You can do 3840 x 2160 with a GTX 1080ti (I know, because that's what I do with my EVGA GTX 1080ti FTW), with very few compromises--and FreeSync can round out some of the weird cases, like playing Fallout 4 which is optimized like a fucking garbage truck on fire and still drops to 30 FPS in certain urban areas at 1080p. You will have a superior option with a fully G-Sync monitor.
With that in mind, a GTX 1080ti is very likely overkill at that resolution? I suppose a GTX 2070, thus, would represent a better investment in the future...though if you're not using RTX features, I seem to recall the performance equivalent of the GTX 1080ti being closer to GTX 2080 than GTX 2070...I think.
pci-e 4's benefit comes in when using both nvme and a graphics card at the same time. I think there are bandwidth issues on the level of 1080+ cards and a run of the mill nvme ssd.
That's less a pci-e 4 issue and more a "number of lanes" issue. If your CPU/chipset only has 16 lanes to work with and you have a GPU and a x4 SSD, well then it has to drop the GPU slot down to x8.
Now, yes in theory on pci-e 4 with double the bandwidth it means that PCI-e 4 x8 will be the same speed as PCI-e 3 x 16, so sure that's one way of fixing it.
or, we could just start putting more lanes in consumer parts. With nvme SSD's now becoming commonplace, I'm firmly on the track that whatever I buy next needs to have minimum 24 PCI-e lanes. 16 for GPU, and then enough for 2x nvme drives at x4.
Ryzen 3000 is really close to this. It has 24 lanes, but 4 are reserved for communication between CPU and chipset.
pci-e 4's benefit comes in when using both nvme and a graphics card at the same time. I think there are bandwidth issues on the level of 1080+ cards and a run of the mill nvme ssd.
This isn't a thing. A PCI-E lane is dedicated and doesn't share bandwidth with other lanes. What does happen, is that using a NVME slot can disable a regular PCI-E slot on some boards (or cause a slot to operate at a smaller size). This has become sadly common due to the low number of PCI-E lanes Intel has been providing in their consumer chipsets.
You can do 3840 x 2160 with a GTX 1080ti (I know, because that's what I do with my EVGA GTX 1080ti FTW), with very few compromises--and FreeSync can round out some of the weird cases, like playing Fallout 4 which is optimized like a fucking garbage truck on fire and still drops to 30 FPS in certain urban areas at 1080p. You will have a superior option with a fully G-Sync monitor.
With that in mind, a GTX 1080ti is very likely overkill at that resolution? I suppose a GTX 2070, thus, would represent a better investment in the future...though if you're not using RTX features, I seem to recall the performance equivalent of the GTX 1080ti being closer to GTX 2080 than GTX 2070...I think.
I thought that rtx 2070 isn't enough and best bet was either 1080ti used or 2080 (not spending for a 2080ti). I also didn't think a 2070 was that much better than a 980ti in cost/perf department vs the incremental cost of the 1080ti - happy to be wrong here thought.
pci-e 4's benefit comes in when using both nvme and a graphics card at the same time. I think there are bandwidth issues on the level of 1080+ cards and a run of the mill nvme ssd.
This isn't a thing. A PCI-E lane is dedicated and doesn't share bandwidth with other lanes. What does happen, is that using a NVME slot can disable a regular PCI-E slot on some boards (or cause a slot to operate at a smaller size). This has become sadly common due to the low number of PCI-E lanes Intel has been providing in their consumer chipsets.
"This isn't a thing."
"But yes it's totally a thing"
By default boards are supporting more lanes with pci-e 4 is what I was implying.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
You can do 3840 x 2160 with a GTX 1080ti (I know, because that's what I do with my EVGA GTX 1080ti FTW), with very few compromises--and FreeSync can round out some of the weird cases, like playing Fallout 4 which is optimized like a fucking garbage truck on fire and still drops to 30 FPS in certain urban areas at 1080p. You will have a superior option with a fully G-Sync monitor.
With that in mind, a GTX 1080ti is very likely overkill at that resolution? I suppose a GTX 2070, thus, would represent a better investment in the future...though if you're not using RTX features, I seem to recall the performance equivalent of the GTX 1080ti being closer to GTX 2080 than GTX 2070...I think.
I thought that rtx 2070 isn't enough and best bet was either 1080ti used or 2080 (not spending for a 2080ti). I also didn't think a 2070 was that much better than a 980ti in cost/perf department vs the incremental cost of the 1080ti - happy to be wrong here thought.
