thunderous applause from the tech press."

Yo Daddy 4 days ago
"after watching videos from Paul's, Gamer Nexus and jay on 2060 i've decided to buy a vega 64 instead.....thanks guys."

Hugo Costa 4 days ago (edited)
"is this sponsored by nvidia? it sure seams like it. This review feels very biased towards making RTX look better than it actually is.

because all i see is one card that can only play 1080p at medium with RTX ON and that is 100$ more expensive than previous generation 1060 and only trades blows with 1070 ti.

this is the same channel that told us that the Titan was dead and the 2080ti was replacing it in the same price range.

... Also 9:55 is rtx even ON? because it looks so bad"

 

My Zotac 2080 ti died after 1 week in the same way as all the online reviews described. And I'm sad
Submitted 2 hours ago by sashaatx
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/c...80_ti_died_after_1_week_in_the_same/?sort=new

Spoiler: Story of woe...

It's 1am (when I wrote this) . I'm frustrated. I'm sorry if this is poorly written/formatted.

• z370 msi gaming

• i7 8700k

• nh-d15

• coolermaster 500h

• gigabyte 1080 ti (for 8 months, up until Christmas)

Never had an issue. Bought the new card on Christmas day (it was a lonely one, thought I'd treat myself).

First, card was amazing. Overclocked the third day after install, with zotac's own fire-something software. Used the scanner and got the recommended core clock. Set to about 10mhz under. Memory at about 450+ (7k base) ran like a charm. Then used the msi beta, oc scanner. It worked on a curve I liked it better. Amazing.

I play everything. BFV, pubg, rainbow 6, rocket league. All at ~144fps.

Then, rocket league crashed. Thought, well it's only been a couple days. Maybe I need to dial back the memory. Brought up heaven and burn/fire whatever that gpu stress tester was.

Hwmonitor always running. Heat was never an issue. 8 hours in id never see over 75c? 70c?

Found a more comfortable memory as the core didnt seem to be the issue.

But then.... Everyday.... I had to dial back more. Thought it was voltage, tried giving it a bit more (I can't rmemebr if the gpu does that auto but I unlocked voltage in Afterburner)

First I was at 400mhz stable, then a game would crash. Then 350, then 290. Also, fans sounded like they'd run at airport runway volume at game menus? This was over the course of a week.

Then, artifacts all over rainbow six. Then today, I left rainbow after some artifacts. Restarted, checked my plugs, physically reinstalled, clean driver install, and then Google chrome got artifacts and crashed.

I'm so disappointed. I guess I should be happy it happened in the first month because new egg will replace it once they receive the return. Gotta find something to do for the next few weeks. This was my sobriety helper. Kept me busy.

Tmi I'm sure. Oh well. ****ing **** sucks.

Edit: my original buildapc post with progress photos

sashaatx[ S] 132 points 2 hours ago
"I posted this on /r/Nvidia last night. and it mysteriously disappeared from the subreddit so I brought it here. Edit: oh and I get to borrow my buddies 1050 so I'll live lmao"

Jag- 95 points an hour ago
" Was wondering why r/nvidia has so few artifact defect posts."

Pyromonkey83 [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
"Seriously something is massively wrong with the RTX launch. Amazon and Newegg are LITTERED with failure reports in reviews. My friend just bought a 2070 last week Wednesday and yesterday it started artifacting and had multiple driver crashes. I've never once had a GPU fail on me EVER, let alone the amount we are seeing online for this launch... I was the one who recommended my friend buy the 2070, and if his second one dies nearly instantly as well I'll have no idea what to have him do instead."

wookiecfk11 1 point 5 hours ago
"Have you considered keeping the 1080Ti, if you still have it, and skipping this generation altogether? This is what I am doing. Granted it is mostly because I am not going to drop well over 1k$ on a gpu (which you do not have a problem with obviously), but after ordeal you just had and info from Reddit those things are dropping like flies I would just return if I can and stay happy with 1080Ti. It is still a beast. And it just works. I would be worried to much of sitting on a time bomb with RTX card."

jmilan0302 [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
"All the Turing cards seem to have issues. I'd just go with Pascal or wait for the Radeon VII."

Then on top of that we have everyone seemingly covering it all up. /r/Nvidia constantly removes posts, as do the Nvidia forums that don't fall into the long buried original thread... Nvidia refuses to release RMA numbers, and meanwhile we are left to wonder whether or not we can actually trust these cards."

 

4k | 60 fps Elite, 11GB minimum recommended...

https://apptrigger.com/2019/01/10/division-2-pc-specs/

 

I'm not so sure on how accurate those specs are, for a start they say you for some reason magically need a 10 core CPU at the highest resolution while only needing a 4 core CPU for 1440p and 1080p, so they really don't understand how the CPU fits in with the performance. I think I also read someone who played that alpha or beta did fine with 6GB 980ti. Will be interesting to see how much baloney those specs are once the game has launched. I think we know the CPU recommendations are baloney, the validity of the VRAM recommendations will be interesting to see.

 

I don't know...my EVGA 2080ti is still going strong. You really have to wonder if the more prevalent reports of card failures are due to the overall dissatisfaction that has accompanied the whole launch of the 20 series cards more so than a statistical increase in the failure rate?

 

Magical thinking

No, people want to love what they spend big $$$$'s on, they aren't going to go out of their way to complain, certainly not 3x, 4x like @Talon - on his 3rd 2080ti GPU and it hasn't failed yet, I guess he finally got a good one. Congrats.

The worrying part is the deleting of posts in /r/nvidia and the nvidia support forum. Perhaps other locations too, as the nvidia fanboy moderators give in to reason and try to smooth over the launch roughness by deleting reports of failures?

All data points, who knows how the dots connect, except we are dealing with Nvidia here, so I have to go to the dark side given their history.

Hopefully the fan's buying them eventually get a good one, like @Talon ,

 

Maybe the writers, coders - the developers and testers of the game actually know some things we don't? Like how the game was written, coded, and responds to more cores / threads under certain conditions?

Maybe this was originally written before the 9900k? The 2700x seems to be ok, so the 9900k should be too. Probably just needs updating.

Odd though they managed to update and add the Radeon Vega VII 16GB.

