Wednesday, November 20th 2019

NVIDIA Readying GeForce RTX 2080 Ti SUPER After All?

NVIDIA could launch a "GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Super" after all, if a tweet from kopite7kimi, an enthusiast with a fairly high hit-rate with NVIDIA rumors is to be believed. The purported SKU could be faster than the RTX 2080 Ti, and yet be somehow differentiated from the TITAN RTX. For starters, NVIDIA could enable all 4,608 CUDA cores, 576 tensor cores, and 72 RT cores, along with 288 TMUs and 96 ROPs. Compared to the current RTX 2080 Ti, the Super could get faster 16 Gbps GDDR6 memory.

It's possible that NVIDIA won't change the 352-bit memory bus width or 11 GB memory amount, as those would be the only things stopping the card from cannibalizing the TITAN RTX, which has the chip's full 384-bit memory bus width, and 24 GB of memory. Interestingly, at 16 Gbps with a 352-bit memory bus width, the RTX 2080 Ti Super would have 704 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is higher than the 672 GB/s of the TITAN RTX, with its 14 Gbps memory clock. These design choices would ensure NVIDIA has a sufficiently faster product than the RTX 2080 Ti, without an increase in BOM, provided it has enough perfectly-functional "TU102" inventory to go around. There's no word on availability, although WCCFTech predicts a CES 2020 unveiling.
Sources: kopite7kimi (Twitter), WCCFTech
Add your own comment

130 Comments on NVIDIA Readying GeForce RTX 2080 Ti SUPER After All?

#76
notb
moproblems99
I'm not sure what you getting at here. Big budget builds could always buy the top of line. Nothing has changed. Other than the prices have increased.
I mean that $5000 gives you top of the line gaming parts. And it still makes sense (gaming-wise) over cheaper PCs.

Few years ago you just couldn't go that far.
In mid-2015 you got top fps with a 6700K + 980Ti. That's ~$1000 total (today top CPU and GPU are ~$1000 each).
RAM was cheaper. High-end Z170 mobo was $350. It was hard to justify spending over $3000 on a gaming PC (fps-wise).

So gamers who wanted to spend more went for HEDT (that made hardly any difference) or SLI (that seldom worked, but usually just generated problems).

Basically, gaming component makers decided that high-paying client segment is large enough to make these expensive parts sellable.
Posted on Reply
#77
bug
notb
I mean that $5000 gives you top of the line gaming parts. And it still makes sense (gaming-wise) over cheaper PCs.

Few years ago you just couldn't go that far.
In mid-2015 you got top fps with a 6700K + 980Ti. That's ~$1000. RAM was cheaper. High-end Z170 mobo was $350. It was hard to justify spending over $3000 on a gaming PC (fps-wise).
So gamers who wanted to spend more started went for HEDT (that made hardly any difference) or SLI (that seldom worked, but usually just generated problems).

Basically, gaming component makers decided that high-paying client segment is large enough to make these expensive parts sellable.
You could have gone triple-SLI or quad-Crossfire ;)
Then again, you still can, if you really, really, really want to.
Posted on Reply
#78
cucker tarlson
notb
In mid-2015 you got top fps with a 6700K + 980Ti. That's ~$1000 total (today top CPU and GPU are ~$1000 each).
RAM was cheaper. High-end Z170 mobo was $350. It was hard to justify spending over $3000 on a gaming PC (fps-wise).
a 750mm2 chip wouldn't have existed if nvidia knew they couldn't sell it.
you can still get a great $1000 cpu+gpu if you go for 2080 super and 3700x/9700kf,if that's not high end I don't know what is
it's just nvidia and amd made parts like 2080Ti and 3950x possible cause they know people would buy a $750 cpu and a $1000 gpu too.
Posted on Reply
#79
QUANTUMPHYSICS
I purchased a 2080Ti Black recently and I already had a 2080Ti FTW3.


Similar to the TITANX and XP, the 2080Ti is pretty much unchallenged by anything from AMD and I knew that if I just spent the money it would make me happy since I wouldn't need to upgrade for a while.

I didn't feel like waiting for the 2080 Ti Super and I doubt I would be willing to spend the $1500 they'll probably want for it.

Thus far I'm very happy with my purchase and have no buyer's remorse.
The 2080 Super just didn't have enough memory. When you play CoD MW with all settings at their highest and include Ray Tracing, the game tops out at 6GB memory used. I wasn't willing to take a chance with the 2080, 2070 or 2060 because I knew that games released next year would bring them to their knees.