I don't think you're wrong about comparative power--if you pass on ray tracing, a GTX 1080ti is closer to an RTX 2080 (and may, occasionally, beat it) than an RTX 2070. You might be correct about the comparison with the GTX 980ti for that reason.
That being said, I think you're safe because, in the end of the day, 1440p widescreen is a lot fewer pixels than 2160p. The whole point of the GTX 1080ti is to scale up well to very high resolutions (like 16:9 UHD), but that can only work in your favor. So at least for a video card, I think you'd be good. Well, until you activate ray tracing, anyway, because that will devour your framerate at even 1080p.
In my own experience, I'm using a GTX 1080ti to push 60 (or 50 to 60, as the case might be), paired with a top-of-the-line but old i5. Freesync is handy in that regard, because assuming it works properly, a game like Hitman 2 which is notoriously GPU stressing can get 50 to 60, which is comfortably within my Freesync range, while keeping almost everything at ultra, including ambient occlusion (another big framerate killer). G-Sync's ranges are much larger, as I understand it.
Huh, the 2080 Super running the unlocked TI chip makes that a very, very interesting choice. You lose 3 gigs of RAM but also shave $300-400 off the price.
You can do 3840 x 2160 with a GTX 1080ti (I know, because that's what I do with my EVGA GTX 1080ti FTW), with very few compromises--and FreeSync can round out some of the weird cases, like playing Fallout 4 which is optimized like a fucking garbage truck on fire and still drops to 30 FPS in certain urban areas at 1080p. You will have a superior option with a fully G-Sync monitor.
With that in mind, a GTX 1080ti is very likely overkill at that resolution? I suppose a GTX 2070, thus, would represent a better investment in the future...though if you're not using RTX features, I seem to recall the performance equivalent of the GTX 1080ti being closer to GTX 2080 than GTX 2070...I think.
As someone with a 3440x1440 monitor, who had a 1080 Ti, I would say you'd be surprised. The 1080 Ti was generally enough, but there were outliers. Even with a G-Sync monitor anything less than 45 FPS feels like trash to me personally...so 45 is my lower bound and there were cases where the 1080 Ti had issues with that.
Everyone's mileage may vary of course and everyone's tolerance for what a minimum frame rate and settings level is will be different.
You can do 3840 x 2160 with a GTX 1080ti (I know, because that's what I do with my EVGA GTX 1080ti FTW), with very few compromises--and FreeSync can round out some of the weird cases, like playing Fallout 4 which is optimized like a fucking garbage truck on fire and still drops to 30 FPS in certain urban areas at 1080p. You will have a superior option with a fully G-Sync monitor.
With that in mind, a GTX 1080ti is very likely overkill at that resolution? I suppose a GTX 2070, thus, would represent a better investment in the future...though if you're not using RTX features, I seem to recall the performance equivalent of the GTX 1080ti being closer to GTX 2080 than GTX 2070...I think.
I thought that rtx 2070 isn't enough and best bet was either 1080ti used or 2080 (not spending for a 2080ti). I also didn't think a 2070 was that much better than a 980ti in cost/perf department vs the incremental cost of the 1080ti - happy to be wrong here thought.
I don't think you're wrong about comparative power--if you pass on ray tracing, a GTX 1080ti is closer to an RTX 2080 (and may, occasionally, beat it) than an RTX 2070. You might be correct about the comparison with the GTX 980ti for that reason.
That being said, I think you're safe because, in the end of the day, 1440p widescreen is a lot fewer pixels than 2160p. The whole point of the GTX 1080ti is to scale up well to very high resolutions (like 16:9 UHD), but that can only work in your favor. So at least for a video card, I think you'd be good. Well, until you activate ray tracing, anyway, because that will devour your framerate at even 1080p.
In my own experience, I'm using a GTX 1080ti to push 60 (or 50 to 60, as the case might be), paired with a top-of-the-line but old i5. Freesync is handy in that regard, because assuming it works properly, a game like Hitman 2 which is notoriously GPU stressing can get 50 to 60, which is comfortably within my Freesync range, while keeping almost everything at ultra, including ambient occlusion (another big framerate killer). G-Sync's ranges are much larger, as I understand it.
I know games are starting to utilize it more, but how does ray tracing factor in. I admittedly haven't read much on it, like from a performance perspective. Also, the 1080ti has more memory and higher bandwidth, does that make it marginally better - hypothetically both are $500 then the better choice is 1080ti?