IDK, maybe ask them?

 

I went through 2 failures, returned one that didn't look like Newegg pictures. Misleading essentially. But no doubt I had 2x failures which left me pretty stunned. That said it the reports of failures have subsided and the bad batch of early chips seems to have been mostly curbed.

My EVGA 2080 Ti XC Ultra replacement is going strong though since then and is backed up with a very good warranty that is second owner transferable.

My 2x RTX 2080 Ti failures were the first hardware failures I've suffered since EVGA 6800 GS cards waaayy back.

 

Another game loving the AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB of VRAM

Resident Evil 2 - Testing 4k 2080 TI - Vega 7 Vram Advantage?
GearedInc
Published on Jan 12, 2019


South Bronx, NY 21 minutes ago
"Nvlink should give you 22gb with another 2080ti."

GearedInc 47 seconds ago
"It's interesting that amd is so forward thinking with vram"

 

So you are on your 3rd 2080ti GPU then, ok.

Fixed my original post.

 

Yeah, the game was recommending 10.79GB VRAM for 4K settings in graphics settings menu. Thing is about this Radeon VII GPU, a user over on Guru3d said something very simple and accurate ( https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/n...y-and-nothing-new.424800/page-14#post-5626866) - basically that Radeon VII is just a GTX 1080ti with 16GB VRAM. I think that's an accurate statement given what we know so far, what is even more disappointing is that this new AMD GPU is on a 7nm rather than the 16nm of the 1080ti, and has pretty much the same power consumption as the 1080ti, while at the same performance level...this is not really progress! When NVidia goes 7nm (in about year 2020) I can see AMD getting blown out of the water again! Navi for AMD is gonna have to be a major architectural step up, because it'll be on the same 7nm process node as this underwhelming Radeon VII, so they won't have a process node advantage for any additional performance they are yet to find.

 

What, you expect more than 3 miracles at once?

It's a new 7nm process, a new Vega, a new cooling design, and the first product with all of those miracles out the door, with new software drivers to match.

Stop being a negative nellie nit-picker, and be thankful for what we have been given an opportunity to enjoy from AMD.

It's an AMD GPU that already compete's against the Nvidia RTX 2080 within weeks of release. That's enough for now.

Will it need more driver updates, have teething issues, not meet expectations completely?

Of course, it's an AMD release and against all odds a simultaneous contemporaneous competitive release against Nvidia.

Nvidia are freaking out, quite literally from the top down, and see the writing on the wall for this year and next - they now have competition, and are going to need to reduce prices soon or at the next release.

I hope Nvidia gets pulled back to the price points we should have had at the RTX release. Otherwise we are going to have to pony up more and more cash to buy GPU's, which were already too expensive.

You can crap on anything, why not encourage AMD?, why not crap on Nvidia? - they deserve it for their OVERPRICED RTX BS. Right?, yup.

Spend time getting critical and real on Nvidia's BS, why give them a pass on all the BS they've wrought with this RTX release? They are taking your hard earned money with overpriced rehash of Series 10 GPU's with new names, and a bunch of hand-waving RTX BS worth squat for the life of those GPU's.

Crapping on AMD is like crapping on a sweet little bunny trying to enter the meadow, to devour Nvidia's lunch in cute little bites. Let the little guy eat.

 

No, it's not a 1080ti with 16GB of DDR5 VRAM, that wouldn't be getting 1TB / sec memory throughput, while the AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB HBM2 1TB / sec - has double the memory bandwidth of the Vega 64.

The AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB is a whole different animal. A cute little bunny, entering the meadow for the first time. Looking to eat Nvidia's 2080 / 2070 / 2060 business, as much as the little guy can eat.

Don't forget AMD is now a generation ahead on 7nm, getting experience not only on GPU's but on CPU's on 7nm, and will get a couple of short turn opportunities to improve their utilization between now and Nvidia's release.

Nvidia is a year behind the process curve, a year behind AMD right now. That's amazingly enjoyable, enjoy it.

Enjoy the AMD that is on the table now, and don't ruin your digestion today kvetching over next CES 2020 after hour parties fare.

Nvidia is going to do enough worrying between now and then, for all of us.

 

Then should AMD be a year in front? I mean performance. But nope Everything is bad nowadays. Nvidia with high prices and AMD hanging backwards in performance. This is like a choice between Pest or Cholera.

 

AMD is increasing in performance, you got your direction's mixed up again. AMD isn't "hanging backwards", AMD is faster than last year, and will continue to increase performance.

AMD came out within months of Nvidia's 2080 FE release with a competitive product at $100 lower in cost, with 2x the VRAM, and without the tiring burden of RTX BS. It's a wonderful thing.

Like I said, crap on Nvidia instead, they deserve it, AMD is the competitor we need to take down Nvidia prices and provide gamer's the relief we need from suffering from high prices the last year plus.

Try to be more positive with the vendors that can help you, instead of the vendor that wants to mesmerize you with RTX BS, and suck your blood through your wallet.

It's not all bad, I know it's rough what with the P870 series SLI ending (no 2080 SLI support), but things will look up again. Look, even Alienware is back with an LGA / "MXM" laptop!! Good times, right?

 

This is just a whole lotta pro AMD words being spouted here. The bottom line is that it performs the same as 1080ti & 2080 while supposedly having the advantage of being on 7nm vs 16nm NVidia - the fact that it's not faster than NVidia while having a process node advantage is not an achievement at all, it's the opposite in fact. If they price the Radeon VII a good chunk cheaper than RTX 2080 then it could be an ok buy because it's missing raytracing & DLSS features, but for the long term when NVidia get onto 7nm in 2020 they're gonna blow AMD and the Radeon VII out of the water simply because Radeon VII is already on the 7nm node yet can't even beat NVidia on a 16nm node. It's probably a smart move to wait for 7nm NVidia rather than buying any of these GPUs, but AMD is in trouble unless Navi can significantly increase performance while on that same 7nm node.

 

You are arguing inconsequentials, how each product got their performance level is through different elements in different measures, but the end result is comparable, the AMD Radeon Vega VII competes in price and performance with the Nvidia RTX 2080, period. It doesn't matter how they got there.