I will skip the 3080Ti and upgrade to the 4080Ti.
Posted on Reply
#80
moproblems99
notb
I mean that $5000 gives you top of the line gaming parts. And it still makes sense (gaming-wise) over cheaper PCs.

Few years ago you just couldn't go that far.
In mid-2015 you got top fps with a 6700K + 980Ti. That's ~$1000 total (today top CPU and GPU are ~$1000 each).
RAM was cheaper. High-end Z170 mobo was $350. It was hard to justify spending over $3000 on a gaming PC (fps-wise).

So gamers who wanted to spend more went for HEDT (that made hardly any difference) or SLI (that seldom worked, but usually just generated problems).

Basically, gaming component makers decided that high-paying client segment is large enough to make these expensive parts sellable.
Right, so basically, what you are saying is the top end parts have gotten more expensive. Manufacturers have figured out that if you put the term gaming on something you can jack the price up and people will buy it.

Again, your post sums it up perfectly. Manufacturers, namely Intel and Nvidia because AMD was not competitive, have figured out that they could raise prices and people will still buy it. They conditioned consumers. Just because things are more expensive doesn't mean it is justified to spend $5000 when realistically those same parts would have cost $3000 to $4000 had the conditioning not occurred and we were just dealing with normal inflation/cost change.
Posted on Reply
#81
gasolina
Should be around 5 to 10% per increase i will pass on this there is no point to replace my 2080ti for this, if anything offer 30% more per at stock then i would gladly to pay for it, and it doesn't matter if that from amd or nvidia
Posted on Reply
#82
Camm
I'm calling scuttlebutt based on:

A: Close to next generation
B: It would kill Nvidia's product line differentiation atm, which is Base Card then Super then Ti.
Posted on Reply
#83
lexluthermiester
bug
Even if they would release such a card, it would only be a minor improvement over the existing one. The TU102 is already almost fully unlocked and faster memory won't yield too much either. But no one can complain if a slightly faster part can be had for the same price.
Should be between 7% to 11% faster and as there are more RT cores, RTX performance will be better by a marked degree. I can think of 2 people who will get such a card no questions asked.
Posted on Reply
#84
notb
cucker tarlson
a 750mm2 chip wouldn't have existed if nvidia knew they couldn't sell it.
you can still get a great $1000 cpu+gpu if you go for 2080 super and 3700x/9700kf,if that's not high end I don't know what is
it's just nvidia and amd made parts like 2080Ti and 3950x possible cause they know people would buy a $750 cpu and a $1000 gpu too.
The thesis was that 3950X/9900KS and 2080Ti (Super) still give you some visible gain in gaming graphics. They really do.
Back when 980Ti came out no card was sensibly faster (Titan was within measurement error). You could only enrol for the misery of SLI.
moproblems99
Again, your post sums it up perfectly. Manufacturers, namely Intel and Nvidia because AMD was not competitive, have figured out that they could raise prices and people will still buy it. They conditioned consumers.
Absolutely not what I said.
All 3 companies (seriously, AMD is no different even if you'd like to believe that) stretched their lineups, because they've noticed a "rich" segment of clients that can afford more than could have been bought.
980Ti costed $650, which today gets you a 2080 / 2070 Super. That's twice the performance in 4 years => +20% yearly. That's still better than what AMD does with Zen.
2080Ti is a product in a different segment and it's priced accordingly.

The problem here is that people are too focused on naming. You think 2080Ti is a successor of 1080Ti and 980Ti, which makes you unhappy with the pricing.

If 2070 Super was called 2080Ti and actual 2080Ti became 2090, you'd be perfectly fine with the pricing. :)
Just because things are more expensive doesn't mean it is justified to spend $5000 when realistically those same parts would have cost $3000 to $4000 had the conditioning not occurred and we were just dealing with normal inflation/cost change.
The only reason to say that $5000 parts should cost $3000 is that you're able to buy or make equivalents for $3000, which is not the case.
I totally understand you'd wish that top components were cheaper - every consumer does. But that's just a wish. Don't get too attached.
Posted on Reply
#85
oxrufiioxo
I'm hoping these launch for around $999 so that more people can afford them. Had all the AIB models launched at $999 I would have picked one up at launch luckily I got a 2080 ti Strix OC on a flash sale for $1160 shipped 6 months ago.... Also the vanilla 2080 ti may drop into the high $800s low $900s making them tempting for people doing new builds.
Posted on Reply
#87
Razrback16
er557
Meh, at this point I'd rather wait for ampere
+1