You can do 3840 x 2160 with a GTX 1080ti (I know, because that's what I do with my EVGA GTX 1080ti FTW), with very few compromises--and FreeSync can round out some of the weird cases, like playing Fallout 4 which is optimized like a fucking garbage truck on fire and still drops to 30 FPS in certain urban areas at 1080p. You will have a superior option with a fully G-Sync monitor.
With that in mind, a GTX 1080ti is very likely overkill at that resolution? I suppose a GTX 2070, thus, would represent a better investment in the future...though if you're not using RTX features, I seem to recall the performance equivalent of the GTX 1080ti being closer to GTX 2080 than GTX 2070...I think.
As someone with a 3440x1440 monitor, who had a 1080 Ti, I would say you'd be surprised. The 1080 Ti was generally enough, but there were outliers. Even with a G-Sync monitor anything less than 45 FPS feels like trash to me personally...so 45 is my lower bound and there were cases where the 1080 Ti had issues with that.
Everyone's mileage may vary of course and everyone's tolerance for what a minimum frame rate and settings level is will be different.
Interesting. I'm at 3840x 2160, as I noted, and I seldom run into issues outside of very specific cases (where lowering the resolution wouldn't help)--but admittedly the GTX 1080ti is intended for very high resolutions, and lowering it frequently doesn't yield as well as one might think. You don't get "twice the frame rate" playing at 1440p as 2160p, most obviously. Even in Hitman 2 I wasn't dealing with 45 FPS though, so I'm not sure what you were playing that was giving you issues (assuming it wasn't Bethesda optimized).
Drat! I figured as I’m slow to move on these things. Someone on reddit offered a FTW3 for 500 shipped I’m really just trying to figure out a reason why I shouldn’t haha.
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Drat! I figured as I’m slow to move on these things. Someone on reddit offered a FTW3 for 500 shipped I’m really just trying to figure out a reason why I shouldn’t haha.
You probably should, that's a good deal. I sold my reference 1080 Ti for 450.
You can do 3840 x 2160 with a GTX 1080ti (I know, because that's what I do with my EVGA GTX 1080ti FTW), with very few compromises--and FreeSync can round out some of the weird cases, like playing Fallout 4 which is optimized like a fucking garbage truck on fire and still drops to 30 FPS in certain urban areas at 1080p. You will have a superior option with a fully G-Sync monitor.
With that in mind, a GTX 1080ti is very likely overkill at that resolution? I suppose a GTX 2070, thus, would represent a better investment in the future...though if you're not using RTX features, I seem to recall the performance equivalent of the GTX 1080ti being closer to GTX 2080 than GTX 2070...I think.
I thought that rtx 2070 isn't enough and best bet was either 1080ti used or 2080 (not spending for a 2080ti). I also didn't think a 2070 was that much better than a 980ti in cost/perf department vs the incremental cost of the 1080ti - happy to be wrong here thought.
I don't think you're wrong about comparative power--if you pass on ray tracing, a GTX 1080ti is closer to an RTX 2080 (and may, occasionally, beat it) than an RTX 2070. You might be correct about the comparison with the GTX 980ti for that reason.
That being said, I think you're safe because, in the end of the day, 1440p widescreen is a lot fewer pixels than 2160p. The whole point of the GTX 1080ti is to scale up well to very high resolutions (like 16:9 UHD), but that can only work in your favor. So at least for a video card, I think you'd be good. Well, until you activate ray tracing, anyway, because that will devour your framerate at even 1080p.
In my own experience, I'm using a GTX 1080ti to push 60 (or 50 to 60, as the case might be), paired with a top-of-the-line but old i5. Freesync is handy in that regard, because assuming it works properly, a game like Hitman 2 which is notoriously GPU stressing can get 50 to 60, which is comfortably within my Freesync range, while keeping almost everything at ultra, including ambient occlusion (another big framerate killer). G-Sync's ranges are much larger, as I understand it.
I know games are starting to utilize it more, but how does ray tracing factor in. I admittedly haven't read much on it, like from a performance perspective. Also, the 1080ti has more memory and higher bandwidth, does that make it marginally better - hypothetically both are $500 then the better choice is 1080ti?
In the situation I think you've described, Ray Tracing mostly refers to ray-tracing derived in game lighting, which would take the place of ambient occlusion, other techniques, as well as "bespoke" (there's that word again) lighting elements. When it's available, which is still very seldom the case in new games (implementing ray tracing in Quake II is certainly impressive, but probably not very relevant).