$700 buys an AMD Radeon Vega VII with 16GB that performs at the same level as the $800 Nvidia RTX 2080 FE 8GB.

It doesn't matter the architecture or process level as in the end the value is in the performance and the 16GB VRAM advantage of the AMD Radeon Vega VII.

Nvidia RTX is worthless right now, it's a bag of magic beans that has barely sprouted small mushrooms, it has a lot to prove and as time goes by, it's potential worth for current RTX models continues to remain at Zero.

Even under the best conditions the current RTX features aren't going to amount to real-time ray-tracing or native 4k performance, that may come for real-time ray-tracing down the road years from now, and it's really unclear - unlikely - that RTX cores will be the path to industry success.

A successful real-time ray-tracing solution for all systems, PC, Console, Hand-held, etc will need to be a collaborative effort across all the industries wanting to implement it.

Nvidia is far from the ideal candidate for cooperative success. As Nvidia's CEO Jensen is a selfish juvenile in his view of the world, and has little or no capacity for industry cooperative behavior. He does not get along well with others unless he can dominate and abuse them.

I would think Nvidia's history of bad, anti-competitive, and anti-consumer behavior would stand out clearly, and you only need look to Jensen's most recent infantile outbursts that show he is not the stable leader to carry and share a new industry wide technology.

You can't count Nvidia's process "chicken's" before they hatch, we have no proof Nvidia will be successful in their application of the new 7nm process, and gain any more performance than AMD's 7nm process boost.

If Nvidia 7nm process move next year doesn't include a new architecture to match AMD's new architectures out next year, Nvidia's 7nm only process move won't be enough.

So that means to "catch up" Nvidia needs to not only have a successful 7nm process migration, but also a new architecture success, that's a lot to ask of any company. Two major innovation moves in the same generation is more than double the risks.

Nvidia blew it by waiting out a year for 7nm, they should have stuck to GTX and 7nm and gotten another "Pascal Level" performance boost that would keep them well ahead of AMD and Intel.

RTX / RT / DLSS was a blunder of epic proportions, overpricing it to start was Nvidia's "Jump the Shark" move. Nvidia has exceeded their grasp. And, the stock market knows it.

Anyway, let's stop going back and forth, and we'll wait for AMD's Radeon Vega VII and AMD's Navi GPU's, AMD's Ryzen Matisse CPU 8c(16c?), Epyc Rome 64c / 128c Systems to ship and get benchmarked.

While we wait for Nvidia to shepard new RT and DLSS games which offer nothing but reduced FPS countered with "fake" upscaled non-native 4k FPS bumps.

To me AMD clearly has the better company spirit, the better CEO, and the better products with better future(s).

 

I'm not disagreeing with any of that but the glass half full side is that these are harvested enterprise GPU dies released as a consumer GPU probably as an afterthought, and that it could be cheaper except 4 stacks of HBM2 is sooo expensive, and that the extra DP capability and other enterprise-friendly features could be stripped out and that would presumably increase power efficiency for gaming.

 

It's you who mixing up, bruh. Everything I said in that post is 100% correct In my world is 100 more than 80 or even 77. Whatever you add in FPS or $ behind the numbers. Higher number = Higher performance or it could be higher prices And AMD graphics for notebooks is DEAD END.

 

Speculation that AMD Radeon Vega VII dies are rejected MI50 / MI60 dies are only BS troll bait from Nvidia fanboy's.

There were reports that the ROPS count was vastly different, but that's been corrected and retracted by ExtremeTech:

The AMD Radeon VII’s Core Configuration Has Been Misreported
By Joel Hruska on January 11, 2019 at 6:02 pm
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...-viis-core-configuration-has-been-misreported

Besides, if there is any origin story to tell, the Vega GPU's come from a gaming heritage, and in fact that's mentioned often enough in the DC press:

" AMD didn't call this chip by an internal codename, but it's clearly a refined and tuned version of the Vega architecture we know from the gaming space.

Spoiler: Continues with interesting comparison against the Nvidia V100

Vega DC (as I'll call it for convenience) unlocks a variety of data-processing capabilities to suit a wide range of compute demands. For those who need the highest-possible precision, Vega DC can perform double-precision floating-point math at half the rate of single-precision data types, for as much as 7.4 TFLOPS. Single-precision math proceeds at a rate of 14.7 TFLOPS. The fully-fledged version of this chip inside the Radeon Instinct MI60 crunches through half-precision floating point math at 29.5 TFLOPS, 59 TOPS for INT8, and 118 TOPS for INT4.

Compared to Nvidia's PCIe version of its Tesla V100 accelerator, the Radeon Instinct MI60 seems to stack up favorably. The green team specs the V100 for 7 TFLOPS FP64, 14 TFLOPS of FP32, 28 TFLOPS of FP16, 56 TOPS of INT8, and 112 TOPS on FP16 input data with FP32 accumulation by way of the Volta architecture's tensor cores. While the two architectures are not entirely cross-comparable in their capabilities, the relatively small die and high throughput of the Radeon Instinct MI60 still impresses by this measure.

AMD Radeon Instinct MI50 and MI60 bring 7-nm GPUs to the data center
by Jeff Kampman — 4:05 PM on November 6, 2018
https://techreport.com/news/34243/a...0-and-mi60-bring-7-nm-gpus-to-the-data-center

The AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB HBM2 in this 4 stack configuration gives 1TB/sec vs 512GB/sec of the Vega 64 8GB, a 2x increase in throughput. To spend time reducing the layout and reducing the performance wouldn't make sense.

Besides it's becoming clear that 10GB or more VRAM is becoming useful for best performance in 4k games at Ultra Textures, and 11GB vs 16GB, more is better.

Nvidia for years has had the same hardware features in dies in both gaming and professional GPU lines and used software / firmware to disable / enable features.

AMD 7nm Vega originally was focused on the datacenter market to be sure, AMD needed to add features and provide a price / performance answer to the Nvidia V100 - which is the AMD MI60 / MI50.

It's an awesome move by AMD to release a 7nm Gaming GPU at the forefront of their first 7nm releases, and there will be many new Radeon Vega VII owners that will be thankfully appreciative for years to come.

