News Nvidia Reveals GeForce RTX 3080 Ti: A 3090 With Half the VRAM

[Conahl]

. You pay over $750 for a graphics card to play it <4k, you have more money than you know what to do with.

nope just keep saving so when prices hopefully do fall, i will be able to choose any card i want
based on current prices, i agree, but only because the prices are so messed up.

And there are over 40 titles that now use dlss. And that list will only grow

it doesnt matter if there are 40 games, or 400 games, if the games a person plays, doesnt support those features. and this is where i am sitting.
and again, this, as well as the other features and pros you keep saying as positives for rtx cards are moot and a non issue if the games a person plays, doesnt support it, which you seem to keep ignoring like that shouldn't matter, and then keep mentioning those Pros. but it could matter, specially if, after prices hopefully return to more sane levels, the price difference between each card, is 100 or more. makes me wonder, either you work for nvidia, as that is what a salesmen would do, or you love nvidia.

i have played SupCom and an I7 930, and then an i7 5930k, with the same vid card, a 7970, and still had to turn the graphics down as after about 30 mins or so, the game started to slow down, like some one was pressing the minus keys to lower the game speed, at +10, it was running more like it was at -5, adjust the graphics options down, and the game would speed up. cause of that, i doubt it was the cpus being used as going from a 930, to a 5930k, was a pretty decient upgrade at the time 🙂
and supcom 2 did use a different game engine i think, definatly not the same as the 1st, it was basically a port from the Xbox version, and it showed. quite honestly, no were near the same as SupCom 1. i played through 2, and after that, went back to and keep playing SupCom 1.

 

[digitalgriffin]

nope just keep saving so when prices hopefully do fall, i will be able to choose any card i want
based on current prices, i agree, but only because the prices are so messed up.


it doesnt matter if there are 40 games, or 400 games, if the games a person plays, doesnt support those features. and this is where i am sitting.
and again, this, as well as the other features and pros you keep saying as positives for rtx cards are moot and a non issue if the games a person plays, doesnt support it, which you seem to keep ignoring like that shouldn't matter, and then keep mentioning those Pros. but it could matter, specially if, after prices hopefully return to more sane levels, the price difference between each card, is 100 or more. makes me wonder, either you work for nvidia, as that is what a salesmen would do, or you love nvidia.

i have played SupCom and an I7 930, and then an i7 5930k, with the same vid card, a 7970, and still had to turn the graphics down as after about 30 mins or so, the game started to slow down, like some one was pressing the minus keys to lower the game speed, at +10, it was running more like it was at -5, adjust the graphics options down, and the game would speed up. cause of that, i doubt it was the cpus being used as going from a 930, to a 5930k, was a pretty decient upgrade at the time
and supcom 2 did use a different game engine i think, definatly not the same as the 1st, it was basically a port from the Xbox version, and it showed. quite honestly, no were near the same as SupCom 1. i played through 2, and after that, went back to and keep playing SupCom 1.

Maybe if you read my sig line you would realize I don't work for NVIDIA. Maybe if you read my previous post about owning a 7970, RX580, 5700XT you might have realized that too.

It doesn't matter IF the games you play today support DLSS or not. The question is will TOMORROWS games support DLSS which is likely a "YES". You don't buy a card just for todays games, but something that will be relatively future proof for the next 5 years (if you are spending this kind of coin)

DLSS 2.0 still APPEARS to be a better solution than AMD's super resolution upscaling. (This based on preliminary image compares and frame rates) Anything below ultimate quality is horrid in terms of blurring and lost detail.

I'm not saying one is better than the other. The end user has to decide if the extra DLSS 2.0, Vastly Better RT, and Better 4K raster is worth it for $200 more. That is for the end user to decide. If the 6900XT works for you, then more power to ya and be happy with that choice.

