Concluding their Gamescom festivities for their newly-introduced GeForce RTX 20-series, NVIDIA has revealed a bit more about the hardware, its features, and its expected performance this evening. Tonight NVIDIA is announcing the new Ansel RTX features in GeForce Experience, as well as some game performance metrics for the GeForce RTX 2080 up against the GeForce GTX 1080. After recent hands-on demos featuring real-time raytracing, NVIDIA is offering some numbers for out-of-the-box and Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) performance in traditionally rendered games.

NVIDIA RTX Support for Games
As of August 20, 2018
Game Real-Time Raytracing Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS)
Ark: Survival Evolved - Yes
Assetto Corsa Competizione Yes -
Atomic Heart Yes
Battlefield V Yes -
Control Yes -
Dauntless - Yes
Enlisted Yes -
Final Fantasy XV - Yes
Fractured Lands - Yes
Hitman 2 - Yes
Islands of Nyne - Yes
Justice Yes
JX3 Yes
MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries Yes
Metro Exodus Yes -
PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds - Yes
ProjectDH Yes -
Remnant: From the Ashes - Yes
Serious Sam 4: Planet Badass - Yes
Shadow of the Tomb Raider Yes -
The Forge Arena - Yes
We Happy Few - Yes

Starting with NVIDIA’s DLSS – and real-time raytracing for that matter – we already know of the supported games list. What they are disclosing today are some face-value 4K performance comparisons and results. For DLSS, for now we can only say that it uses tensor core-accelerated neural network inferencing to generate what NVIDIA is saying will be high-quality super sampling-like anti aliasing. Though for further technical information, this is a project NVIDIA has been working on for a while, and they have published some blogs and papers with some more information on some of the processes used. At any rate, the provided metrics are sparse on settings or details, and notably measurements include several games rendered in HDR (though HDR shouldn't have a performance impact).

Otherwise, NVIDIA presented a non-interactive Epic Infiltrator 4K demo that was later displayed on the floor, comparing Temporal Anti Aliasing (TAA) to DLSS, where the latter provided on-average near-identical-or-better image quality but at a lower performance cost. In this case, directly improving framerates. To be perfectly honest, I spent the entire floor time talking with NVIDIA engineers and driver/software developers, so I have no pictures of the floor demo (not that anything less than a direct screenshot will really do it justice). Ultimately, the matter of DLSS is somewhat nuanced and there isn’t much we can add at the moment.

Overall, the idea is that even in traditionally rasterized games without DLSS, the GeForce RTX 2080 brings around 50% higher performance than the GeForce GTX 1080 under 4K HDR 60Hz conditions. Because this excludes real-time raytracing or DLSS, this would be tantamount to ‘out of the box’ performance. Though there were no graphics settings or driver details to go with these disclosed framerates, so I'm not sure I'd suggest reading into these numbers and bar charts one way or another.

Lastly, NVIDIA announced several new features, filters, and supported games for GeForce Experience’s Ansel screenshot feature. Relating to GeForce RTX, one of the features is Ansel RT for supported ray-traced games, where a screenshot can be taken with a very high number of rays, unsuitable for real-time but not an issue for static image rendering.

Ansel RTX also leverages a similar concept to the tensor core accelerated DLSS with ‘AI Up-Res’ super resolution, which also works for games not integrated with Ansel SDK.

In terms of the GeForce RTX performance, this is more-or-less a teaser of things to come. But as always with unreleased hardware, judgement should be reserved until objective measurements and further details. We will have much more to say when the time comes.

POST A COMMENT

92 Comments

View All Comments

  • Yojimbo - Thursday, August 23, 2018 - link

    "How about you answer why 8800 gtx wasn't more expensive"

    OK. Because there are only so many bullets in a chamber. If they already raised the prices the generation before they have less ability to raise them now, everything else being equal. It's the market that sets the prices, ultimately. A company is just trying to maximize their prices. There is a price demand curve that takes into account how many customers are willing to pay what. We would have to look at market conditions to determine what the hell was going on at the time. The conditions of cost to produce, competitive environment, strength of the economy. That's why looking back at such an example is not a good way of trying to have this discussion. My point with talking about historical prices is only to show that the trend has not been to decrease or increase same-class graphics cards over time. Sometimes they have been cheaper and sometimes more expensive. But to single out a particular launch and say "this launch is most like the current launch, let's look at that one" is a bad idea, because there are so many other factors that influence that individual launch besides the cost to manufacture. Additionally, we didn't even establish the actual cost to manufacture or research the 8800 GTX. You just declared it was new technology and therefore should be a direct comparison.