 

The ROPS correction certainly makes the VII more appealing and the market competition is very much welcomed, but I wouldn't say that AMD is a generation ahead at this point. The VII is definitely just a stop-gap, and only just barely catches up with the Nvidia 20 series, but with zero power savings and a heavy reliance on more VRAM over the completion. While it's great to see a competitive AMD card, and Nvidia is deserving of the criticality in regards to the 20 series launch and pricing. Nvidia has been the driving force in GPU performance increase for a while now, not AMD. Hopefully AMD continues to deliver on the 7nm technology with increased performance gains and lower power consumption, but it would be ignorant to think that Nvidia can not achieve the same. I won't lie, I'm certainly vested in team green with my current cards and Gsync monitors. This doesn't make me blind to the mis-steps that have occurred though. However, In my opinion Nvidia still has the upper hand (and higher prices), and a considerable portion of the market share. The VII just isn't enough to even put a dent into the Nvidia dominance that they face in the market place. Nvidia will simple adjust pricing on the 20 series cards and march right along (which is a good thing). I'm not bashing AMD, my first video card was an AMD back in the day. I think we (or at least I was) where just hoping for much more out of a die-shrink than "on par" performance. It will take some real innovation to create market penetration and drive current pricing down for all consumers through economies of scale for AMD.

The sad thing is $700 still isn't even an approachable price for at least 95% of the PC gaming community. It just somewhat attractive because of the absurd pricing of the 20 series cards.

 

It's true, $700 for the AMD Radeon Vega VII and $800 for the Nvidia RTX 2080 FE is out of reach for most people financially.

That's why I kept recommending $500 used 1080ti's until the AMD Radeon Vega II released, and new / used Vega 56/64 / RX 580/570 to save even more. For price conscious buyers that's still my recommendation.

The whole market rising in price due to the nutzo cryptocurrency craze has hurt everyone. A giant gap in clear thinking that saddles all of us with high prices for at least the near future.

Given we expect a performance increase at each price point at generational upgrades, and don't expect much of a change in price point - we can maintain an expectation of cost generation to generation - the RTX release was a shot through the heart for all gamers. It's created a giant disappointment in all of us.

The 1080ti was $699 MSRP, the 2080 FE is $799 MSRP - an increase in price for the same performance, at least the Radeon Vega VII at $699 holds the price point for the same performance.

The 20 series GPU's below the 2080ti really are a "running in place" noop release. The same price for the same performance + RTX BS.

Seriously, with Nvidia keeping the same performance for cost is so wrong given we have to put up with RTX BS over time waiting for nothing.

If Nvidia needed to keep the same performance and let RTX features steal the die space that could have been used for a real generational performance bump, Nvidia should have dropped the price points not raised them.

Both companies have traded the lead a number of times over the years, and AMD is for once a head of the process curve, now they need to continue to advance the design to take advantage of their opportunity as Nvidia thrashes about trying to justify RTX features with actual games that support it.

I hope AMD keeps pushing rasterization performance, while keeping with their plans for Ray-tracing, and not get distracted with Nvidia's RTX BS - like trying to add their own acceleration in hardware that takes away from regular performance in games like Nvidia's screw up.

 

That's rubbish though, you're not thinking it through. A move to 7nm from NVidia's existing 16nm Pascal (and 12nm Turing) is already a performance bump over what they have on the market now, let alone any architectural improvements that may come along at the same time, so you can't really make that statement. It's just plain nuts to think that AMD is currently on a level pegging with NVidia when they can't even match NVidia's top tier product while actually having the 7nm process node advantage - I mean that's just plain NUTS! It doesn't matter how you spin it, when you consider that fact it doesn't bode well for the future competitiveness of AMD once NVidia get onto 7nm in 2020. Yes, I've said this before, but you don't seem to acknowledge that disparity, and instead have some strange notion that 'somehow' AMD is a step ahead - complete nonsense. Now I'm not an NVidia fanboy nor an AMD fanboy, but your utterings are deluded with your AMD love or NVidia hate (one or both).

 

I agree AMD looks in trouble here. They had to use a brand new process node to match Nvidia 12nm which is essentially 14nm tech. We don’t have 3rd party reviews yet so we can’t verify how close they got.

AMD doesn’t make or own 7nm and Nvidia will move to TSMC 7nm, likely 2H 2020. Last time Nvidia has a large process change we got the 10 series with huge clock gains.

 

" If Nvidia 7nm process move next year doesn't include a new architecture to match AMD's new architectures out next year, Nvidia's 7nm only process move won't be enough."

That's true, Nvidia needs to grow beyond the rasterization performance of the Series 10 / 20 - with the 20 series basically a rehash of the 10 Series.

An Nvidia simple 7nm process bump won't be enough performance improvement when it would arrive over a year from now. Nvidia needs to bring real performance improvements from architecture improvements, and not simply rely on a 7nm process bump.

The AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB is based on the MI50, with the AMD MI60 even higher in performance. Not enough to reach the 2080ti, but enough to put it closer - enough to match the V100.

There is one more performance price point in reserve after the AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB even now, besides the future new architecture releases, on 7nm and 5nm to follow, releasing before Nvidia.

The next generation architecture steps from AMD over the next year and a half will again meet Nvidia at 7nm, and continue ahead of Nvidia with 5nm not long after that - with AMD still ahead in process lead over Nvidia.

But, all of that - AMD competing against Nvidia down the road - wasn't the point of this original discussion.

The original discussion was all about the Nvidia fanboi's ignoring the AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB performing on level now with the newly released Nvidia RTX 2080 for $100 less.

As always Nvidia fanboy's try to dismiss AMD tier competitive models because AMD doesn't have the top performing GPU against Nvidia. That's always been irrelevant, as 95% of the buyers aren't buying the top performing GPU in either lineup.

Buying a price competitive AMD GPU at any tier price point makes more sense than ever, given Nvidia has reached into every Nvidia fanboy's pocket to steal even more money by raising their price points this generation.

Buying the AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB, Vega 64 / 56 instead of a 2080 / 2070 / 2060 is a much better deal than ever before. With the addition of the AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB there is one more reason to buy AMD, and one less reason to feed the Nvidia green greed monster.