 

[hotaru.hino]

i have played SupCom and an I7 930, and then an i7 5930k, with the same vid card, a 7970, and still had to turn the graphics down as after about 30 mins or so, the game started to slow down, like some one was pressing the minus keys to lower the game speed, at +10, it was running more like it was at -5, adjust the graphics options down, and the game would speed up. cause of that, i doubt it was the cpus being used as going from a 930, to a 5930k, was a pretty decient upgrade at the time

The simulation part of Supreme Commander runs on a single thread. And given that most games made around this time that also heavily rely on a single thread don't seem to have much of a performance improvement on today's hardware, I can confidently say you're not really going to get far with any upgrade. There's little you can do to improve your situation because Supreme Commander simply wasn't designed for a computer 10 years from its future.

It's the same reason why the original Crysis can still "murder" modern PCs: it was designed with another computer in mind that never happened, so it's horribly unoptimized by today's standards.

 

[Conahl]

Maybe if you read my sig line you would realize I don't work for NVIDIA. Maybe if you read my previous post about owning a 7970, RX580, 5700XT you might have realized that too.

maybe you were just hired 😛 or now prefer them, that is how your replies came across to me, thats all.

{QUOTE="digitalgriffin, post: 22341214, member: 162462"]
The question is will TOMORROWS games support DLSS which is likely a "YES".
[/QUOTE]
well, i havent bought a new game in probably 3 years now, if not longer, and there doesnt seem to be any games coming out, that interest me, which is kind of sad, really. so, rt and DLSS, are still moot points, and not worth it yet. for the games i play rasterization is what i am looking at, and as it stands, which card i get that retires my 1060, will solely be based on price.

 

[renz496]

I opt to be optimistic based on the past. See gsync vs freesync and how big of a difference really is to matter the extra $$$ and also how it turned out in the end - nvidia being forced to accept it too.

Also so far everything AMD said they will accomplish with Ryzen, RDNA1 and 2, they delivered and any marketing materials released before about all these products and the reviews that came after confirmed not only that they did not lie (like nvidia did so many times now), but that the difference was basically margin of error between the marketing materials and 3rd party trustworthy benchmarks.

So until AMD is caught with a blatant lie or BS at the level of nvidia's BS, I can trust them to deliver what they promise. They have earned it in the past years.

There is one important factor people should not ignore: FSR is free for everyone. DLSS costs money, you can only have it if you buy an RTX card, and only that way. FSR will work even on consoles, APUs and mobile phones... and since it will work on everything, it's basically a free tech.

That aspect alone makes FSR already a winner for me vs DLSS.

the situation cannot be compared with Freesync vs Gsync. those tech are completely on the monitor side and game developer does not need to make any kind of patch to make it work on their games. still without Gsync Freesync will not going to be where it was right now.

yes FSR is free for consumer but it doesn't mean game developer effort and time to implement it also comes as free. just look what happen with Bullet before.

 

[VforV]

the situation cannot be compared with Freesync vs Gsync. those tech are completely on the monitor side and game developer does not need to make any kind of patch to make it work on their games. still without Gsync Freesync will not going to be where it was right now.

yes FSR is free for consumer but it doesn't mean game developer effort and time to implement it also comes as free. just look what happen with Bullet before.

I know, but even if it's not a complete 100% like for like comparison, I still think it's pretty close overall.

The main point I was trying to make is that the one that is more open source or "free", will be the one that gets wildly adopted, thus more popular (FSR) and the other one will remain a niche, more expensive/closed ecosystem (DLSS).

In the end (years from now) the majority of people will benefit from FSR and only a minority from DLSS, thus making DLSS not as important and relevant as it now when it's the only option. That will mean FSR will be a winner.

 

[renz496]

The main point I was trying to make is that the one that is more open source or "free", will be the one that gets wildly adopted, thus more popular (FSR) and the other one will remain a niche, more expensive/closed ecosystem (DLSS).

i mention Bullet in my previous comment because the exact opposite end up happening than what you describe here. back in 2009 AMD promoting Bullet as open source alternative to nvidia PhysX. open source, free to use, also have the capabilities to use GPU accelerated feature (via opencl) vs nvidia PhysX that need to be licensed and the GPU accelerated feature that only working on nvidia GPU so what is it not to like about Bullet? i think even AMD Roy Taylor call Bullet as PhysX killer back then. so where is it now?

