The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti & RTX 2080 Founders Edition Review: Foundations For A Ray Traced Future
by Nate Oh on September 19, 2018 5:15 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
- Raytrace
- GeForce
- NVIDIA
- DirectX Raytracing
- Turing
- GeForce RTX
Final Words
Bringing this review to a close, we've seen it all and yet we have more to see. Here's what we know right now. NVIDIA has once again aimed for the top and reached it, securing the performance crown for another presumably long stint. Or arguably extending the current reign, but either way, on terms of traditional performance the new GeForce RTX 20 series further extends NVIDIA's performance lead.
By the numbers, then, in out-of-the-box game performance the reference RTX 2080 Ti is around 32% faster than the GTX 1080 Ti at 4K gaming. With Founders Edition specifications (a 10W higher TDP and 90MHz boost clock increase) the lead grows to 37%, which doesn't fundamentally change the matchup but isn't a meaningless increase.
Moving on to the RTX 2080, what we see in our numbers is a 35% performance improvement over the GTX 1080 at 4K, moving up to 40% with Founders Edition specifications. In absolute terms, this actually puts it on very similar footing to the GTX 1080 Ti, with the RTX 2080 pulling ahead, but only by 8% or so. So the two cards aren't equals in performance, but by video card standrads they're incredibly close, especially as that level of difference is where factory overclocked cards can equal their silicon superiors. It's also around the level where we expect that cards might 'trade blows', and in fact this does happen in Ashes of the Singularity and GTA V. As a point of comparison, we saw the GTX 1080 Ti at launch come in around 32% faster than the GTX 1080 at 4K.
Meaning that, in other words, the RTX 2080 has GTX 1080 Ti tier conventional performance, mildly faster by single % in our games at 4K. Naturally, under workloads that take advantage of RT Cores or Tensor Cores, the lead would increase, though right now there’s no way of translating that into a robust real world measurement.
So generationally-speaking, the GeForce RTX 2080 represents a much smaller performance gain than the GTX 1080's 71% performance uplift over the GTX 980. In fact, it's in area of about half that, with the RTX 2080 Founders Edition bringing 40% more performance and reference with 35% more performance over the GTX 1080. Looking further back, the GTX 980's uplift over previous generations can be divvied up in a few ways, but compared to the GTX 680 it brought a similar 75% gain.
But the performance hasn't come for free in terms of energy efficiency, which was one of Maxwell's hallmark strengths. TDPs have been increased across the x80 Ti/x80/x70 board, and the consequence is greater power consumption. The RTX 2080 features power draw at the wall slightly more than the GTX 1080 Ti's draw, while the RTX 2080 Ti's system consumption leaps by more than 60W to reach near-Vega 64 power draw at the wall.
Putting aside those who will always purchase the most performant card on the market, regardless of value proposition, most gamers will want to know: "Is it worth the price?" Unfortunately, we don't have enough information to really say - and neither does anyone else, except NVIDIA and their partner developers. This is because the RT Cores, tensor cores, Turing shader features, and the supporting software are all built into the price. But NVIDIA's key features - such as real time ray tracing and DLSS - aren't being utilized by any games right at launch. In fact, it's not very clear at all when those games might arrive, because NVIDIA ultimately is reliant on developers here.
Even when they do arrive, we can at least assume that enabling real time ray tracing will incur a performance hit. Based on the hands-on and comparing performance in the demos, which we were not able to analyze and investigate in time for publication, it seems that DLSS plays a huge part in halving the input costs. In the Star Wars Reflections demo, we measured the RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition managing around a 14.7fps average at 4K and 31.4fps average at 1440p when rendering the real time ray traced scene. With DLSS enabled, it jumps to 33.8 and 57.2fps.
So where does that leave things? For traditional performance, both RTX cards line up with current NVIDIA offerings, giving a straightforward point-of-reference for gamers. The observed performance delta between the RTX 2080 Founders Edition and GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition is at a level achievable by the Titan Xp or overclocked custom GTX 1080 Ti’s. Meanwhile, NVIDIA mentioned that the RTX 2080 Ti should be equal to or faster than the Titan V, and while we currently do not have the card on hand to confirm this, the performance difference from when we did review that card is in-line with NVIDIA's statements.