 

No one knows how Navi will perform, but Navi is going to be Polaris replacement targeting mainstream, so it won't change the high-end GPU landscape. Unless AMD declares Navi also covers high end, Radeon VII will remain their highest end GPU for this year.

Difference between MI50 and MI60 are so small (3840 vs 4096 stream processors), performance difference will be very small, if at all. In order to make a performance difference, MI60 version will needs to be clocked considerably higher, but with VII already clocked well beyond its efficient comfort zone, i doubt there will be more headroom than that. So MI60 version of Radeon VII is doubtful at this point.

Process lead doesn't mean a thing if process leadership doesn't also gives you the performance leadership. 7nm Radeon VII will be around 2080 performance while consuming more power than 2080ti, all on 12nm process. Nvidia doesn't even have to do anything but just release 7nm Turing and it will provide 25-30% performance uptick on die shrink alone. Nvidia is also a long time customer of TSMC and they will be on the latest process they have available. TSMC is open to everyone.

While I appreciate the fact that AMD now has a competing product at 2080 range but it is troubling sign that it took 7nm and completely destroying power/performance to get there. I don't mind the support you are giving the underdog to make some dent on Nvidia domination, but I don't find your reasoning to be compelling enough for people to join your pitchfork rally. Just like how AMD is about to make a great come back with Zen 3, they won't make a come back in GPU market unless they provide a compelling product top to bottom.

 

That's the brain puzzler that I see so many fail at, faster is faster, it doesn't need to be fastest to be faster.

Given that fastest is the only thing that matters, when Nvidia is no longer "fastest", and another competitor has the "fastest" GPU, does that mean none of the Nvidia GPU's matter any longer? No one should buy Nvidia GPU's at all once they lose the crown of "fastest"?

Of course not, no one should buy Nvidia GPU's now or then simply because we should stop encouraging Nvidia's bad behavior.

Humor aside, the same goes for AMD when they don't offer a GPU at a higher performance tier than Nvidia's top GPU. It's silly to ignore all of the AMD GPU's at prices people can afford that offer better price performance than Nvidia GPU's at the same price points.

Given the wild mass acceptance of AMD CPU's at each of their price points that outperform or under price the same Intel offering, and the 40% market share of AMD CPU's vs Intel CPU's in a short time, the same should be happening and will be happening with AMD GPU's.

AMD CPU's didn't need to outperform Intel CPU's in gaming, or perform higher in performance than the Intel 9900k to take 40%+ market share for consumer CPU's from Intel. With Zen 2 there appears to be the added bonus of increased single threaded performance over Intel.

Navi is this year, and if it only replaces the Polaris tiers of GPU's competing at the low and mid-range performance tiers - replacing the RX series but with much higher performance - 1080 performance at the top tier, providing more performance at the same price points filling out the tiers below the AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB, that would be great.

Again, AMD doesn't need to release a higher than 2080 performance GPU to sell lower tier GPU's any more than AMD needed to outperform the top 9900k CPU to take 40%+ market share away from Intel.

That's what Jensen is getting so excited about. It's a real threat to Nvidia's market share at a time when Nvidia can't afford to lose any lest the stock price fall even further as investors loose confidence in Jensen and Nvidia.

It's only a matter of time, now that Nvidia has frittered away their performance lead with the distraction of RTX features, AMD only has to continue to release new architectures already in development on 7nm and improved 7nm processes, and make the timely move to 5nm when it is available.

As more people buy AMD CPU's with the soon to arrive Zen 2 releases (Zen 3 is next year), more people will turn to AMD GPU's and affordable Navi will be there for them.

Nvidia's high prices, non-performance with RTX, and bad mannered CEO shenanigans are going to hurt Nvidia's business more and more this year and next, and help AMD to succeed.

 

ATI/AMD was far more competitive when they were able to provide top flagship, at least for the time of its release, or when they had more efficient tech during their Terascale (pre-GCN) days. When they lost that ability starting with Nvidia's Maxwell, their marketshare went down considerably. Having a fastest, or most efficient architecture gives you far more flexibility on your entire GPU lineup top to bottom.

And no, they don't have to be fastest, but their architecture is also far behind in terms of efficiency. Reason why they have so much trouble completing atm.

Yes, they do have 2080 tier GPU now. And no, it doesn't really give much price/performance against 2080 atm, so it really don't give them better market position any better than they had with Vega 56/64.
While I am sure Ryzen is doing pretty well, I think you got 40% figure from retail CPU sales, which makes up the very small percentage of overall CPU market. They still have lot of uphill battle on client OEM and Server market. Outlook is positive, but lets not exaggerate things.

Navi is unknown entity at this point, but lets hope for the best.

 

The competitiveness is by the price point, and AMD has competitive products from the bottom tier through the 2080, only missing the 2080ti, that's 99% of potential buyers, that's very competitive.

The AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB is competing against the 2080 more effectively than the AMD Vega 64 8GB or Vega 56 8GB, 30% better than the Vega 64 for a competitive improvement of 30% in AMD's top tier.

Those are all good reasons to pay attention to AMD GPU's and buy them instead of Nvidia GPU's, and I won't bother giving another run up at Nvidia's BS, we all know that's very negative, so negative it detracts from all the positives, which makes the AMD GPU's so much more attractive.

It doesn't matter that in the past AMD had a lead over Nvidia, now today AMD GPU's are still competitive across all Nvidia gaming GPU's except the outrageously priced 2080ti @ $1300.

Do we really want AMD to focus their efforts at putting out a $1300 GPU to compete with Nvidia? You don't seem to appreciate the AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB @ $100 less than the 2080, would a $100-$200 less cost 2080ti competitive GPU win your heart? I would hope so, but then again it looks like you need to make that happen more than AMD does.

AMD covered the entire bulk of the GPU performance range most buyers purchase, the RX range of GPU's when the non-mining prices were in effect took off in sales with gamers against Nvidia's GPU's, but since mining raised all the GPU prices and dried up the supply for over a year, we've all been starved for GPU's at reasonable prices.

Now that the AMD RX GPU's are cheap enough again, those are the ones selling again, but you don't seem to appreciate that, you don't suggest people buy them as good alternatives to Nvidia to keep the market competitive. Why is that? Do you want people to spend more money on Nvidia GPU's?

