1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Reviews Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming OC Review

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 18 Oct 2018.

  1. bit-tech

    bit-tech Supreme Overlord Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    12 Mar 2001
    Posts:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    32
    Read more
     
  2. SuperHans123

    SuperHans123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2013
    Posts:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    29
    The RTX 2080 Ti is simply as good as it gets right now, offering proper full-detail 4K gaming that’s about 25 percent faster than the GTX 1080 Ti.
    Unless you are playing Total War and it drops to 20FPS at 4K and is a lot slower than its predecessor.
    Why don't you comment on every game test page how the card performs in relation to said game as opposed to a generic tagline about the game? Something along the lines of 'This card clearly isn't good value if your main reason for buying is Deus Ex MD as the scores clearly demonstrate the tiny increase in framerate over the previous generation...'
    Your summary at the end rarely goes into any detail about how good/bad a card is at specific games, so all we are left with is some dreary Excel charts.

    This card achieved a minimum of 20fps in Total War, 20..hardly playable.
     
    Last edited: 25 Oct 2018
  3. Zak33

    Zak33 Staff Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    12 Jun 2017
    Posts:
    215
    Likes Received:
    42
    All the 2080's are having a mare with Total War. A total mare. OK, some are a bit faster than 20fps...all the way up to nearly 25fps! ie they're all having a mare
     
  4. Hustler

    Hustler Active Member

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    998
    Likes Received:
    29
    Meh!...Not worth a penny over £1105.
     
  5. edzieba

    edzieba Virtual Realist

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    198
    Without a frame delivery chart, that could mean anything from "half the time at 20FPS, half the time at 70FPS" to "a single frame was delivered with a 50ms delay giving an instantaneous framerate of 20FPS with all others delivered at 45FPS".

    So question for Bit-Tech: is the "minimum framerate" the minimum instantaneous framerate, or using a moving-average window (and what size) or other outlier-rejection algorithm?
     
  6. perplekks45

    perplekks45 LIKE AN ANIMAL!

    Joined:
    9 May 2004
    Posts:
    5,476
    Likes Received:
    210
    Implying that "all others delivered at 45FPS" could be considered acceptable. Mate, this is PC gaming. On consoles 30 FPS might be acceptable because the "plebs" don't know better. Looking at you, Shadow of the Colossus remake on a standard PS4. On PC in this day and age anything below 60 FPS should not be allowed. Especially if you just paid upwards of 1.1k on a shiny RTX card.

    /rant
     
  7. edzieba

    edzieba Virtual Realist

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    198
    Slow your roll there Tex, your alternatives for >45FPS in Total War at UHD with Ultra settings are Bugger and All.
    If you want to maintain 60FPS in all scenarios, then you may need to suffer the e-peen shrinkage of taking all the settings sliders and not shoving them all up to maximum UTRAWTTFBQ. While it may be easy to disengage brain and just throw money at cards for Moar Performance, developers can always throw additional render tasks at those cards even faster than they can be released.
     
  8. perplekks45

    perplekks45 LIKE AN ANIMAL!

    Joined:
    9 May 2004
    Posts:
    5,476
    Likes Received:
    210
    I get your point, don't worry. And I do agree that devs should always optimise their games for what's actually available in graphics horse power at any point in time. And I do agree that devs generally don't do that. I still feel like the PC gaming community is slowly moving towards accepting 30 FPS as playable and THAT I find worrying.
     
  9. edzieba

    edzieba Virtual Realist

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    198
    I don't agree with that at all, in the slightest. Devs optimise for 99% of users on "high". The "Ultra" settings are purely for bragging rights, generally with little no perceptual benefit. Note for example Doom's dramatic improvement from the mere plebian 'high' preset to the ultra nightmare preset?
    'High' is the optimised setting, 'ultra' is the "how high a value can we can we set this variable to before the engine errors out?" option.
     
  10. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    4,251
    Likes Received:
    252
    Also with plenty of games there are one or two settings that have a huge performance impact, so if you are willing to fiddle around a bit instead of just using presets you can leave most of the stuff maxed out and only lower a small number of settings while still gaining most of the performance.
     