The easier takeaway is that these cards would not be a good buy for GTX 1080 Ti owners, as the RTX 2080 would be a sidegrade and the RTX 2080 Ti would be offering 37% more performance for $1200, a performance difference akin upgrading to a GTX 1080 Ti from a GTX 1080. For prospective buyers in general, it largely depends on how long the GTX 1080 Ti will be on shelves, because as it stands, the RTX 2080 is around $90 more expensive and less likely to be in stock. Looking to the RTX 2080 Ti, diminishing returns start to kick in, where paying 43% or 50% more gets you 27-28% more performance.
The benefits of the new hardware cannot be captured in our standard benchmarks alone. The DXR ecosystem is in its adolescence, if not infancy. Of course, NVIDIA is hardly a passive player in this. The GeForce RTX initiative is a key inflection point in NVIDIA's new push to change and mold computer graphics and gaming, and it's highly unlikely that anything about this launch wasn't completely deliberate. There was a conscious decision to launch the cards now, basically as soon as was practically possible. Even waiting a month might align with a few DXR and DLSS supporting games out at launch, though at the cost of missing the prime holiday window.
Taking a step back, we should highlight NVIDIA's technological achievement here: real time ray tracing in games. Even with all the caveats and potentially significant performance costs, not only was the feat achieved but implemented, and not with proofs-of-concept but with full-fledged AA and AAA games. Today is a milestone from a purely academic view of computer graphics.
But as we alluded to in the Turing architecture deep dive, graphics engineers and developers, and the consumers that purchase the fruits of their labor, are all playing different roles in pursuing the real time ray tracing dream. So NVIDIA needs a strong buy-in from the consumers, while the developers might need much less convincing. Ultimately, gamers can't be blamed for wanting to game with their cards, and on that level they will have to think long and hard about paying extra to buy graphics hardware that is priced extra with features that aren't yet applicable to real-world gaming, and yet only provides performance comparable to previous generation video cards.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
337 Comments
View All Comments
V900 - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link
That’s plain false.Tomb Raider is a title out now with RTX enabled in the game.
Battlefield 5 is out in a month or two (though you can play it right now) and will also utilize RTX.
Sorry to destroy your narrative with the fact, that one of the biggest titles this year is supporting RTX.
And that’s of course just one out of a handful of titles that will do so, just in the next few months.
Developer support seems to be the last thing that RTX2080 owners need to worry about, considering that there are dozens of titles, many of them big AAA games, scheduled for release just in the first half of 2019.
Skiddywinks - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link
Unless I'm mistaken, TR does not support RTX yet. Obviously, otherwise it would be showing up in reviews everywhere. There is a reason every single reviewer is only benchmarking traditional games; that's all there is right now.Writer's Block - Monday, October 1, 2018 - link
Exactly.Is supporting or enabled.
However - neiher actually have it now to see, to experience.
eva02langley - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link
These cards are nothing more than a cheap magic trick show. Nvidia knew about the performances being lackluster, and based their marketing over gimmick to square the competition by affirming that these will be the future of gaming and you will be missing out without it.Literally, they basically tried to create a need... and if you are defending Nvidia over this, you have just drinking the coolaid at this point.
Quote me on this, this will be the next gameworks feature that devs will not bother touching. Why? Because devs are developing games on consoles and transit them to PC. The extra time in development doesn't bring back any additional profit.
Skiddywinks - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link
Here's the thing though, I don't the performance is that lacklustre, the issue is we have this huge die and half of it does not do what most people want; give us more frames. If they had made the same size die with nothing but traditional CUDA cores, the 2080 Ti would be an absolute beast. And I'd imagine it would be a lot cheaper as well.But nVidia (maybe not mistakenly) have decided to push the raytracing path, and those of us you just want maximum performance for the price (me) and were waiting for the next 1080 Ti are basically left thinking "... oh well, skip".
eva02langley - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link
DOn't get me wrong, these cards are a normal upgrade performance jump, however it is not the second christ sent that Nvidia is marketing.The problem here is Nvidia want to corner AMD and their tactic they choose is RTX. However RTX is nothing else than a FEATURE. The gamble could cost them a lot.