You wanted higher performance GPU's from AMD, AMD delivers the AMD Radeon Vega II 16GB, competing against the brand new RTX 2080, and that's still not enough for you?, and you continue to ignore the vast sales potential of the RX series that compete in performance and price against Nvidia GPU's. Start recommending AMD GPU's, why not?

Now you want an even faster AMD GPU to compete with the 2080ti? For what end? So that you can complain about the price, and ignore the competitiveness of the AMD Radeon Vega VII 16GB and the "imaginary" Vega VIII 16GB GPU that competes directly with the 2080ti, as well as continue to ignore all the RX GPU's and APU's that compete directly against the Nvidia offerings with the AMD offerings cheaper and as fast or faster?

I don't think you know what you want, that's why I said it's all up to you. AMD has already provided competitive RX GPU's at good price points new and used, and Vega 56 / 64 new and used, and now the AMD Radeon Vega VII directly competing against the 2080 and perhaps the 2070 interested buyers too.

Now it's you that has to do your part to wake up and decide to buy and recommend others to buy AMD GPU's, ignoring the Nvidia BS, and then take a breath of fresh air outside the influence of the Nvidia BS for the first time in many years.

If you say you aren't an Nvidia fanboy, why aren't you recommending people buy AMD GPU's? AMD GPU's are all price competitive against Nvidia GPU's at the same tier of performance. There is no reason not to mention AMD GPU's, recommend AMD GPU's as alternatives and encourage PC builders to buy AMD GPU's. Right?

 

@Robbo99999 now here's something interesting and relevant to our debate earlier on the merits of the RTX 2060's 6GB frame buffer and whether it's a limiting factor in the games of today at 1080p.

In testing the RTX 2060 in Battlefield V at various DXR levels, Digital Foundry discovered that there is a significant performance uplift (in excess of 30%) from bumping Texture Quality from Ultra down to High on this card when DXR is enabled at 1080p. The author speculated that this was due to the 2060 being VRAM limited when using DXR.

So I went and looked up some VRAM usage tests, and sure enough, DXR increases consumption dramatically. On the RTX 2070, just the Low DXR setting increases VRAM usage by 1.8GB compared to DX12 Ultra with DXR disabled (and 2.25GB compared to DX11 Ultra):

Spoiler

Edit: Another thing to keep in mind is that Battlefield V is pretty conservative in this day and age with its VRAM consumption (only 4GB used at Ultra without DXR). What happens when a game isn't as frugal with its VRAM requirements, the crippling memory overhead of ray tracing would cause the 6GB on the 2060 to be an even greater bottleneck. You might have to start reducing more settings than just texture quality down one notch in order to have a smooth experience.

 

Can You EVEN See Ray Tracing?
UFD Tech
Published on Jan 12, 2019


Tom King 1 day ago
"You need to take a class from Jensen to spot ray tracing."

Spoiler: Nvidia wants to know your location.

Reece Hill 1 day ago
"Nvidia wants to know your location."

Alex Dagenais 1 day ago
"C:\Program Files (x86)\NVIDIA Corporation\NvTelemetry\NvTelemetryContainer.exe" -s NvTelemetryContainer -f "C:\ProgramData\NVIDIA\NvTelemetryContainer.log" -l 3 -d "C:\Program Files (x86)\NVIDIA Corporation\NvTelemetry\plugins" -r

sam lebon 11 hours ago
"Nvidia is Ray-Tracking your location"

Miniman's videos 1 day ago
"Here we see, how unimportant ray tracing is..."

Laz Conor 1 day ago
"RTX cards are for those with more money than sense."

Blindsniper _ 1 day ago
"Do a test with people who don't even know what Ray Tracing is."

Purifier 1 day ago
"Raytracing is a joke."

 

VEGA 64 vs RTX 2060 vs VEGA 56 | Tested 13 Games |
For Gamers
Published on Jan 14, 2019

Nvidia RTX 2060 vs GTX 1070 Ti vs AMD RX Vega 64 vs RX Vega 56
PC Benchmarks
Premiered Jan 9, 2019

Spoiler: Click to See Video

Nvidia RTX 2060 vs AMD RX Vega 56 vs Nvidia GTX 1070
PC Benchmarks
Published on Jan 7, 2019

Spoiler: Click to See Video

RTX 2060 vs RX VEGA 64 Benchmarks | Gaming Tests Review & Comparison | 53 tests
Benchmark PC Tech - MultiTechnopark
Published on Jan 7, 2019

Spoiler: Click to See Video

RTX 2060 vs RX VEGA 56 Benchmarks | Gaming Tests Review & Comparison | 53 tests
Benchmark PC Tech - MultiTechnopark
Published on Jan 7, 2019

Spoiler: Click to See Video

ASUS RTX 2060 STRIX vs GTX 1070 Ti Benchmarks | Gaming Tests Review & Comparison | 53 tests
Benchmark PC Tech - MultiTechnopark

Spoiler: Click to See Video

RTX 2060 vs Every GPU Benchmarks | 53 tests
Benchmark PC Tech - MultiTechnopark
Published on Jan 8, 2019

Spoiler: Click to See Video

 

Yeah, I see what you mean, does look like it could well be the 6GB of VRAM that is limiting things on the RTX 2060 in that game. That's not a good sign for the future for that card. I had thought that we would be alright with 6GB VRAM on that card (at least for now & the near future), but it seems like compromises have to be made already. If my GTX 1070 died today, I'd probably scour the used market for a cheap Pascal card to carry me over till 2020 for NVidia's next generation after Turing when they're on 7nm, rather than buying the RTX 2060 to keep for that same time frame (but only if I could get at least GTX 1070 performance for a significantly lower price than RTX 2060).

 

This makes me wonder how the heck the rumored RTX 2060 3GB/4GB can be expected to provide a decent ray tracing experience without some serious settings and/or resolution compromises.

 

I can't imagine that happening, praps that's enough to cast doubt on the rumour.

 

Hehehehehehe.

 

All I see are a lot of flappy jaws from a guy that has absolutely no idea on the subject. Tomb Raider hasn’t released anything as of yet.

