PCs and Steam: Thread 01

[Neon Ignition]

Based on what I tend to get out of my GTX1080, apply those percentages at 4K and... nah, massively not worth it. I'd be talking about most real life games sitting in the 70-80fps range which is fine as 60fps is the target (though those looking for much higher will remain disappointed) but given the baseline demanding new releases tend to create it'd be a big expense for little to no visual improvement and 4-6fps max boost to not drop below 60fps in most cases.

[MartyG]

How are you getting 70-80 FPS at 4K on a GTX1080? I'm getting no where near that unless it's something super optimised like Destiny 2.

[Digfox]

The disappointment is the the 2080 imo. Sometimes slower, the same or small performance increases over the 1080Ti. Even the 2080Ti is the (usual) 20-35% depending on benchmark. But these are both at 70-100% the cost of the 1080/1080Ti. i.e. The MSI Duke 2080Ti is over 96% the cost of the equivalent 1080Ti atm.

Ouch.

[Digfox]

How are you getting 70-80 FPS at 4K on a GTX1080? I'm getting no where near that unless it's something super optimised like Destiny 2.

ESports games possibly, stuff like Overwatch, LoL, Dota etc. Hell even Warframe running at 1440p hits crazy high 3 figures FPS rates on any of my last 3 cards. Would be easy to drive to 70-80 fps even at 4K. I also imagine turning settings down helps.

[MartyG]

I don't want to compromise on quality though, so a 77.6% improvement with the 2080 Ti over the 1080 at 4K resolutions would push most games over that 60 FPS threshold on ultra, which I would say is significant.

Just not at a grand plus

[speedlolita]

Yeah, money aside the 2080 Ti looks to deliver great performance at 4K, that's for sure.

[Digfox]

I don't want to compromise on quality though

Yea, although those eSports titles are going to easily run over 60fps anyway. I think it's more the harder to run AAA western releases which we are talking about.

And I also think these days the difference in a lot of settings is negligible. It's certainly not like the old days where there were massive differences.

But if the point is more; 'I've just spent £1099 to £1,450 on a new GPU so I damn well expect Ultra settings'. I can appreciate that 😃

[dataDave]

I'm good until the 2280 Ti, depending on which 'essential' PC games require ray tracing at that point.

[MartyG]

Okay, well real world benchmarking, the 2080 isn't hitting 4K60 at ultra or even high settings in many games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbceq1y70i4&t=214s

So, that's a total no from me at their current prices. Taking a look at the Ti stuff now.

Nope, even the Ti is struggling to hit the 60 FPS target in some games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r8g1NaWDBQ

Edited the linked YouTube vid for the Ti, this one shows some better benchmarks making things look a little rosier for the Ti.

All I can say is raytracing better be mind blowing.

[dataDave]

Okay, well real world benchmarking, the 2080 isn't hitting 4K60 at ultra or even high settings in many games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbceq1y70i4&t=214s
All I can say is raytracing better be mind blowing.

It is if you like watching videos of games in slow-motion. I really don't think anyone can properly digest this level of detail during anything fast-paced. I think it looks nice, but not sapping upwards of 50% GPU resources while adding 40% to the price nice.

[Neon Ignition]

That's the thing, these days running a new release and sticking everything on Ultra makes no sense as games don't utilise the difference in settings anymore. There's little at Ultra that looks better than High, sometimes maybe texture work but shadows, reflections, grass, particles etc very rarely make a visibile difference beyond taxing the memory etc more.

Don't get me wrong, some games come out and the GTX1080 can struggle to hit 4K 60fps but more often than not it's because the port isn't optimised well and in those cases it's usually to the point that an RTX2080 would likely struggle to hit the bar too. AA is a must but half the taxing solutions make no real difference on screen either so unless you're aiming for some bespoke set ups requirements straight 4K/60fps (maybe with some minor dips) at High with some Ultra is perfectly achievable. By the looks the 2080 would dip less and you'd get a couple more ultra settings but nothing you'd notice hugely.

It's not even really down to the cards, it's the games. We're still at a point where developers are using something as old as the Xbox One as the baseline to make their games by which means as soon as you get into 980TI territory there are diminishing gains to be made without software that properly stresses the cards.

Until next gen hits and software demands shoot up Nvidia etc are trying to get new money for old rope, second guessing advancements to try and justify people shelling out inflated prices for cards that offer minimal gains, hence the heavy lean on ray tracing, something that won't be properly implemented and suitably supported until after the 2080 has been replaced.

I don't trust at all that when next gen hits and non-cross gen software hits, that these new cards won't themselves struggle in various ways and given how small the gains vs cost seems to be it seems best to stay the course with the 10XX series for the next 2-3 years and then put the money into the line that is out for, and reflects, the software being made at the time.

[eastyy]

I think with ray tracing its like so many other new graphics process the first iterations kill performance and will take another generation of cards but only if ray tracing takes off

[dataDave]

That's the thing, these days running a new release and sticking everything on Ultra makes no sense as games don't utilise the difference in settings anymore. There's little at Ultra that looks better than High, sometimes maybe texture work but shadows, reflections, grass, particles etc very rarely make a visibile difference beyond taxing the memory etc more.

This is what mods are for. I've got both Skyrim and GTA5: Redux simmering away nicely at the 65-70fps sweet spot on 1440p. Stock Ultra buys me 4K/60FPS in the living room, usually dropping the post-processing alone is enough to do that whilst keeping all the 4K textures.

I think with ray tracing its like so many other new graphics process the first iterations kill performance and will take another generation of cards but only if ray tracing takes off

Yep. It's the new ambient occlusion.

[Digfox]

Yep. It's the new ambient occlusion.

Except Ambient Occlusion is just a rendering/shading technique. This implementation of Ray Tracing, RTX, is specific to Nvidia Graphics cards. Atm no consoles, mobiles or AMD/Intel powered GPU's will do it. And unless something changes with future mobiles or next-gen console, it will continue to remain an Nvidia specific thing.

Like G-Sync, PhysX or 3D Vision.

[Neon Ignition]

Waste of time if its restricted to one makers products on one platform, if anything I'd rather the card wasn't burdened processing or costing more to do something that was a novelty. Devalues the entire point of the RTX cards, definitely happier to wait for the true next gen cards.