3080 reviews are out

I mean the 3080 will be a huge improvement over my 1080ti, but I am concerned about the 10gb VRAM. Not totally convinced it’s enough.

It should be quite easy to calculate the need for VRAM. It is resolution dependent. The higher the resolution(inluding Supersdapling/pixel density) the more VRAM is needed.

I have to limit my settings in DCS with VR among other things, "only" having 11gb on my 2080ti.

I have the HP Reverb and use SS150%. I think 10Gb could be a limiting factor for other people as well with Reverb/G2.

When playing FS2020 I only hit 5.5Gb or so( 1440P screen), but when FS2020 get into VR, I count on the VRAM to go way higher, with 150% SS 14Mpixels instead of 3.7Mpixels for my 1440P screen.

It should be quite easy to calculate the need for VRAM. It is resolution dependent. The higher the resolution(inluding Supersdapling/pixel density) the more VRAM is needed.

 

I have to limit my settings in DCS with VR among other things, "only" having 11gb on my 2080ti.

 

I have the HP Reverb and use SS150%. I think 10Gb could be a limiting factor for other people as well with Reverb/G2.

 

When playing FS2020 I only hit 5.5Gb or so( 1440P screen), but when FS2020 get into VR, I count on the VRAM to go way higher, with 150% SS 14Mpixels instead of 3.7Mpixels for my 1440P screen.

Not sure it is easy to calculate. To an extent it is resolution dependent, but it is certainly not as simple as that.

On my Reverb at 170% SteamVR SS DCS allocates sometimes 6Gb VRAM and sometimes 11Gb. Very much depends on the scenario, not just the res.

Similarly, in FS2020 in 4K, it takes 5.5Gb, no more. The same as you @1440p.

Not going to hit 144 in VR, there are two images being drawn simultaneously.

Typically VR framerates are in the neighborhood of half what is on monitor.

 

I assume we are talking VR here...

He's talking about 144Hz monitors, not VR.

He's talking about 144Hz monitors, not VR.

OK perhaps I misread what he typed, he stated 144 fps in monitor and in VR.

So if a 9700K can (theoretically) hit 144fps in DCS. And in VR. Why bother with Vulkan at all?

He's talking about 144Hz monitors, not VR.

I was certainly talking about VR, but i do get a good 140FPS in 2d

Maybe the confusion is being caused by someone insisting on talking about performance on a monitor, in a thread that was posted in the VR section.

:music_whistling:

:D

Maybe the confusion is being caused by someone insisting on talking about performance on a monitor, in a thread that was posted in the VR section.

:music_whistling:

:D

I think the confusion is that this thread is talking about 3080 "reviews"... which so far are all on monitors. So maybe this thread doesn't belong in this section?

OK perhaps I misread what he typed, he stated 144 fps in monitor and in VR.

All very confusing, just like the whole discussion!

On my Reverb at 170% SteamVR SS DCS allocates sometimes 6Gb VRAM and sometimes 11Gb. Very much depends on the scenario

If you use the same scenario, same time, for example starting the same mission or instant action, with different SS, I guess the VRAM vould differ.

Also guess one with first generation of VR-set with lower resulotion get lower VRAM usage then with Reverbs.

I think testing and taking this into the considerations could help some before they buy.

I will test with both high and low SS tomorrow, if I have the time.

(For me, I think it will be the 3090 anyway).

I think the confusion is that this thread is talking about 3080 "reviews"... which so far are all on monitors. So maybe this thread doesn't belong in this section?

The thread is just fine where it is, as the OP made his post all about what he hopes it will do for the Reverb and other HMDs. :)

Not going to hit 144 in VR, there are two images being drawn simultaneously.

No that doesn’t seem likely. But somebody said they get a CPU frame time of 7 which equals 144hz

So perhaps frame time is not the right stat to be looking at. So again this goes back to the question; how do you know that you’re GPU limited? By looking at frame times? Maybe that’s not the right way to figure that out.

there are two measurements that are important

- CPU frame time

- GPU Frame time

your max frame rate in VR is determined by which ever is the highest of these two are the highest... it's not hard ... the fact that my CPU is under 11ms and my GPU is over, means that the GPU is the limiting score... 11.1ms or less being what you need (ish) to hit 90hz

At this stage my CPU could be running at 1ms and i would still be limited by the GPU frame time. So why do i run my CPU at 5.1ghz because Gfx pipeline management isnt the only thing that costs you CPU cycles in DCS, you also have all of the other AI stuff..

The problem with that is that if you CPU time rises above 11.1ms you are basically screwed as motion vectoring cannot work on the CPU, it can only work on the GPU rendered frames. so if you have a shed load of AI you will find your CPU frame time rising above 11.1 ms and you will also start to see stuttering as the gfx pipeline cannot be fed the data fast enough by the CPU to the GPU.

If you use the same scenario, same time, for example starting the same mission or instant action, with different SS, I guess the VRAM vould differ.

Also guess one with first generation of VR-set with lower resulotion get lower VRAM usage then with Reverbs.

 

I think testing and taking this into the considerations could help some before they buy.

I will test with both high and low SS tomorrow, if I have the time.

 

(For me, I think it will be the 3090 anyway).

What I am saying is with the exact same settings - including SS - the amount of VRAM allocated in DCS varies between 6 and 11Gb depending on the scenario. Resolution is only part of the VRAM requirement equation.