By next month we should have 4 games that support RTX technologies. 4 games in 4 months is impressive when you’re literally building up the eco system from ground zero.

AMD is being AMD. They’re going to ride the coattails of Nvidia Into the ray tracing world. They’ll arrive a year to 1.5 years late. They’ll have a half baked implementation and call it free trace or retrace or some knock off name cause that’s what they do. AMD does very little innovation on their own.

They copied Gsync over a year later with free sync.

They copied shadow play with AMD relive.

They copied fast sync with enhanced sync.

They copied Intel naming schemes with R3,R5,R7, x399 and b360 nonsense.

They’re a copy cat company. Just once I’d love to see AMD actually come up with an organic idea.

 

ZF and NVIDIA Introduce Level 2+ Automated Driving for 2020

 

Look that's just getting a bit silly, "Nvidia copied fully programmable shaders because GCN came before Kepler"... or tessellation, or PCIe 4.0, or HBM, or ... Whatever else I can think of otoh

The argument is that advertising RTX features on launch was premature. They weren't ready. They did it that way to justify the price gouge. They could have easily sold the class-on-class performance increase, but users would expect it to be priced the same as the outperformed Pascal part, which was not the plan. Build a bigger (more expensive) ~800mm^2 die, pair it with new (more expensive) GDDR6, and charge the same as 1080Ti would be making less profit? Mind bogglingly stupid from a business management perspective.

But history shows that they have ended up charging their early adopters for very very expensive dark silicon.

If you don't play Battlefield V or Port Royal, Raytracing means nothing to you and has meant nothing for nearly 4 months now.

If you also don't play FF15, DLSS means nothing to you and has meant nothing for nearly 4 months now.

It will some day, but crowing about how awesome they are (as Jensen did) is as premature as anyone saying how great performance and value Radeon VII will be, based purely off AMD's marketing performance numbers only before independent reviews are released.

 

edit:
quote text & response removed due to missing context from deleted posts

And in today's news, it will launch without DP support
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-radeon-vii-double-precision-disabled,38437.html

 

Best Graphics Cards for Gaming in 2019
Tomshardware.com | January 14, 2019 at 12:00 PM

 

I'm not sure why it seems like you're arguing when we really actually agree?

Prior comments based purely on MSRP are also premature if this is to be believed, since you earlier discounted it as not 'street reality' when I pointed out the $699usd equivalent MSRP of AIB 2080s

AMD Radeon VII: less than 5000 available, no custom cards
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/64501/amd-radeon-vii-less-5000-available-custom-cards/index.html

As we saw with the first year of Vega - scarcity breeds problems with pricing

I too would love the red dragon to awake from its slumber and save the hapless gamer from the evil green goblin... like in recent times it's cut deep into the lazy blue giant... I can't see it happening any time soon though.

If you think I'm an nvidia fanboy because I have 2 nvidia GPUs in my laptop and 2 more in another (that would have had RX580s had they been compatible) and 3 more on a shelf next to me, you're wrong. Correlation is not causation. I also have the last worthwhile AMD MXM that Clevo made and bothered supporting ... a five year old 7970M

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_RTX_2060_AMP/37.html

RTX 2060 AMP faster than a Vega 64 and uses near half the power.

No need to tinker with voltage or power tables, plug and play. Move the overclock sliders and game on.

 

edit:
context missing due to deleted posts

 

Well, this is another one of those things that could turn out to be BS, or it could be a legitimate leak from someone that got access to hardware before release.

I've found such things before, and some check out and some don't so as always be wary of things too good to be true. This will likely get picked up elsewhere, let's see where it goes. It's been up for 14 hours so far...

IDK where he got the hardware, initially I thought he might be using the AMD published numbers and making the comparison against Nvidia hardware he has, but nope, there are tests at resolutions AMD hasn't published yet, and he lists the hardware in the test system specifications.

I'll update when it becomes clear which way this test falls, in real or not real category.

RTX 2060 6GB vs RTX 2080 Ti 11GB vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB vs AMD Radeon VII 16GB 1080p 1440p 4K
TheSpyHood
Published on Jan 14, 2019
This is a huge pc gaming benchmark between RTX 2060 6GB vs RTX 2080 Ti 11GB vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB vs AMD Radeon VII 16GB in 10 latest pc games in 1080p 1440p and 4K.

Spoiler: Games Index + Testing Hardware

Games are tested listed below :

Assassin's Creed Odyssey - 0:00
Battlefield V - 0:32
Far Cry 5 - 1:01
Assassin's Creed Origins - 1:33
Hitman 2 - 2:06
Just Cause 4 - 2:34
Kingdom Come Deliverance - 3:05
Need For Speed Payback - 3:41
Quantum Break - 4:16
Shadow of the Tomb Raider - 5:03
Vampyr - 5:37
Watch Dogs 2 - 6:31

System Specifications :

MOTHERBOARD : Asrock Z370 TAICHI
CPU : Intel core i7-9700K 3.6GHz (stock)
GPU 1 : NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 6GB
GPU 2 : NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB
GPU 3 : AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB
GPU 4 : AMD Radeon VII 16GB 1TB Bandwidth
RAM : 16GB DDR4 3200MHz

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...ga-polaris-gpus.799348/page-541#post-10848637

 

Note to Steve, interviews are nice, but if you can't come prepared with detail (as you did with the Principled Technologies interview), or add some perspective to challenge the company line, it can present as a bit of a one-sided puff piece...

Translation: "We did such a poor job of implementing async compute in Pascal that we can advertise it as a new feature in Turing. Hooray!"

 

Guy's 417.71 are out with gsync support... i tried on my 703vm (no gsync but this lap has a display gsync compatible in other laptops) but sadly nvidia panel doesn't show anything new... what a disappointment

 

Techpowerup's conclusion said the RTX 2060 AMP is 4% faster than the Vega 64 they had on hand. That's not really much of a difference.

" Out of the box, the card is 3% faster than the Founders Edition , which is not a whole lot. Compared to the GTX 1060, the performance increase is a staggering 60%, but you have to consider the much higher price of the RTX 2060, too. Compared to AMD's fastest, the RX Vega 64, the ZOTAC RTX 2060 AMP is 4% faster ..."