  11. perplekks45

    perplekks45 LIKE AN ANIMAL!

    Joined:
    9 May 2004
    Posts:
    5,476
    Likes Received:
    210
    Fair points. But that would mean that 1080p @ high settings on a 1060 should deliver stable 60 fps. I don't have the game, does it?
     
  12. Skiddywinks

    Skiddywinks Member

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    929
    Likes Received:
    8
    The idea that a £1100 card could be "recommended" is insane.
     
  13. bawjaws

    bawjaws Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    3,174
    Likes Received:
    250
    What's your upper limit for price for a card to be recommended, as a matter of interest?
     
  14. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    4,251
    Likes Received:
    252
    A 1080TI will do 70+ min fps @1080p Ultra, but there is definitely something weird going on with Warhammer II and the 20x0 cards cause the min fps is significantly lower than it was with the old cards.

    Depends on what you want from a card...

    If you are looking for the cheapest card you can get away with for some light 1080p gaming then obviously this one wouldn't be recommended, neither would it be recommended as a sensibly priced mid range card, but if you are looking for max performance then it has no competition except for the Titan V which costs more than double so it does justify this one being recommended.
     
    Last edited: 27 Oct 2018
  15. TheMadDutchDude

    TheMadDutchDude The Flying Dutchman

    Joined:
    23 Aug 2013
    Posts:
    4,636
    Likes Received:
    491
    As above. It’s recommended to those specifically looking to spend £1100+ on a GPU.
     
  16. sandys

    sandys Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    2,989
    Likes Received:
    85
    DX12 mode is beta and was added for AMD DX12 cards, with AMDs assistance when Nvidia didn't have a proper DX12 card just 1080s, it hit Nvidias hardware hard, I don't think it has been updated since, the benchmark tested here when played on my hardware (Ryzen, 1080Ti) at 4k does the following,

    DX11: Min 42, Avg 48.5
    DX12: Min 22, Avg 39.5

    DX12 looks like a stuttery mess in some sections of the battle benchmark.

    Nvidia probably needs a driver update or the games needs an update. My 1080Ti has much lower mins than Bit techs but that is probably gen 1 Ryzen vs 5Ghz 8700k or the older drivers used for 1080TI (399.24) in this review worked better than the current ones (416.34) that's not unheard of.

    I'm sure a 2080Ti in DX11 will play lovely in 4k or with better driver in DX12.
     
    Last edited: 28 Oct 2018
  17. Omnislip

    Omnislip Member

    Joined:
    31 May 2011
    Posts:
    215
    Likes Received:
    11
    I think the point is more that the "Extreme" tag is surely appropriate for this component rather than a "Recommended"

    The DX12 option is cataclysmically bad - while it runs with higher framerates on AMD cards (which is good!), the loading times are doubled/tripled for when you enter battles. It's very unclear to me why this exists, and why it hasn't been fixed.
     
  18. sandys

    sandys Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    2,989
    Likes Received:
    85
    I checked the same driver as the review on 1080 and DX12 is smooth with no large frame drops or stutters so this is performance min frame rate issue is an Nvidia Driver 'fix'

    399.24 DX12: Min 34, Avg 39.7
    416.36 DX12: Min 22, Avg 39.5
     
  19. yuusou

    yuusou Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    201
    I'm going to have to agree with this. Isn't "Recommended" for when a reviewed item ticks all the boxes while "Extreme" ticks the top-end performance box?

    Ray Tracing is currently non-existent in games, so no new tech (for now).
    Performance increase over previous gen equivalent to current pricing doesn't justify it.
    Maybe they will fall under recommended once ray tracing is here and it's absolutely balls to the wall.

    2080 and 2080tis definitely tick the extreme boxes, but not the recommended atm, imho.
     
  20. adidan

    adidan End of season avatar. 50% reduction.

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    12,612
    Likes Received:
    1,030
    I agree, i'd say they fall under 'extreme'.

    'Recommended' surely has value for money taken into account.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page