The 2018 GPU Benchmark Suite & the Test

Another year marks another update to our GPU benchmark suite. This time, however, is more in line with a maintenance update than it is a complete overhaul. Although we've done some extended compute and deep learning benchmarking in the past year, and even some HDR gaming impressions, our compute and synthetic lineup remains largely the same. But before getting into the details, let's start with the bulk of benchmarking, and the biggest reason for these cards anyhow: games.

Joining the 2018 game list is Far Cry 5, Wolfenstein II, Final Fantasy XV and Middle-earth: Shadow of War. We are also bringing in F1 2018 and Total War: Warhammer II. Returning from last year is Battlefield 1, Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation, and Grand Theft Auto V. All-in-all, these games span multiple genres, differing graphics workloads, and contemporary APIs, with a nod towards modern and relatively intensive games.

AnandTech GPU Bench 2018 Game List
Game Genre Release Date API(s)
Battlefield 1 FPS Oct. 2016 DX11
(DX12)
Far Cry 5 FPS Mar. 2018 DX11
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation RTS Mar. 2016 DX12
(DX11, Vulkan)
Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus FPS Oct. 2017 Vulkan
Final Fantasy XV: Windows Edition JRPG Mar. 2018 DX11
Grand Theft Auto V Action/Open world Apr. 2015 DX11
Middle-earth: Shadow of War Action/RPG Sep. 2017 DX11
F1 2018 Racing Aug. 2018 DX11
Total War: Warhammer II RTS Sep. 2017 DX11
(DX12)

That said, Ashes as a DX12 trailblazer may not be as hot and fresh as it once was, especially considering that the pace of DX12 and Vulkan adoption in new games has waned. The circumstances are worth an investigation on their own, but the learning curve required in modern low-level API and the subsequent return may not be convincing right now. As a more general remark, most developers and publishers tend not to advertise or document DX12 support as much as they used to, nor is it clearly labelled in game specifications as many times DX11 is the unmentioned default.

Particularly for NVIDIA and GeForce RTX, pushing DXR and raytracing means pushing DX12, of which DXR is a component. The API has a backstop in the form of Xbox consoles and Windows 10, and if multi-GPU is to make a comeback, whether that's via compatible workloads (VR), flexible usage (ray tracing workload topologies), or just the plain old inevitability of Moore's Law. So this is less likely to be the slow end of DX12.

In terms of data collection, measurements were gathered either using built-in benchmark tools or with AMD's open-source Open Capture and Analytics Tool (OCAT), which is itself powered by Intel's PresentMon. 99th percentiles were obtained or calculated in a similar fashion, as OCAT natively obtains 99th percentiles. In general, we prefer 99th percentiles over minimums, as they more accurately represent the gaming experience and filter out any artificial outliers.

We've also swapped out Blenchmark, which seems to have been abandoned in terms of updates, in favor of a BMW render from the Blender Institute Cycles Benchmark, and a more recent one from a Cycles benchmark developer on Blenderartists.org. There were concerns with Blenchmark's small tile size, which is not very applicable to GPUs, and in terms of usability we also ran into some GPU detection errors which were linked to inaccurate Blenchmark Python code.

Otherwise, we are also keeping an eye on a few trends and upcoming developments:

  • MLPerf machine learning benchmark suite
  • Blender Benchmark
  • Futuremark's 3DMark DirectX Raytracing benchmark
  • DXR and Vulkan raytracing extension support in games

Another point is that we do not have a permanent HDR monitor for our testbed, which would be necessary to incorporate HDR game testing in the near future; 5 games in our list actually support HDR. And as we look at technologies that enhance or alter image quality (e.g. HDR, Turing's DLSS), we will want to find a better way of comparing differences. This is particularly tricky with HDR as screenshots are inapplicable and even taking accurate photographs will most likely be viewed on an SDR screen. With DLSS, there is a built-in reference quality based on 64x supersampling, which in deep learning terms is the 'ground truth'; an intuitive solution would be to use a neural network based method of analyzing quality differences, but that is likely beyond our scope.

The following tech demos and test applications were provided via NVIDIA:

  • Star Wars 'Reflections' Demo (includes real time ray tracing and DLSS support)
  • Final Fantasy XV Official Benchmark (includes DLSS support)
  • Asteroids Demo (features mesh shading and variable LOD)
  • Epic Infiltrator Demo (features DLSS)

The Testbed

Because NVIDIA is not productizing any other reference-quality GeForce RTX 2080 Ti and 2080 card besides the Founders Editions, which are non-reference by specifications, we've gone ahead and emulated the true reference specifications with a 90MHz downclock and lowering the TDP by roughly 10W. This is to keep comparisons standardized and apples-to-apples, as we always look at reference-to-reference results.