3% faster than the FE? So the 2060 FE 6GB is 1% faster than the AMD Vega 64 8GB?

Is it true that there is no undervolting or power "tinkering" allowed with the new RTX gaming GPU's?

With the AMD Vega 64 8GB the power can be tamed now with automatic tuning assistants built in to the Adrenaline 2019 software. I would expect it can be tuned to around 200w, back down near the range of the 2060 AMP.

Used AMD Vega 64 8GB GPU's are around $275-$380, you can pay more or less, but that's about the range. New the prices are often still stuck in the nutzo crypto inflated range, but you can still find new ones around $400 more or less. I wouldn't spend more than that unless you just have to have one.

Also, what's odd is I'm seeing higher performance results in all the benchmarks I am finding and posting with both the RX Vega 56 / RX Vega 64 surpassing the 2060 often enough as well as the 1070ti surpassing the 2060, that makes me curious what variables are in play.

Realistically given the variance I'm seeing in benchmark results, until that's nailed down, I'd wait and let it sort out and see how the cards are performing in owners rigs.

Nvidia RTX 2060 vs Nvidia GTX 1070 Ti 15 Games Tested
PC Benchmarks
Published on Jan 15, 2019


Given the 2060 prices I'm seeing right now start popping up on google are $400-$450, with delivery down the road, and 1070ti's available used for a lot less and new for about the same price, I'd recommend the 8GB 1070ti over the 6GB 2060 at these already inflated prices.

And, the 2070 smokes the 2060 in all the benchmarks I am finding, the 2070 is significantly faster than the 2060. I'm not wanting to recommend spending more $ on RTX crap, but it looks like the price difference with the 2060 prices going into mid-$450 range reduces the gap between them. Taking into account the 2070 has 8GB + more RTX cores, it might be worth skipping the 2060 altogether.

Nvidia RTX 2060 vs Nvidia RTX 2070
PC Benchmarks
Published on Jan 10, 2019

 

The 417.71 release notes show FreeSync / VESA Adaptive-Sync or as Nvidia insists on calling it "Gsync Compatible Gaming Monitors"
http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/417.71/417.71-win10-win8-win7-desktop-release-notes.pdf

"Gaming Technology
Includes support for NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 graphics cards as well as support for G-SYNC compatible monitors"
https://www.nvidia.com/Download/driverResults.aspx/141906/en-us

Gsync Compatible Gaming Monitors
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/specs/

Unfortunately, given Nvidia has said only 12 out of 1000 monitors tested work 100% feature wise as "G-sync" driven monitors, I wouldn't expect too much - unless you have one of those 12 monitors.

Given Nvidia is doing it's best to be compatible while at the same time failing to be compatible with 988 out of a 1000 monitors, it's really a poor job Nvidia's done.

AMD FreeSync supports all of the monitors that Nvidia won't, at least AMD tries to be compatible with monitors that are / attempt to be 100% VESA Adaptive-Sync by improving it's profiles for FreeSync monitors.

Nvidia doesn't sound motivated to make FreeSync monitors work.

I think Nvidia would like to get away with stealing mind share away from AMD FreeSync success - making people think if they buy an Nvidia GPU they'll be able to use their FreeSync monitor - and then they are stuck with the Nvidia GPU and a monitor that flickers, blinks, or spazzes out in some way.

And, Nvidia has already clearly said we should expect that behavior unless you have one of the 12 100% functional FreeSync => Gsync monitors. So hey, Nvidia has now clearly told us that Gsync Compatibility isn't going to work @100% compatible on 98.8% of AMD FreeSync monitor models Nvidia has tested, so there you go.

In your particular case, a laptop without G-sync but it has a display that is G-sync compatible in other laptops, this new FreeSync / Adaptive-Sync compatible Gsync isn't going to help your situation.

If that GPU doesn't support G-sync - they pair a Gsync GPU with a Gsync Display - both have to be registered as Gsync supporting in the driver - so this new compatibility with FreeSync / Adaptive-Sync won't help.

You would need a FreeSync / Adaptive-Sync supporting monitor or display, over DisplayPort - Nvidia doesn't support Gsync over HDMI - in order to benefit from the "Gsync Compatible support" - yeah it's confusing because Nvidia insists on not using the words "FreeSync" or "VESA Adaptive-Sync" Compatible.

Here's a growing reddit thread with owners posting their experience trying "GSYNC" with their FreeSync monitors:

With the FreeSync drivers releasing, let's have a monitor megathread where people can share whether their FreeSync monitor is Gsync compatible.
Submitted 9 hours ago by peterfun
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/com...with_the_freesync_drivers_releasing/?sort=new

Here's another one:

Nvidia Freesync Monitor Testing Master List
Submitted 6 hours ago by snypr69
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/com...reesync_monitor_testing_master_list/?sort=new

 

First 2060 listing with pricing and delivery listed in google shop, not a great start. $410 and not in stock until 2/5/2019...

(removed from site early this morning, originally 23 were listed now only 15 - including 2060 laptops)

Update #1 - A few more showed up, 3 @ $400, 1 @ $369! I haven't checked stock or delivery dates, the same link above will continue to bring up new 2060's as they are listed. Also note the photo's of the Dual Fan Coolers show 3 fan Coolers, placeholder images are typical at first listing


Update #2 - 2060 prices inching higher, $441 / $432...more placeholder images...


shopblt.com has 15 listings (some are 2060 laptops) for the 2060:
https://www.shopblt.com/search/order_id=253832640&s_max=25&t_all=1&s_all=rtx+2060&search=Search

Update #3, Nvidia FE's are now for sale:
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforc...MI4v3-wu_v3wIVFCCtBh3DJQ_qEAAYASAAEgKulvD_BwE

Update #4, newegg has come online with 2060's, and it's still leaning more toward $400 than $350...

https://www.newegg.com/Video-Card/EventSaleStore/ID-2041438?N=100007709&Order=PRICED&PageSize=96

One little tidbit, many of the 2060's have this little caveat:
"Sale Ends in 7 Days (Mon)"
WTH does that mean? Prices go up in 7 days? Or?