The 1070ti was so close to the 1080 that Nvidia stopped AIB partners from selling pre-overclocked cards because they were afraid it would cannibalize 1080 sales. The Vega64 has always been essentially a hotter running 1080, and the Vega56 same with the 1070 non-ti.
I’m looking to upgrade from my 970 now that I have a 1440p g-sync monitor. My budget is under $400 so I’m thinking the 2060. I was looking at getting an EVGA 1070 ti from their ebay store or Amazon because I have some gift cards but the stock seems to be dwindling. The benchmarks between the two seem pretty close. my question is will the 6gb of ram on the 2060 be an issue?
2080 at $633 including a couple of games:
I’ve been thinking the exact same thing. I’m trying to hold off with my 960 until I see what next-gen consoles will need, then adjust to that.
Plenty of games had PhysX back in the day, even though the console version of the games didn’t. Borderlands 2 and Warframe are two games off the top of my head I can think of. I don’t see how raytracing will be any different. At the very least, Nvidia will be paying/assisting developers in order to bring it to the PC versions of the game.
For me personally, raytracing just isn’t anywhere near worth the performance tradeoff so I couldn’t care less. If I did, though, I wouldn’t be overly concerned about whether the consoles will support it, though (they won’t).
First it turned out that physics simulations didn’t need dedicated hardware, and you could do them on a separate GPU. Then it turned out that you could do it on your existing GPU. Then Nvidia open-sourced PhysX and basically gave up, as there was no money in that differentiation point and the market was competitive with havok and rigidbody.
For the games I’ve seen it in so far, I agree. That’s more about the games though. I may be bucking the trend here, but I’m glad nvidia are going in this direction. For me, image quality trumps frames. I’m seeing a bigger quality improvement with raytrace vs not raytrace than I’m seeing 1440 vs 4K.
Heh, Tomb Raider + Battlefield isn’t a lot yet is it? They will come.
Did the Tomb Raider RTX patch actually release or is it just included because of the demos they’ve shown off?
The Tomb Raider patch isn’t out yet. So it is actually impossible to have games, plural.
Tomb Raider isn’t even supposed to use many RTX features. No global illumination or reflections, just shadows.
For the games (yes games dammit two counts as plural lol) I’ve seen (not played, seen!) I haven’t been overly hyped, but more because Battlefield is too fast paced to smell the roses and Tomb Raider… well not a huge fan of third person QTE. That being said, I do believe their focus is correct. I bought a Voodoo 5 when anti-aliasing became a thing because of the better image quality, even if the TNT or whatever it was back then was faster.
I bought a 2070. Certainly $550 buyers justification desire exists, but that being said, I’m more excited by what this card will show when RTX eye-candy does come out than I would be by cranking up to 4k or proudly displaying my 200fps fraps score.
Guess that makes me a graphics whore. I don’t have a problem with that. DCS in VR is so gloriously immersive for me in large part because of the graphics.
Where did you see Tomb Raider, at E3 or on YouTube? Like I said, the patch isn’t out yet, so you can’t actually play it. The ray-tracing in TR will be much less impressive than BF5 anyway, as it’s only shadows.
And yeah. Not that exciting. It’ll get better… and if it doesn’t, well you can’t win em all.
Well it all comes down to immersion; those very hard-edged shadows simply don’t look right. We know how shadows are supposed to look, and they don’t look like that. Raytracing fixes it.
That was a great place to show shadowing, and it did make a big difference in that scene, but BF5 with global illumination is really much more impressive. Personally I’d like to see it in something like Bioshock, a slower exploration game.
Bioshock would be awesome. And yes, looking at the video again, the shadows are damn cool. Trying to keep my enthusiasm in check. The Metro game might hit that gameplay sweet spot and really looking forward to seeing it.
Actually, I can do a little test. Battlefield 5 came with the card. The new patch is supposed to speed up raytrace performance. Not really my jam, but I’ll install it and run it a bit in 1440. I’m curious if it will have playable frames for me with the 2070. I’m not too bent about the occasional dip into the 20s, so here’s hoping for about a ~40fps average.
Make sure you are running windows 10 build 1809 or the option won’t show up in the settings.
Whoops! Thanks. Looks like I’m at 1803.
Eegads what an unplayable mess. Frames were OK once mission loaded with Ray Tracing and wow! Dem graphics!
But load times were fucking ridiculous. Giant unskippable cut scenes in single player with sound stuttering and cutting out. Probably need some PC hackery with sound drivers, but I don’t think it’ll be worth my time.
For the test. 1440 with RT on and Ultra settings. I didn’t have FRAPS going, but it was totally playable. I’d say it dipped into the high 20s or low 30s rarely. May have been better. Was always smooth. I would have done a comparison and gotten a counter going, but I don’t have a full year to stop and start the game again. This thing needs to be patched.
Also, as has been stated before, it’s not a great style of game for RT benefits. It’s so damn busy already, who knows what’s being added or improved, and you are whipping your view around. I did see a nifty orange glow on my weapon from fire reflection. Cool I guess? Bottom line, is playable, even if an unoptimized mess of a game that felt more like early access…