In the end (years from now) the majority of people will benefit from FSR and only a minority from DLSS, thus making DLSS not as important and relevant as it now when it's the only option. That will mean FSR will be a winner.

you only see it from FSR vs DLSS perspective on older hardware. what about the future? at one point those with older card will buying new card. be it brand new card or used 20 or 30 series. if anything FSR will increase the value to own nvidia GPU over AMD GPU in the future because nvidia GPU are capable of using both FSR and DLSS. and don't worry about DLSS relevance in the future. nvidia are working hard with many game developer to integrate DLSS on game engine level and almost all the heavy lifting are being done by nvidia. the training so general plugin can be used instead of per game training all that cost will be absorb by nvidia alone. game developer only need to enable the plugin. at this point game developer no longer need to think how many user will going to benefit from DLSS vs FSR since almost all work are done by nvidia. think DLSS as a bonus thing that you will get when buying nvidia GPU that have tensor cores in it. nvidia wiling to bear all the cost behind DLSS because it was the long game angle they tried to play.

 

[VforV]

i mention Bullet in my previous comment because the exact opposite end up happening than what you describe here. back in 2009 AMD promoting Bullet as open source alternative to nvidia PhysX. open source, free to use, also have the capabilities to use GPU accelerated feature (via opencl) vs nvidia PhysX that need to be licensed and the GPU accelerated feature that only working on nvidia GPU so what is it not to like about Bullet? i think even AMD Roy Taylor call Bullet as PhysX killer back then. so where is it now?



you only see it from FSR vs DLSS perspective on older hardware. what about the future? at one point those with older card will buying new card. be it brand new card or used 20 or 30 series. if anything FSR will increase the value to own nvidia GPU over AMD GPU in the future because nvidia GPU are capable of using both FSR and DLSS. and don't worry about DLSS relevance in the future. nvidia are working hard with many game developer to integrate DLSS on game engine level and almost all the heavy lifting are being done by nvidia. the training so general plugin can be used instead of per game training all that cost will be absorb by nvidia alone. game developer only need to enable the plugin. at this point game developer no longer need to think how many user will going to benefit from DLSS vs FSR since almost all work are done by nvidia. think DLSS as a bonus thing that you will get when buying nvidia GPU that have tensor cores in it. nvidia wiling to bear all the cost behind DLSS because it was the long game angle they tried to play.

Ok, Bullet example I did not know. That does not mean it's gonna be the same with FSR.

As for DLSS being a bonus, sure if by bonus you also mean the extra $$$ nvidia will always scalp from it's customers over AMD, who has lower prices... unless it beats nvidia with a roflstopm with RDNA3 or 4 - then I might see AMD with higher prices. But historically nvidia was the more expensive one so the bonus factor is fake impression as long as you end up paying more.

Why I think FSR will win? Because I think Intel will get behind it with DG2 too. So AMD+Intel for FSR = nvidia's DLSS will not matter in the overall picture. These 2 plus being open and on all devices than have a minimum of GPU accelerations means FSR will get better and better to a point that (years from now) you will have very little or zero difference between DLSS and FSR quality, so the strong point of DLSS will fade. FSR has much more room to grow compared to DLSS, which is pretty much done. But maybe my prediction is wrong, maybe a better tech comes along, but anyway I don't think DLSS will reign supreme going forward even though it has the advantage now... so we'll see.

 

[renz496]

Ok, Bullet example I did not know. That does not mean it's gonna be the same with FSR

maybe FSR will not going to see the same fate as Bullet. but looking what happen for the past decade i think i can imagine what kind of hurdle FSR will going to have for wide adoption.