What I am saying is with the exact same settings - including SS - the amount of VRAM allocated in DCS varies between 6 and 11Gb depending on the scenario. Resolution is only part of the VRAM requirement equation.

correct; objects rendered also has an impact, more objects more memory used...

Nobody should have been surprised that the RTX 3080 ended up being "only" 30% faster than the 2080ti ... that's the standard bump in performance from every generation. It was just a miracle that they decided to drop the prices back to sensible levels. (OK, maybe less offensive levels rather than sensible)

I'm glad I didn't cave in and buy a 2080ti

The 3090 will not be a large jump over the 3080 at all. Just look at the hardware. This isn't like GTX 1080 VS 1080ti where the 1080 had the smaller GP104 chip and the 1080ti had the full fat GP102, or like 2080 (TU104) VS 2080ti (TU102). This is more like 1080ti vs Titan where both used the GP102.

The 3080 and 3090 both have the same GA102 chip with slightly different specs and memory, that's all.

Forget the names that they change around all the time to bamboozle noobs or the prices they try to charge suckers, Just look at the silicon.

The Titan was never worth its extra price for gaming and neither will the 3090.

Nvidia even said it in the launch. The 3080 is for gaming and the 3090 for other applications.

Nobody should have been surprised that the RTX 3080 ended up being "only" 30% faster than the 2080ti ... that's the standard bump in performance from every generation. It was just a miracle that they decided to drop the prices back to sensible levels. (OK, maybe less offensive levels rather than sensible)

I'm glad I didn't cave in and buy a 2080ti

 

The 3090 will not be a large jump over the 3080 at all. Just look at the hardware. This isn't like GTX 1080 VS 1080ti where the 1080 had the smaller GP104 chip and the 1080ti had the full fat GP102, or like 2080 (TU104) VS 2080ti (TU102). This is more like 1080ti vs Titan where both used the GP102.

 

The 3080 and 3090 both have the same GA102 chip with slightly different specs and memory, that's all.

 

Forget the names that they change around all the time to bamboozle noobs or the prices they try to charge suckers, Just look at the silicon.

 

The Titan was never worth its extra price for gaming and neither will the 3090.

Nvidia even said it in the launch. The 3080 is for gaming and the 3090 for other applications.

Max 30%. Tests show 15-30% 3080 vs the 2080 Ti. However, if leaked benchmarks of the 3090 are to be believed then there is another 10-15%, so maybe getting close to 45% and that would be worth it for a card not much more expensive than the 2080 Ti was.

Oh, just one more thing. The 24Gb VRAM!

Nobody should have been surprised that the RTX 3080 ended up being "only" 30% faster than the 2080ti ...

I don't see how 30% can be "only"... for $700. Considering how much 2080Ti was.

I don't see how 30% can be "only"... for $700. Considering how much 2080Ti was.

yep also this

I don't see how 30% can be "only"... for $700. Considering how much 2080Ti was.

Exactly, that was the point.

Althought, simply returning the price level to what it was before a massive price rise doesn't make it a bargain. Just what you got for your money before.

Just look at the comment above "Not much more than a 2080ti" makes it worth the money somehow. Its still a $1500+US card that is not much better than an $800 card.

Nvidia have successfully mind melded people into thinking they are getting a bargain.

I don't see how 30% can be "only"... for $700. Considering how much 2080Ti was.

Good luck trying to get one for $700! 3rd party boards are anything up to $899.

Good luck trying to get one for $700! 3rd party boards are anything up to $899.

Probably wont need luck. I always buy after the hype is over.

Probably wont need luck. I always buy after the hype is over.

Nothing to do with hype. That's the way it always works. Same with each generation, 3rd party boards are significantly more expensive and there is a range in prices because of different chip qualities and factory overclocking. The price won't go down from being up to $200 more.

Now, if you really want to see hype at work, look on eBay. 3080s are going for thousands!

Nothing to do with hype. That's the way it always works. Same with each generation, 3rd party boards are significantly more expensive and there is a range in prices because of different chip qualities and factory overclocking. The price won't go down from being up to $200 more.

 

Now, if you really want to see hype at work, look on eBay. 3080s are going for thousands!

As I said, I do this every upgrade and that's not the trend I experienced. MSI, EVGA, Gigabyte 3080 are still listed as $699 and they'll stay that way. They'll come out with higher spec ones with more cooling and OC and whatnot but will not discontinue current versions.

As I said, I do this every upgrade and that's not the trend I experienced. MSI, EVGA, Gigabyte 3080 are still listed as $699 and they'll stay that way. They'll come out with higher spec ones with more cooling and OC and whatnot but will not discontinue current versions.

Well, we'll see on that. The 2080 Ti prices are still the same today as they were 2 years ago! On Amazon, still between £1100 and £1400.

Re 3080, sure, you'll see basic cards from 3rd parties for around £699, but look on Overclockers site, for example, the Gigabyte range is £690-£899.

Those prices will not change.

Well, we'll see on that. The 2080 Ti prices are still the same today as they were 2 years ago! On Amazon, still between £1100 and £1400.

 

Re 3080, sure, you'll see basic cards from 3rd parties for around £699, but look on Overclockers site, for example, the Gigabyte range is £690-£899.

 

Those prices will not change.

You can search for any 2080 card. There's always price drop within 6 months.

https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B07VDMGYGZ

https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B07VJPNG1M

https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B07KVKRLG2