If AMD gaming and 7nm strategy pays off, devs will develop on AMD hardware and transit to PC architecture leaving devs no incentive to put the extra work for a FEATURE.
The extra cost of the bigger die should have been for gaming performances, but Nvidia strategy is to disrupt competition and further their stand as a monopoly as they can.
Physx didn't work, hairwork didn't work and this will not work. As cool as it is, this should have been a feature for pro cards only, not consumers.
mapesdhs - Thursday, September 27, 2018 - link
That's the thing though, they aren't a "normal" upgrade performance jump, because the prices make no sense.AnnoyedGrunt - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link
This reminds me quite a bit of the original GeForce 256 launch. Not sure how many of you were following Anandtech back then, but it was my go-to site then just as it is now. Here are links to some of the original reviews:GeForce256 SDR: https://www.anandtech.com/show/391
GeForce256 DDR: https://www.anandtech.com/show/429
Similar to the 20XX series, the GeForce256 was Nvidia's attempt to change the graphics card paradigm, adding hardware tranformation and lighting to the graphics card (and relieving the CPU from those tasks). The card was faster than the contemporary cards, but also much more expensive, making the value questionable for many.
At the time I was a young mechanical engineer, and I remember feeling that Nvidia was brilliant for creating this card. It let me run Pro/E R18 on my $1000 home computer, about as fast as I could on my $20,000 HP workstation. That card basically destroyed the market of workstation-centric companies like SGI and Sun, as people could now run CAD packages on a windows PC.
The 20XX series gives me a similar feeling, but with less obvious benefit to the user. The cards are as fast or faster than the previous generation, but are also much more expensive. The usefulness is likely there for developers and some professionals like industrial designers who would love to have an almost-real-time, high quality, rendered image. For gamers, the value seems to be a stretch.
While I was extremely excited about the launch of the original GeForce256, I am a bit "meh" about the 20XX series. I am looking to build a new computer and replace my GTX 680/i5-3570K, but this release has not changed the value equation at all.
If I look at Wolfenstein, then a strong argument could be made for the 2080 being more future proof, but pretty much all other games are a wash. The high price of the 20XX series means that the 1080 prices aren't dropping, and I doubt the 2070 will change things much since it looks like it would be competing with the vanilla 1080, but costing $100 more.
Looks like I will wait a bit more to see how that price/performance ends up, but I don't see the ray-tracing capabilities bringing immediate value to the general public, so paying extra for it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Maybe driver updates will improve performance in today's games, making the 20XX series look better than it does now, but I think like many, I was hoping for a bit more than an actual reduction in the performance/price ratio.
-AG
eddman - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link
How much was a 256 at launch? I couldn't find any concrete pricing info but let's go with $500 to be safe. That's just $750 by today's dollar for something that is arguably the most revolutionary nvidia video card.Ananke - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link
Yep, and it was also not selling well among "gamers" novelty, that became popular after falling under $100 a pop years later. Same here, financial analysts say the expected revenue from gaming products will drop in the near future, and Wall Street already dropped NVidia. Product is good, but expensive, it is not going to sell in volume, their revenue will drop in the imminent quarters.Apple's XS phone was the same, but Apple started a buy-one-get-one campaign on the very next day, plus upfront discount and solid buyback of iPhones. Yet, not clear whether they will achieve volume and revenue growth within the priced in expectations.
These are public companies - they make money from Wall Street, and they /NVidia/ can lose much more and much faster on the capital markets, versus what they would gain in profitability from lesser volume high end boutique products. This was relatively sh**y launch - NVidia actually didn't want to launch anything, they want to sell their glut of GTX inventory first, but they have silicon ordered and made already at TSMC, and couldn't just sit on it waiting...