    "No, just a few are bad examples, like the one you came up with and I clearly explained why."

    No, they are all bad. Go back and make a chart of product introductions and price cuts back in those days. They happened much more frequently and haphazardly. It was a different time.

    "Titans are not mainstream cards and do not fit in the regular geforce line up."

    In the Maxwell days Titan was a GeForce card. It fit in the GeForce lineup, it just was called Titan because it carried on the moniker of the card that went into the supercomputer. The Maxwell, Titan, however, was the first to now have FP64 and really didn't have anything that distinguished it from GeForce cards other than being the highest performing GeForce card of its time.

    "Excuses. It's not my fault they named it 2080 Ti which makes it a direct replacement for 1080 Ti. It is overpriced. Simple as that. I really don't understand how you as a consumer could defend a corporation's pricing behaviour."

    The name is the excuse. What's in a name? It's not the name that's important. It's the market segment that's important. That can be seen by die size, features, and by the release schedule. It's not your fault that it was named that. It's your fault that you are trying to argue that it's apples-to-apples even though the real-world situation is different, just because the name is the same. Then at the same time you try to argue that the 2080 Ti should also be compared with the 1080 strictly because of their launch schedule. Well, which is it? Should we follow the name or the launch schedule? In fact, we should follow the entire market conditions: the launch schedule, yes, but also the die size and the features of the card, i.e., the market segment the card is targeted at.
    Reply
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, August 23, 2018 - link

    should be "the Maxwell Titan was the first Titan to not have FP 64..." Reply
  • eddman - Thursday, August 23, 2018 - link

    You said new technologies that require R&D and a bigger die force a price increase. 8800 GTX had CUDA, had a much bigger die and yet launched at the same price as 7800 GTX. The fact of the matter is, as soon as the competition gets gets weak, prices jump up. It has ZERO to do with the features and performance. This very much applies to 2080 cards.

    It wasn't a different time. Price cuts shortly after overpriced launch prices are not the same as regular price cuts during a generation.

    Doesn't matter if titans at first had geforce in their names. They were never part of the regular cards. They were for special use cases, like kepler titan with its FP64 performance, and/or a way to extract money from those people who didn't want to wait for a Ti card (maxwell titan); and with pascal titans nvidia officially made them a separate line from geforce, confirming what everyone was saying all along.

    I NEVER compared 2080 Ti to 1080. You don't read my comments properly. I compared 1080 to 2080 and 1080 Ti to 2080 Ti.

    I, as a buyer, do not care in the least how big the chip is or what it brings. If the names match, then the cards are in the same category, therefore they should be in the same pricing ballpark. If the price is this much higher, then they are overpricing it compared to its predecessor. It cannot get simpler than this.
    Reply
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, August 23, 2018 - link

    "You said new technologies that require R&D and a bigger die force a price increase. 8800 GTX had CUDA, had a much bigger die and yet launched at the same price as 7800 GTX."

    Yes, I did say that, and I supported that in direct ways. It's pretty obvious that a larger die size will be more expensive to produce. It's also obvious that to maintain margins a costlier card will have to be sold at a higher price. These are facts. You mentioning the 8800 GTX is meaningless without hiring a market analyst to look into the specific of the 8800 GTX and the GTX 2080. We just can't glean anything from it with that. It's too complicated. I gave you a simple reason why the 8800 didn't increase prices further than the last generation, anyway.

    "The fact of the matter is, as soon as the competition gets gets weak, prices jump up. It has ZERO to do with the features and performance. This very much applies to 2080 cards."