On top of that, everything I've seen suggests it butchers framerates--DF has done a lot of comparative analysis in this area. Prior to patches that mildly neutered the effect (and much improved performance), enabling ray tracing in games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Battlefield V basically took a setup that could run the games at more than 150 FPS at 1080p and more than halved that. At above 1080p (for those of us with monitors less than ten years old), the effect was even more pronounced--their 4K setups went from +60 FPS into the 20 or 30 range. Since then, Nvidia has actively patched how ray tracing works in the handful of games that implement it to be much less crippling on the GPU side, but it's still a much higher cost than SSAO or other lighting solutions, most obviously. Additionally, software ray-tracing (?) has been patched into the last GTX cards, meaning it is no longer exclusive to RTX cards--but the performance cost is much more severe, comparable to the pre-patch cost on RTX hardware
Hopefully this helps. I'm really not an expert on ray tracing (I don't enable it on my GTX 1080ti), so what I've described is all learned second hand.
I am of a firm opinion that ray-tracing is essentially a nonstarter with this generation, and will only get meaningful around 2020 to 2022. If you've got a 390 or newer vintage card, it makes sense to wait until then.
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
There are games out already which I contend make use of it pretty well.
Plus, no way am I gonna get my stompy stomp on in Mechwarrior 5 without it
Ray traced lasers and missles? yes pls.
A feature that costs 675 CDN for the minimum worthwhile implementation and can't reliably hit 60fps none the less is not ready, by any meaningful definition as far as I'm concerned.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
From a purely subjective side it just looks better (to me).
Played Metro and battlefield with it for a while and now I miss it playing on my 1070ti.
I'll not be buying a GPU with out it going forward.
I didn't really do justice to how good it looks because, well, words instead of pictures.
That being said, I've been impressed by both ray-tracing lighting and reflections, but not anywhere near the point of forking over +$1000 for a RTX 2080ti. Also I'm never going back to 1080p (or 1440p, honestly, since I upgraded my Surface Pro), so it's kind of a nonstarter until thousands of dollars fall into my lap.
From a purely subjective side it just looks better (to me).
Played Metro and battlefield with it for a while and now I miss it playing on my 1070ti.
I'll not be buying a GPU with out it going forward.
I didn't really do justice to how good it looks because, well, words instead of pictures.
That being said, I've been impressed by both ray-tracing lighting and reflections, but not anywhere near the point of forking over +$1000 for a RTX 2080ti. Also I'm never going back to 1080p (or 1440p, honestly, since I upgraded my Surface Pro), so it's kind of a nonstarter until thousands of dollars fall into my lap.
Raytracing will not be prime time ready until there's a 1080p card that can reliably hit 60fps - with it at full - for 400 CDN. End of discussion, so far as I'm concerned.
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited June 2019
I'd buy the "ray tracing won't be ready until 2022" argument if Cyberpunk wasn't supporting full multi-bounce global illumination next April. Cyberpunk is going to have sales numbers in the Red Dead and GTA5 range. It will sell cards and will be the game that blows ray tracing open. AMD would be wise to have something ready by then. We're talking 9 months, not multiple years.
I'd buy the "ray tracing won't be ready until 2022" argument if Cyberpunk wasn't supporting full multi-bounce global illumination next April. Cyberpunk is going to have sales numbers in the Red Dead and GTA5 range. It will sell cards and will be the game that blows ray tracing open. AMD would be wise to have something ready by then. We're talking 9 months, not multiple years.
There's rumors with some degree of support* that next year's Navi refresh will have the capability, but TBH, that's likely to be a feature that will only really become fully meaningful one or two years after release.
* Not least as Scarlette is on record as having hardware support.
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
We'll see how things play out with super and whatever AMD releases around christmas or early next year.
0
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
Raytracing is one of those things that I'm sure is nice, but I'll believe it when I see it become commonplace. Hell Dx12 is several years old now, has actual real tangible benefits in terms of frame rate (at least for my machine it's worth at least 10, getting on for 15 fps) but a notable number of studio engines still don't support it, or don't support it from day 1 (I'm looking at you Assassin's Creed!)
Man, that stupid Fractal Designs R6 USB-C case is still missing. I guess I could go white or gunmetal instead of black, that won't kill me. Or I could go black with a window instead of no window.
The S2 exists but it's not the R6 USB-C, and I'd prefer the R6 USB-C.
Man, that stupid Fractal Designs R6 USB-C case is still missing. I guess I could go white or gunmetal instead of black, that won't kill me. Or I could go black with a window instead of no window.