Too little too late for Turing. Only way a set of Turing GPUs will end up in my machine is 2nd hand market.
Posted on Reply
#88
moproblems99
notb
Absolutely not what I said.
All 3 companies (seriously, AMD is no different even if you'd like to believe that) stretched their lineups, because they've noticed a "rich" segment of clients that can afford more than could have been bought.
I'm pretty sure AMD wasn't setting any market price points over the last several generations. What I don't get is this:

notb
they've noticed a "rich" segment of clients that can afford more than could have been bought.
What is more than could have been bought? Do you really think the 2080ti or ti super would not have been released if this magical 'rich' group didn't exist? No, it would have been released at whatever price point they could have sold it for. The upper class of purchasers have always existed. Many have more money then sense.

notb
980Ti costed $650, which today gets you a 2080 / 2070 Super. That's twice the performance in 4 years => +20% yearly. That's still better than what AMD does with Zen.
2080Ti is a product in a different segment and it's priced accordingly.

The problem here is that people are too focused on naming. You think 2080Ti is a successor of 1080Ti and 980Ti, which makes you unhappy with the pricing.
Then they shouldn't name it the 2080ti if they don't want it associated with the 1080ti. Unfortunately, it is a successor to the 1080ti, just like the 1080ti is a successor the the 980ti and so on. That is what naming does. The 2020 Mustang certainly isn't a successor to the 2019 Ford Explorer is it?

notb
If 2070 Super was called 2080Ti and actual 2080Ti became 2090, you'd be perfectly fine with the pricing. :)
Not really. That analogy is not very good.

notb
The only reason to say that $5000 parts should cost $3000 is that you're able to buy or make equivalents for $3000, which is not the case.
I totally understand you'd wish that top components were cheaper - every consumer does. But that's just a wish. Don't get too attached.
The 2000 series were basically Pascal with RayTracing. The only decent card out of the bunch is the 2080s and 2080ti. They were able to make the equivalents but they didn't want to, just look at the 1600 series.

oxrufiioxo
I'm hoping these launch for around $999 so that more people can afford them. Had all the AIB models launched at $999 I would have picked one up at launch luckily I got a 2080 ti Strix OC on a flash sale for $1160 shipped 6 months ago.... Also the vanilla 2080 ti may drop into the high $800s low $900s making them tempting for people doing new builds.
I have yet to see one for less than $1099. My price point is around $900 where I would entertain the idea.
Posted on Reply
#89
oxrufiioxo
moproblems99
What is more than could have been bought? Do you really think the 2080ti or ti super would not have been released if this magical 'rich' group didn't exist? No, it would have been released at whatever price point they could have sold it for. The upper class of purchasers have always existed. Many have more money then sense.
This is very True

I've been spending $8-1200 on GPU since 2012..... Prior to that I mostly gamed on console so as long as my PC ran Diablo and your typical RTS ( starcraft/C&C) I didn't really care.

2012 680 sli $1100 / 7970 $550 secondary pc.

2014 970 sli $800. Such a good value over the 980 at the time. The 3.5GB framebuffer killed this card before the actual peformance did at least for me though

2016 1080 sli $1400. I actually only intended on buying one but pre ordered 2 just in case one shop didn't get them at launch but both shipped and decided to keep both

2017 Titan XP $1200. decided to ditch sli and 1080 ti were over $1000 due to mining on the flip side I sold each 1080 for 700 on ebay but after fees I maybe lost 200 at most switching to a TItan XP.

2019 2080 ti $1155. I needed a second GPU for an additional system was originally going to buy a 2070 Super but my wife called me a Pussy for not just grabbing a 2080 ti

Honestly people complain about gpu pricing but in 2012 a GTX 680 couldn't even do 1080p max settings on release in every game with a single card and a lot of games were barely over 60fps..... I remember barely hitting 45fps in crysis till I got a second gpu for example a 5 year old game at the time. I will say this though being able to use uber sampling in witcher 2 with 680 was pretty cool at the time 1920X1200 rez.