    Not true if you look at the historical price trends. I've said this over and over: AMD had the weakest competition during the Maxwell era.. Maxwell cards were actually among the more affordable. And competition in graphics cards always has to do with features and performance. I don't know what you mean by that.

    "It wasn't a different time. Price cuts shortly after overpriced launch prices are not the same as regular price cuts during a generation."

    It was a very different time. Go back and look at the price cuts and launch history. Each manufacturer seemingly came out with cards 3 times a year. They'd cut prices at launches and otherwise. Just because you've categorized one particular instance of a price cut in your mind doesn't change that.

    "Doesn't matter if titans at first had geforce in their names."

    Wait, does the name matter or not? Make up your mind. I'm being serious here. You can't have it both ways.

    "They were never part of the regular cards. They were for special use cases, like kepler titan with its FP64 performance, and/or a way to extract money from those people who didn't want to wait for a Ti card (maxwell titan); ""

    Not wanting to wait for a card with a particular name is a special use case? Hmm, ok. The Maxwell Titan filled the exact same market segment as the 2080 Ti. Nothing more, nothing less. You haven't made any argument against that other than the name.

    "I NEVER compared 2080 Ti to 1080. You don't read my comments properly. I compared 1080 to 2080 and 1080 Ti to 2080 Ti."

    You said: "2080 Ti is the most expensive generational flagship launch card in the past 18 years at $1000. The second most expensive is 7800 GTX at $767 adjusted for 2018. That's about 30% more."

    The flagship launch card of the Pascal generation was the 1080. So you most certainly did compare the 2080 Ti to the 1080.

    "I, as a buyer, do not care in the least how big the chip is or what it brings. If the names match, then the cards are in the same category, therefore they should be in the same pricing ballpark. If the price is this much higher, then they are overpricing it compared to its predecessor. It cannot get simpler than this."

    That's fine. As a buyer you can do what you want. Then NVIDIA loses your purchase. It doesn't make your claims right or your decision rational, though.
    Reply
  • eddman - Thursday, August 23, 2018 - link

    I really doubt it's so expensive that they "need" to price it at $1000. I bet they could cut it to $800 and still make a sizable profit. I can't prove it but when there is no competition, companies tend to overprice. That's simple business 101.

    Maxwells were still quite more expensive than fermis when AMD was competing properly.

    ... yet none of those 3 cards a year were generational upgrades.

    I have made my mind. It said Titan in the name and they were not among the regular lineup. Later nvidia even removed the geforce from the name.

    No, Titans never competed against Ti cards. Why? because we had and still have Ti cards. There is going to be a Titan turing card since 2080 Ti doesn't even have all its cores enabled.

    https://videocardz.com/77696/exclusive-nvidia-gefo...

    2080 Ti IS the most expensive flagship launch card. They both are the big-chip flagships of their generation. I cannot do anything about the lack of a 7800 Ti card. As I've already mentioned, I have never compared 2080 Ti to 1080. I should've written "generational flagship".

    My claims are quite straightforward and clear. 1080 Ti, $700; 2080 Ti, $1000, therefore massively overpriced.
    Reply
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, August 23, 2018 - link

    "I really doubt it's so expensive that they "need" to price it at $1000. I bet they could cut it to $800 and still make a sizable profit."

    No, no chance they can make a sizable profit taking $200 off. How much do you think 11 GB of 14 Gbps GDDR6 costs? NVIDIA sells GPUs. Their operating margins are something like 35%, I think. I'm not sure what they sell the GPU for, but there's a lot of cost for the other components of a card. Suppose they sell it for $600. 35% of $600 is $210. If they took $200 off the price they'd be pretty much breaking even.

    And NVIDIA tends to always make sizable profits. That's not a bad thing for consumers. It allows them to continue to invest in the technology. Look at the current difference between what NVIDIA can produce and what AMD can produce. That difference is a result of NVIDIA's sizable profits and AMD's losses.