The S2 exists but it's not the R6 USB-C, and I'd prefer the R6 USB-C.
Nice reddit thread about which of the older AMD boards that support usb flashback if you are looking at a Ryzen 3000 but not wanting to go with a new X570 motherboard.
Usb flashback is needed if you are building from scratch and need to upgrade the bios to support Ryzen 3000.
SLI is pretty much dead these days.
If you have an unlimited budget you can get a couple 2080 ti cards or two titans and see some good performance but outside of that it's not worth it.
how practical is SLI these days anyway? I seem to recall it was kind of a goofy idea back in the day
It certainly breaks things a lot less than it did, and if you can pick up a card for cheaper than the next upgrade (two 980ti are a ~1070 I think?). It doesn't scale very well though.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
You can do 3840 x 2160 with a GTX 1080ti (I know, because that's what I do with my EVGA GTX 1080ti FTW), with very few compromises--and FreeSync can round out some of the weird cases, like playing Fallout 4 which is optimized like a fucking garbage truck on fire and still drops to 30 FPS in certain urban areas at 1080p. You will have a superior option with a fully G-Sync monitor.
With that in mind, a GTX 1080ti is very likely overkill at that resolution? I suppose a GTX 2070, thus, would represent a better investment in the future...though if you're not using RTX features, I seem to recall the performance equivalent of the GTX 1080ti being closer to GTX 2080 than GTX 2070...I think.
That's less a pci-e 4 issue and more a "number of lanes" issue. If your CPU/chipset only has 16 lanes to work with and you have a GPU and a x4 SSD, well then it has to drop the GPU slot down to x8.
Now, yes in theory on pci-e 4 with double the bandwidth it means that PCI-e 4 x8 will be the same speed as PCI-e 3 x 16, so sure that's one way of fixing it.
or, we could just start putting more lanes in consumer parts. With nvme SSD's now becoming commonplace, I'm firmly on the track that whatever I buy next needs to have minimum 24 PCI-e lanes. 16 for GPU, and then enough for 2x nvme drives at x4.
Ryzen 3000 is really close to this. It has 24 lanes, but 4 are reserved for communication between CPU and chipset.
This isn't a thing. A PCI-E lane is dedicated and doesn't share bandwidth with other lanes. What does happen, is that using a NVME slot can disable a regular PCI-E slot on some boards (or cause a slot to operate at a smaller size). This has become sadly common due to the low number of PCI-E lanes Intel has been providing in their consumer chipsets.
I thought that rtx 2070 isn't enough and best bet was either 1080ti used or 2080 (not spending for a 2080ti). I also didn't think a 2070 was that much better than a 980ti in cost/perf department vs the incremental cost of the 1080ti - happy to be wrong here thought.
https://wccftech.com/nvidia-rtx-super-graphics-cards-msrp-leaked/
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
Probably $850 for a 2070 super which is a 2080 is pretty tempting deal...
That article has MSRP of 2070 Super as $599.99?
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
"This isn't a thing."
"But yes it's totally a thing"
By default boards are supporting more lanes with pci-e 4 is what I was implying.
sorry.
In Canadian funny money
I don't think you're wrong about comparative power--if you pass on ray tracing, a GTX 1080ti is closer to an RTX 2080 (and may, occasionally, beat it) than an RTX 2070. You might be correct about the comparison with the GTX 980ti for that reason.
That being said, I think you're safe because, in the end of the day, 1440p widescreen is a lot fewer pixels than 2160p. The whole point of the GTX 1080ti is to scale up well to very high resolutions (like 16:9 UHD), but that can only work in your favor. So at least for a video card, I think you'd be good. Well, until you activate ray tracing, anyway, because that will devour your framerate at even 1080p.
In my own experience, I'm using a GTX 1080ti to push 60 (or 50 to 60, as the case might be), paired with a top-of-the-line but old i5. Freesync is handy in that regard, because assuming it works properly, a game like Hitman 2 which is notoriously GPU stressing can get 50 to 60, which is comfortably within my Freesync range, while keeping almost everything at ultra, including ambient occlusion (another big framerate killer). G-Sync's ranges are much larger, as I understand it.
Huh, the 2080 Super running the unlocked TI chip makes that a very, very interesting choice. You lose 3 gigs of RAM but also shave $300-400 off the price.
As someone with a 3440x1440 monitor, who had a 1080 Ti, I would say you'd be surprised. The 1080 Ti was generally enough, but there were outliers. Even with a G-Sync monitor anything less than 45 FPS feels like trash to me personally...so 45 is my lower bound and there were cases where the 1080 Ti had issues with that.
