Good point, forgot about that.
Wouldnāt that kill sales of the 20x line? I guess if sales have been bad enough.
It would, but more importantly, it would allow Nvidia to sell a cheaper model at the 1080ti/2080 performance tier without depressing the perceived value of the RTX line, and kill the Vega 7 dead.
That would be the card I shoot for, or even a 1180ti if such a thing were to exist. But Iām looking at picking up a gaming laptop, and Iāll be holding off until I hear word on the rumored 11-series.
I donāt think there will ever be a point in computer graphics where āit just worksā is a reality. No matter how powerful dedicated ray tracing hardware gets, developers will always introduce optimizations to enable them to reach higher resolutions, higher frame rates, push detail in other areas, etc.
I donāt see any reason to ever need resolutions higher than 4k at current screen sizes and view distances. VR could probably benefit up to 8k. Same with framerates, the limitation is the human body, our eyes can only resolve pixels larger than a certain size at a certain distance, our brains see anything over X fps as smooth.
I donāt like Linus Tech Tips but they did get a watch from me with their recent video where they did a blind test of resolution. The short of it was that for text and productivity, 4K is good. For games, itās not only not as good, but a $6K gaming PC with 4K is less preferred than a normal gaming PC with 1440p.
Yep. I will defend higher DPIs to the death for productivity, but even with excellent (corrected) eyesight the difference between 1440 and 4k at 27" and typical desk distance (2-3 feet) is negligible.
I do want to stab my eyes out going back to 1080/25" though, especially with Windowsā often-shitty font scaling.
For games, though, even 1080/25" is great.
Seems like the RTX line would become pretty undesirableā¦ Is this really likely?
True, but if sales are really sluggish enough, why back a lame horse? It is the sunk cost fallacy to stick with something not working, especially if your competitor basically gave up trying to compete effectively, why not go for the jugular?
This is true, but thereās no way this is a reaction to poor sales. Nvidia couldnāt pump out a new chip and design this fast. If itās real, an 11xx series has been in the works to go long side the 20xx series for years.
Iām down for a $250 1160, would put in a pre-order today. Aside from that I keep considering my options.
Iād be interested to see if thereās any perf/watt improvement over the 10 series.
It could be 2080s binned because their ray-tracing cores are busted. Or possibly rebranded 1080tis, but I doubt that as they were very large chips.
I suppose they could have been sitting on a bunch of extra 1080tis since the cryptomining bubble burst that theyāre gonna rebrand, but thatāll become obvious as soon as they release the specs.
AMD working on ray tracing as well
Canāt wait to try the gsynch crap on my monitor next week. I just upgraded to a 144hz monitor and a 1070ti. If this works on my monitor well Iāll be super happy that I didnāt pony up more for a gsynch monitor.
The prices just seemed too insane to consider. I see a similar AOC monitor is listed as compatible so fingers crossed. So far Iām generally at or near the refresh rate, but come a year or two down the road that will start changing.
So if I have a GTX 970 and would like better 1440 / 2160 performance, and generally limit my GPU budget to around $250-$300, is this a good time to buy, and what is the best choice?
Also, I have an i5 4440. Would this be a major performance bottleneck if I were to buy a better video card?
I would suggest the RTX2060. A bit over your budget, but itās the card to get today.
Yes, your CPU will be a constraint in some games, and not in others. But it should be fine.