    But again, the point is not NVIDIA's sizable profits. The question is whether NVIDIA is making more money with RTX 2080 at $700 or GTX 1080 at $600. (The 1080 Ti and 2080 Ti are NOT a good comparison. The 1080 Ti did not come out until over 9 months later! If you want to make the comparison you must at least wait 9 months and consider the price of the 2080 Ti then, though m y guess is that 9 months from now NVIDIA will be close to introducing a new generation and so may not play around with price much until that new generation comes out. That short time to the new generation is one reason the 2080 Ti is out now.). And the answer is no, they don't seem to be making more with RTX 2080 at $700 than GTX 1080 at $600 as evidenced by their projected gross margins for the upcoming quarter.
    Reply
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, August 23, 2018 - link

    As far as a Titan Turning, no, I doubt it. Or if there is the Titan will include more RAM and the Ti will come down in price at that time. The Titan and the Ti share the same space. In the Maxwell generation they completely shared the same space and the only real difference was the timing of the release. It does'nt matter how much you try to deny that that's true, it's true. You just insist it without any real argument against it. "Why? because we had and still have Ti cards." No! We didn't have a Maxwell Ti card when the Titan X was introduced! And I don't think you want to be talking about the Maxwell Ti introduction too much because it blows apart your whole "when NVIDIA doesn't have competition they price things very high and never cut prices" claim.

    "2080 Ti IS the most expensive flagship launch card."

    The 2080 Ti may be the most expensive flagship card launch but it is in a different segment from all the other flagship card launches! It's like saying that when Toyota came out with the Avalon it was the most expensive Camry ever.

    "As I've already mentioned, I have never compared 2080 Ti to 1080. I should've written "generational flagship"."

    No matter how you try to spin it or what labels you use, you ARE comparing the 2080 Ti to the 1080 when you are comparing "generational flagships". Stop and think for a minute. How can you compare two things without comparing them?

    "My claims are quite straightforward and clear. 1080 Ti, $700; 2080 Ti, $1000, therefore massively overpriced."

    Yeah, a card that came out 9 1/2 months after launch and a card that came out at launch. What's quite straightforward and clear is that the comparison is flawed.
    Reply
  • eddman - Friday, August 24, 2018 - link

    Titans are not part of the regular geforce line. Nvidia removed the "geforce" part for the pascal variants and finally confirmed what everyone was suspecting. It doesn't get clearer than that.

    Titans come early to milk as much money as possible and when that's done Ti cards come in and perform as well or better in games. That's why we didn't have a Ti maxwell before titan.

    False car analogy. Avalon is a completely different line from Camry. That's the entire reason they are named differently. A newer generation Camry usually comes with a lot of new features and technologies and yet is just a bit more expensive than the last one. 2080s are simply a newer generation Camry but nvidia wants to charge you the price of an Avalon.

    You are doing the spinning here. There was no Ti back then. 7800 GTX was the big-chip flagship card. Stop playing around.

    It's not my fault nvidia released 2080 Ti with 2080. They did and priced it at $1000 and since it's the direct successor to 1080 Ti, as any normal person can see it is, I can say it's WAY overpriced compared to its direct predecessor.

    I never thought a customer would be so willing to defend a corporations pricing tactics. It is as if you like to be charged more.

    What if hey priced it at $1500? Would you have also defended that? At what level you'd say it's overpriced? $2000? $3000? Corporations overprice when there is no one to stop them. That's the reality.
    Reply
  • eddman - Friday, August 24, 2018 - link

    *Ti cards come in and perform almost as well in games or even better when OCed for a much lower price. Reply
  • eddman - Friday, August 24, 2018 - link

    I doubt that. Where did you get 35%? I don't buy that at $600 2080 would be barely breaking even. I really doubt it. Yes, I'm pretty sure 2080 cards are more expensive than 1080 cards but not expensive enough to justify such prices, specially for 2080 Ti.

    Nvidia isn't that stupid to price a card at $700 if a mere $100 price cut would wipe out the profits. Companies always price their cards high enough so that they can counter unexpected forced, early price cuts.

    How many times I have to repeat this, I am NOT claiming 2080 is making them more money than 1080. I'm just saying they could drop the price a bit and still make a respectable profit.

    2080 Ti would almost certainly still cost $1000 nine months later. No competition, therefore no price cuts, and since those two cards are both Ti, therefore I CAN compare them.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now