Subject: Graphics Cards | September 19, 2018 - 01:35 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: turing, tu102, RTX 2080 Ti, rtx, ray tracing, nvidia, gtx, geforce, founders edition, DLSS
Today is the day the curtain is pulled back and the performance of NVIDIA's Turing based consumer cards is revealed. If there was a benchmark, resolution or game that was somehow missed in our review then you will find it below, but make sure to peek in at the last page for a list of the games which will support Ray Tracing, DLSS or both!
The Tech Report found that the RTX 2080 Ti is an amazing card to use if you are playing Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice as it clearly outperforms cards from previous generations as well as the base RTX 2080. In many cases the RTX 2080 matches the GTX 1080 Ti, though with the extra features it is an attractive card for those with GPUs several generations old. There is one small problem for those looking to adopt one of these cards, we have not seen prices like these outside of the Titan series before now.
"Nvidia's Turing architecture is here on board the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, and we put it through its paces for 4K HDR gaming with some of today's most cutting-edge titles. We also explore the possibilities of Nvidia's Deep Learning Super-Sampling tech for the future of 4K gaming. Join us as we put Turing to the test."
Here are some more Graphics Card articles from around the web:
- MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X TRIO @ Guru of 3D
- Nvidia RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti review: A tale of two very expensive graphics cards @ Ars Technica
- GeForce RTX 2080 @ Guru of 3D
- RTX 2080 Ti Founder Edition @ Guru of 3D
- Turing RTX 2080 and RTX 2080 Ti Benchmarked with 36 Games @ BabelTechReviews
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX IS HERE. Introducing the GeForce RTX 2080 & RTX 2080 Ti – 4K 60 FPS or bust! Review @ Bjorn3d
- Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080TI & RTX 2080 @ Modders-Inc
- MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Gaming X Trio 8 GB @ TechPowerUp
- ASUS GeForce RTX 2080 STRIX OC 8 GB @ TechPowerUp
- Palit GeForce RTX 2080 Gaming Pro OC 8 GB @ TechPowerUp
- MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Duke 11 GB @ TechPowerUp
- Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 & 2080 Ti @ Techspot
- ASUS GeForce RTX 2080 Ti STRIX OC 11 GB @ TechPowerUp
- MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X Trio 11 GB @ TechPowerUp
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti & RTX 2080 Founders Edition Reviewed @ OCC
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Founders Edition 8 GB @ TechPowerUp
- Nvidia RTX 2080 @ Kitguru
- Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti @ Kitguru
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition 11 GB @ TechPowerUp
- Nvidia Turing GeForce 2080 (Ti) architecture @ Guru of 3D
- NVIDIA Turing GeForce RTX Technology & Architecture @ TechPowerUp
A Look Back and Forward
Although NVIDIA's new GPU architecture, revealed previously as Turing, has been speculated about for what seems like an eternity at this point, we finally have our first look at exactly what NVIDIA is positioning as the future of gaming.
Unfortunately, we can't talk about this card just yet, but we can talk about what powers it
First though, let's take a look at the journey to get here over the past 30 months or so.
Unveiled in early 2016, Pascal marked by the launch of the GTX 1070 and 1080 was NVIDIA's long-awaited 16nm successor to Maxwell. Constrained by the oft-delayed 16nm process node, Pascal refined the shader unit design original found in Maxwell, while lowering power consumption and increasing performance.
Next, in May 2017 came Volta, the next (and last) GPU architecture outlined in NVIDIA's public roadmaps since 2013. However, instead of the traditional launch with a new GeForce gaming card, Volta saw a different approach.
Subject: Graphics Cards | August 21, 2018 - 08:43 PM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: nvidia, Volta, turing, tu102, gv100
In the past, when NVIDIA launched a new GPU architecture, they would make a few designs for each of their market segments. All SKUs would be one of those chips, with varying amounts of it disabled or re-clocked to hit multiple price points. The mainstream enthusiast (GTX -70/-80) chip of each generation is typically 300mm2, and the high-end enthusiast (Titan / -80 Ti) chip is often around 600mm2.
Kepler used quite a bit of that die space for FP64 calculations, but that did not happen with consumer versions of Pascal. Instead, GP100 supported 1:2:4 FP64:FP32:FP16 performance ratios. This is great for the compute community, such as scientific researchers, but games are focused on FP32. Shortly thereafter, NVIDIA releases GP102, which had the same number of FP32 cores (3840) as GP100 but with much-reduced 64-bit performance… and much reduced die area. GP100 was 610mm2, but GP102 was just 471mm2.
At this point, I’m thinking that NVIDIA is pulling scientific computing chips away from the common user to increase the value of their Tesla parts. There was no reason to either make a cheap 6XXmm2 card available to the public, and a 471mm2 part could take the performance crown, so why not reap extra dies from your wafer (and be able to clock them higher because of better binning)?
And then Volta came out. And it was massive (815mm2).
At this point, you really cannot manufacture a larger integrated circuit. You are at the limit of what TSMC (and other fabs) can focus onto your silicon. Again, it’s a 1:2:4 FP64:FP32:FP16 ratio. Again, there is no consumer version in sight. Again, it looked as if NVIDIA was going to fragment their market and leave consumers behind.
And then Turing was announced. Apparently, NVIDIA still plans on making big chips for consumers… just not with 64-bit performance. The big draw of this 754mm2 chip is its dedicated hardware for raytracing. We knew this technology was coming, and we knew that the next generation would have technology to make this useful. I figured that meant consumer-Volta, and NVIDIA had somehow found a way to use Tensor cores to cast rays. Apparently not… but, don’t worry, Turing has Tensor cores too… they’re just for machine-learning gaming applications. Those are above and beyond the raytracing ASICs, and the CUDA cores, and the ROPs, and the texture units, and so forth.
But, raytracing hype aside, let’s think about the product stack:
- NVIDIA now has two ~800mm2-ish chips… and
- They serve two completely different markets.
In fact, I cannot see either FP64 or raytracing going anywhere any time soon. As such, it’s my assumption that NVIDIA will maintain two different architectures of GPUs going forward. The only way that I can see this changing is if they figure out a multi-die solution, because neither design can get any bigger. And even then, what workload would it even perform? (Moment of silence for 10km x 10km video game maps.)
What do you think? Will NVIDIA keep two architectures going forward? If not, how will they serve all of their customers?