Why I think FSR will win? Because I think Intel will get behind it with DG2 too. So AMD+Intel for FSR = nvidia's DLSS will not matter in the overall picture.

it is not a contest which tech will win and bury the other. AMD and intel will do their own thing with FSR. nvidia with DLSS.

FSR has much more room to grow compared to DLSS, which is pretty much done.

maybe it is the other way around. nvidia able to expand DLSS into DLSS2 and use the very same hardware to do it because of machine learning. what did AMD use to compete with nvidia original DLSS? it was RIS. then why AMD did not improve RIS and called it RIS2 to compete with DLSS2 directly in graphic quality and performance? why they need to create something completely new called FSR to combat DLSS2? so i'm not going to say DLSS as "pretty much done" when machine learning are involved to spice things up for DLSS development and improvement.

btw intel already giving some hint on what they intend to do with FSR. in the future intel might be able to get much better result in FSR than what AMD can.

 

[hotaru.hino]

As for DLSS being a bonus, sure if by bonus you also mean the extra $$$ nvidia will always scalp from it's customers over AMD, who has lower prices... unless it beats nvidia with a roflstopm with RDNA3 or 4 - then I might see AMD with higher prices. But historically nvidia was the more expensive one so the bonus factor is fake impression as long as you end up paying more.

AMD is also guilty of charging higher prices than the previous generation before. I liken this as the "first to next-gen" tax, whoever gets to the "next gen" is always going to charge as much or more as the previous generation. Then whoever's second either has to charge as much or lower to compete. And given AMD charged more for Ryzen 5000 CPUs than 3000 CPUs, one has to really wonder if AMD really "cares about the customers." I don't believe so, because they're a publicly traded company.

Why I think FSR will win? Because I think Intel will get behind it with DG2 too. So AMD+Intel for FSR = nvidia's DLSS will not matter in the overall picture. These 2 plus being open and on all devices than have a minimum of GPU accelerations means FSR will get better and better to a point that (years from now) you will have very little or zero difference between DLSS and FSR quality, so the strong point of DLSS will fade. FSR has much more room to grow compared to DLSS, which is pretty much done. But maybe my prediction is wrong, maybe a better tech comes along, but anyway I don't think DLSS will reign supreme going forward even though it has the advantage now... so we'll see.

Being open doesn't really mean much if the software developer has a hard time working with it. To give a point, DLSS has easy integration with Unreal Engine 4 and Unity supports DLSS natively as of recent builds. These are the two most used game engines available. If FSR does not have the same ease of integration, then there's less of an incentive to incorporate it into a game. Game developers especially have a time crunch, and even though we think of "it just works" as a meme, this literally is the one thing game developers want. Anything that you can flip a switch and it "just works" is a godsend and will be infinitely better than something you have to shoehorn in.

 

[VforV]

AMD is also guilty of charging higher prices than the previous generation before. I liken this as the "first to next-gen" tax, whoever gets to the "next gen" is always going to charge as much or more as the previous generation. Then whoever's second either has to charge as much or lower to compete. And given AMD charged more for Ryzen 5000 CPUs than 3000 CPUs, one has to really wonder if AMD really "cares about the customers." I don't believe so, because they're a publicly traded company.


Being open doesn't really mean much if the software developer has a hard time working with it. To give a point, DLSS has easy integration with Unreal Engine 4 and Unity supports DLSS natively as of recent builds. These are the two most used game engines available. If FSR does not have the same ease of integration, then there's less of an incentive to incorporate it into a game. Game developers especially have a time crunch, and even though we think of "it just works" as a meme, this literally is the one thing game developers want. Anything that you can flip a switch and it "just works" is a godsend and will be infinitely better than something you have to shoehorn in.

1. AMD cares about profits & gamers. nvidia only about profits, intel cared for profits only for the last 10 years. These are facts, to many to name again for the one thousand times, how AMD even if they raised prices they delivered what they said the will, while intel stagnated and gave you +5% each gen and nvidia outright lie and made beta testers of Turing generation while increasing prices to stratosphere. Again this is just the tip of the iceberg of BS, lies or just ignorance intel and nvidia showed, one worse than the other.
So yes, compared to those 2 AMD is much better.
I'm tired of people ignoring the mountain of facts that prove what I said above. It's like 1 AMD flaw = 10 mistakes from nvidia, intel - this is the level of ignorance some people have.