In a classic case of Murphy's Law, our usual PSU started malfunctioning around the time of the review, but given the time constraints we couldn't do a 1:1 replacement in time. As it is a digital PSU, we were beginning to use it for PCIe power readings to augment system measurements, but for now we will have to stick power draw at the wall. For the time being, we've swapped it out with another high-quality and high-wattage PSU.

CPU: Intel Core i7-7820X @ 4.3GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte X299 AORUS Gaming 7 (F9g)
Power Supply: Corsair AX860i
EVGA 1000 G3
Hard Disk: OCZ Toshiba RD400 (1TB)
Memory: G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 4 x 8GB (16-18-18-38)
Case: NZXT Phantom 630 Windowed Edition
Monitor: LG 27UD68P-B
Video Cards: AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (Air Cooled)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Founders Edition

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
Video Drivers: NVIDIA Release 411.51 Press
AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition 18.9.1
OS: Windows 10 Pro (April 2018 Update)
Spectre/Meltdown Mitigations Yes, both
Meet The GeForce RTX 2080 Ti & RTX 2080 Founders Editions Cards Battlefield 1
Comments Locked

337 Comments

View All Comments

  • Fritzkier - Wednesday, September 19, 2018 - link

    Blame both. Why the f you blame AMD for NVIDIA's own fault?
    And yes, AMD had competitive offering on mid-end, not on high end. But, that's before 7mm. Let's see what will we got on 7mm. 7mm will be released next year anyway, it's not that far off.
  • PopinFRESH007 - Wednesday, September 19, 2018 - link

    Yep, lets wait for those 7mm processes. Those chips should only be the size of my computer with a couple hundred thousand transistors.
  • Holliday75 - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link

    Haha I was about to question your statement until I paid more attention to the process size he mentioned.
  • Fritzkier - Saturday, September 22, 2018 - link

    We seriously needs an edit button. Thanks autocorrect.
  • Yojimbo - Wednesday, September 19, 2018 - link

    So you are saying that if AMD were competitive then NVIDIA could never have implemented such major innovations in games technology... So, competition is bad?
  • dagnamit - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link

    Competition can stifle innovation when the market is involved in race to see how efficiently they can leverage current technology. The consumer GPU market has been about the core count/core efficiency race for a very long time.

    Because Nvidia has a commanding lead in that department, they are able to add in other technology without falling behind AMD. In fact, they’ve been given the opportunity to start an entirely new market with ray-tracing tech.

    There are a great many more companies developing ray-tracing hardware than rasterization focused hardware at the current moment. With Nvidia throwing their hat in now, it could mean other companies start to bring hardware solutions to the fore that don’t have a Radeon badge. It won’t be Red v. Green anymore, and that’s very exciting.
  • Spunjji - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link

    Your Brave New World would involve someone else magically catching up with AMD and Nvidia's lead in conventional rasterization tech. Spoiler alert: nobody has in the past 2 decades and the best potential competition, Intel, isn't entering the fray until ~2020
  • dagnamit - Sunday, September 23, 2018 - link

    No. I’m saying that companies that specialize in ray-tracing technology may have an opportunity to get into the consumer discrete GPU market. They don’t need to catch up with anything.
  • eva02langley - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link

    Not AMD fault if Nvidia is asking 1200$ US. Stop blaming AMD because you want to purchase Nvidia cards at better price, BLAME Nvidia!

    It is not AMD who force Ray Tracing on us. It is not AMD who want to provide gamework tools to sabotage the competition and gamers at the same time. It is not AMD charging us the G-sync tax. It is not AMD that screw gamers for the wallet of investors.

    It is all Nvidia fault! Stop defending them! There is no excuses.
  • BurntMyBacon - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link

    I accept that nVidia's choices are their own and not the "fault" of any third party. On the other hand, nVidia is a business and their primary objective is to make money. Manufacturing GPUs with features and performance that customers find valuable is a tool to meet their objective. So while their decisions are their own responsibility, they are not unexpected. Competition from a third party with the same money making objective limits their ability to make money as they now have to provide at least the perception of more value to the customer. Previous generation hardware also limits their ability to make money as the relative increase in features and performance (and consequently value) are less than if the previous generation didn't exist. If the value isn't perceived to be high enough, customers won't upgrade from existing offerings. However, if nVidia simply stops offering previous generation hardware, new builds may still be a significant source of sales for those without an existing viable product.

    Long story short, since there is no viable competition from AMD or another third party to limit nVidia's prices, it falls to us as consumers to keep the prices in check through waiting or buying previous gen hardware. If, however, consumers in general decide these cards are worth the cost, then those who are discontent simply need to accept that they fit into a lower price category of the market than they previously did. It is unlikely that nVidia will bring prices back down without reason.

    Note: I tend to believe that nVidia got a good idea of how much more the market was willing to pay for their product during the mining push. Though I don't like it (and won't pay for it), I can't really blame them for wanting the extra profits in their own coffers rather than letting it go to retailers.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now