Everyone's mileage may vary of course and everyone's tolerance for what a minimum frame rate and settings level is will be different.
I know games are starting to utilize it more, but how does ray tracing factor in. I admittedly haven't read much on it, like from a performance perspective. Also, the 1080ti has more memory and higher bandwidth, does that make it marginally better - hypothetically both are $500 then the better choice is 1080ti?
Interesting. I'm at 3840x 2160, as I noted, and I seldom run into issues outside of very specific cases (where lowering the resolution wouldn't help)--but admittedly the GTX 1080ti is intended for very high resolutions, and lowering it frequently doesn't yield as well as one might think. You don't get "twice the frame rate" playing at 1440p as 2160p, most obviously. Even in Hitman 2 I wasn't dealing with 45 FPS though, so I'm not sure what you were playing that was giving you issues (assuming it wasn't Bethesda optimized).
I sold it to a co-worker :? If I still had it, I'd offer it up for sale here. I know how in demand they are.
You probably should, that's a good deal. I sold my reference 1080 Ti for 450.
In the situation I think you've described, Ray Tracing mostly refers to ray-tracing derived in game lighting, which would take the place of ambient occlusion, other techniques, as well as "bespoke" (there's that word again) lighting elements. When it's available, which is still very seldom the case in new games (implementing ray tracing in Quake II is certainly impressive, but probably not very relevant).
On top of that, everything I've seen suggests it butchers framerates--DF has done a lot of comparative analysis in this area. Prior to patches that mildly neutered the effect (and much improved performance), enabling ray tracing in games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Battlefield V basically took a setup that could run the games at more than 150 FPS at 1080p and more than halved that. At above 1080p (for those of us with monitors less than ten years old), the effect was even more pronounced--their 4K setups went from +60 FPS into the 20 or 30 range. Since then, Nvidia has actively patched how ray tracing works in the handful of games that implement it to be much less crippling on the GPU side, but it's still a much higher cost than SSAO or other lighting solutions, most obviously. Additionally, software ray-tracing (?) has been patched into the last GTX cards, meaning it is no longer exclusive to RTX cards--but the performance cost is much more severe, comparable to the pre-patch cost on RTX hardware
Hopefully this helps. I'm really not an expert on ray tracing (I don't enable it on my GTX 1080ti), so what I've described is all learned second hand.
Played Metro and battlefield with it for a while and now I miss it playing on my 1070ti.
I'll not be buying a GPU with out it going forward.
Plus, no way am I gonna get my stompy stomp on in Mechwarrior 5 without it
Ray traced lasers and missles? yes pls.
A feature that costs 675 CDN for the minimum worthwhile implementation and can't reliably hit 60fps none the less is not ready, by any meaningful definition as far as I'm concerned.
I didn't really do justice to how good it looks because, well, words instead of pictures.
That being said, I've been impressed by both ray-tracing lighting and reflections, but not anywhere near the point of forking over +$1000 for a RTX 2080ti. Also I'm never going back to 1080p (or 1440p, honestly, since I upgraded my Surface Pro), so it's kind of a nonstarter until thousands of dollars fall into my lap.
Raytracing will not be prime time ready until there's a 1080p card that can reliably hit 60fps - with it at full - for 400 CDN. End of discussion, so far as I'm concerned.
Lasers are ray traced by definition already!
.....I'll let myself out.
don't let the door hit you on the way.
There's rumors with some degree of support* that next year's Navi refresh will have the capability, but TBH, that's likely to be a feature that will only really become fully meaningful one or two years after release.
* Not least as Scarlette is on record as having hardware support.
We'll see how things play out with super and whatever AMD releases around christmas or early next year.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
I’m saving so much money!
The S2 exists but it's not the R6 USB-C, and I'd prefer the R6 USB-C.
White one is on sale right now for a decent enough discount: https://www.newegg.com/white-fractal-design-define-r6-atx-mid-tower/p/N82E16811352094
Go with the heart
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Usb flashback is needed if you are building from scratch and need to upgrade the bios to support Ryzen 3000.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/bvfo57/list_of_b350_b450_x370_and_x470_motherboards_with/
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
If you have an unlimited budget you can get a couple 2080 ti cards or two titans and see some good performance but outside of that it's not worth it.
It certainly breaks things a lot less than it did, and if you can pick up a card for cheaper than the next upgrade (two 980ti are a ~1070 I think?). It doesn't scale very well though.