2. "If, if, if" - I don't know what are you smoking, but every quote or piece of info or leak we had so far (in the last week at least) about FSR has shown devs saying how easy it is to implement and work with FSR into a game/engine compared to DLSS. Exactly the contrary of what you say... Absolutely no one ever said they have a hard time working with it... so many assumptions/FUD/disinformation...
Yes, DLSS has a big head start, but don't spread BS about FSR without having hard evidence, especially when the evidence is exactly the opposite.

Why do you think FSR will work on every platform and device that has a minimum of GPU acceleration? Exactly because it's so easy to make it work and has low requirements to functions on almost anything, unlike DLSS which is the opposite...

 

[hotaru.hino]

1. AMD cares about profits & gamers. nvidia only about profits, intel cared for profits only for the last 10 years. These are facts, to many to name again for the one thousand times, how AMD even if they raised prices they delivered what they said the will, while intel stagnated and gave you +5% each gen and nvidia outright lie and made beta testers of Turing generation while increasing prices to stratosphere. Again this is just the tip of the iceberg of BS, lies or just ignorance intel and nvidia showed, one worse than the other.
So yes, compared to those 2 AMD is much better.
I'm tired of people ignoring the mountain of facts that prove what I said above. It's like 1 AMD flaw = 10 mistakes from nvidia, intel - this is the level of ignorance some people have.

In my eyes, AMD only appears to care about gamers so much to gain a market share. To believe that a publicly traded company once it grows big enough continues to care about its end users is quite frankly, laughable.

2. "If, if, if" - I don't know what are you smoking, but every quote or piece of info or leak we had so far (in the last week at least) about FSR has shown devs saying how easy it is to implement and work with FSR into a game/engine compared to DLSS. Exactly the contrary of what you say... Absolutely no one ever said they have a hard time working with it... so many assumptions/FUD/disinformation...
Yes, DLSS has a big head start, but don't spread BS about FSR without having hard evidence, especially when the evidence is exactly the opposite.

Why do you think FSR will work on every platform and device that has a minimum of GPU acceleration? Exactly because it's so easy to make it work and has low requirements to functions on almost anything, unlike DLSS which is the opposite...

You're welcome to provide me with links that provide evidence to this.

 

[digitalgriffin]

1. AMD cares about profits & gamers. nvidia only about profits, intel cared for profits only for the last 10 years. These are facts, to many to name again for the one thousand times, how AMD even if they raised prices they delivered what they said the will, while intel stagnated and gave you +5% each gen and nvidia outright lie and made beta testers of Turing generation while increasing prices to stratosphere. Again this is just the tip of the iceberg of BS, lies or just ignorance intel and nvidia showed, one worse than the other.
So yes, compared to those 2 AMD is much better.
I'm tired of people ignoring the mountain of facts that prove what I said above. It's like 1 AMD flaw = 10 mistakes from nvidia, intel - this is the level of ignorance some people have.

2. "If, if, if" - I don't know what are you smoking, but every quote or piece of info or leak we had so far (in the last week at least) about FSR has shown devs saying how easy it is to implement and work with FSR into a game/engine compared to DLSS. Exactly the contrary of what you say... Absolutely no one ever said they have a hard time working with it... so many assumptions/FUD/disinformation...
Yes, DLSS has a big head start, but don't spread BS about FSR without having hard evidence, especially when the evidence is exactly the opposite.

Why do you think FSR will work on every platform and device that has a minimum of GPU acceleration? Exactly because it's so easy to make it work and has low requirements to functions on almost anything, unlike DLSS which is the opposite...

Well the problem with AMD charging so much: It is changing their image. And their core fan base, me included, tend to be fickle. I aim at value. And quite frankly, as much as I hate NVIDIA, if I went purely by MSRP for a high end card, NVIDIA delivers a better value.

Yes a company may be evil. But if they deliver a superior value, then I'm over that.

If I was gaming at 1080p, 1440p, and didn't care about RT or DLSS, then AMD would be an answer. For for $50 more MSRP I'll take the superior 4K raster, vastly better RT, and DLSS 2.0 which appears to be better image quality wise to super resolution. (As I predicted). At the high end, and with this kind of money, a $650+ card should be top tier quality and 4K. You are nuts if you try to use it for anything else. And it looks like the market is agreeing with me based on Steam Survey results as of late.

 

[VforV]

In my eyes, AMD only appears to care about gamers so much to gain a market share. To believe that a publicly traded company once it grows big enough continues to care about its end users is quite frankly, laughable.


You're welcome to provide me with links that provide evidence to this.

1. Cares "more" about it's users than the other scummy company... their actions proved it more than once in the past years. How much is that "more" is subject to POV, for that more = at least 1/3 more, if you want numbers - although numbers are not a good measurement in this sense since I include their actions in that result too.

2. You're welcome to do the research yourself. Or do you want me teach you how to use google and stay informed from multiple sources (not just this one) too?

Well the problem with AMD charging so much: It is changing their image. And their core fan base, me included, tend to be fickle. I aim at value. And quite frankly, as much as I hate NVIDIA, if I went purely by MSRP for a high end card, NVIDIA delivers a better value.

Yes a company may be evil. But if they deliver a superior value, then I'm over that.

If I was gaming at 1080p, 1440p, and didn't care about RT or DLSS, then AMD would be an answer. For for $50 more MSRP I'll take the superior 4K raster, vastly better RT, and DLSS 2.0 which appears to be better image quality wise to super resolution. (As I predicted). At the high end, and with this kind of money, a $650+ card should be top tier quality and 4K. You are nuts if you try to use it for anything else. And it looks like the market is agreeing with me based on Steam Survey results as of late.

I agree with the price increase for AMD products, I don't like it either, but they are still the lesser evil or the better company (however you want to put it) so I choose them.

The other choice is just wrong, nvidia lied for years and still lies and manipulates today and mocks gamers and treats us like were are imbeciles. That I cannot accept. I'm not their rug, for them to step all over me and say thank you too, while giving them my money. I have more dignity than that...

As for the 4k and the halo products I have 2 things to say:
1. There are enough benchmarks and reviews that prove that 6900xt beats 3090 as much as the 3090 beats 6900xt in raster (depending on the game) and the only real advantage DLSS, will soon fade into non-importance because all that the benchmarks need to show us on the launch of DSR, June 22nd, is that 4k with DSR looks as good as native 4k, or at least imperceptive to human eyes while playing (unless you do a 800% stop zoom like DF) and that will be enough and the end of it.
If it's worse than DLSS, it will probably need at least 1 year to catch up, but in the end is just a matter of time for DSR to be good enough that you can't tell the difference.

2. That being said these 4k problems and halo products "issues and comparisons" are issues for the 5%-ters. The vast majority of people couldn't care less about $700+ GPUs and other products in that range and up. But they do care about DSR, because it's free for any product that meets it's minimum requirements. The vast majority buys and enjoys gaming on sub $700, I would say sub $500 GPUs, even with these inflated prices - so the smug elitists are still a very, very small minority. And if they have no integrity and principles, or even dignity and they want to throw their money at a scummy company, no one is stopping them.
DSR is for the majority and not the minority, sitting on their high horses.

PS. Remember this when some time from now (1 year maybe) all those spitting on DSR will be forced to use it in a game that does not have DLSS, but will have DSR, because they can't reach 4k 60 fps on their beloved 3090 with Ultra + RT and whatever bells and whistles that game will have to cripple that aberrant nvidia GPU. They will say "thank you AMD", but not openly and not admitting it.