I usually recommend people buy the fastest GPU they can afford and when 1 wasn't fast enough I always bought 2.
Posted on Reply
#90
moproblems99
oxrufiioxo
2019 2080 ti $1155. I needed a second GPU for an additional system was originally going to buy a 2070 Super but my wife called me a Pussy for not just grabbing a 2080 ti
You are a lucky man.

oxrufiioxo
Honestly people complain about gpu pricing but in 2012 a GTX 680 couldn't even do 1080p max settings on release in every game with a single card and a lot of games were barely over 60fps..... I remember barely hitting 45fps in crysis till I got a second gpu for example a 5 year old game at the time. I will say this though being able to use uber sampling in witcher 2 with 680 was pretty cool at the time 1920X1200 rez.
The problem isn't necessarily price/performance, that is just part of it. Everybody says 'but but but, these are so complicated to make. Of course they are expensive.' Yet somehow NV has managed to increase their margins on their products. The other part of it:

980ti launch price: $649.
1080ti launch price: $699. 35% performance increase over 980ti at 1080. +43% @4k
2080ti launch price: $1199. 19% performance increase over 1080ti at 1080. +28% @ 4k.

Yeah, league of it's own. World class. It didn't even come close to the leap the previous gen did. OHHHHHHHH but wait, how could I forget. RTX. Duh. You could do some RTX benchmarks for the first three months. Then you had 1.21 more games available at the 6 month mark. Even the games that did have it didn't look revolutionary. Battlefield looked worse. Granted, I could only see stills so perhaps some effect is loss not being there in person but what did the $500 increase get you? RTX ON at 1080p @60 Hz. Oh wait, they dumbed down the RTX in a title or two to make it more viable for their $1200 wonder card.

About $900 seemed like a more reasonable launch price given the above. But what do I know? People want what they want and will pay what they want. More power to them. But the price conditioning is real. And it isn't going way.
Posted on Reply
#91
killster1
oxrufiioxo
This is very True

I've been spending $8-1200 on GPU since 2012..... Prior to that I mostly gamed on console so as long as my PC ran Diablo and your typical RTS ( starcraft/C&C) I didn't really care.

2012 680 sli $1100 / 7970 $550 secondary pc.

2014 970 sli $800. Such a good value over the 980 at the time. The 3.5GB framebuffer killed this card before the actual peformance did at least for me though

2016 1080 sli $1400. I actually only intended on buying one but pre ordered 2 just in case one shop didn't get them at launch but both shipped and decided to keep both

2017 Titan XP $1200. decided to ditch sli and 1080 ti were over $1000 due to mining on the flip side I sold each 1080 for 700 on ebay but after fees I maybe lost 200 at most switching to a TItan XP.

2019 2080 ti $1155. I needed a second GPU for an additional system was originally going to buy a 2070 Super but my wife called me a Pussy for not just grabbing a 2080 ti

Honestly people complain about gpu pricing but in 2012 a GTX 680 couldn't even do 1080p max settings on release in every game with a single card and a lot of games were barely over 60fps..... I remember barely hitting 45fps in crysis till I got a second gpu for example a 5 year old game at the time. I will say this though being able to use uber sampling in witcher 2 with 680 was pretty cool at the time 1920X1200 rez.

I usually recommend people buy the fastest GPU they can afford and when 1 wasn't fast enough I always bought 2.
how much of your life do you spend playing games? as fast as they can afford usually would be more then needed. i dream one day maybe with zombies where its not safe to go outside and i can have time to play games or maybe when i retire, but right now i play maybe 1 hour a month
Posted on Reply
#92
oxrufiioxo
killster1
how much of your life do you spend playing games? as fast as they can afford usually would be more then needed. i dream one day maybe with zombies where its not safe to go outside and i can have time to play games or maybe when i retire, but right now i play maybe 1 hour a month
I play 6-8 hours a week unless a huge game that I've been waiting for a while drops. Witcher 3 being a good example. I'm fortunate enough to only have to work 6-8 days a month and still afford a decent pc..... But I still spend more time traveling up to the Oregon coast. Going to NHL/NBA games Sharks/Lakers and hanging out with Friends.

People can really only decide for themselves what makes the most sense when it comes to buying GPU XYZ..... I can give recommendations just like anyone else doesn't mean if they buy a 570 and I was recommending a 1660 ti either of us is wrong they just grabbed what they felt best fit their needs.
Posted on Reply
#93
moproblems99
oxrufiioxo
People can really only decide for themselves what makes the most sense when it comes to buying GPU XYZ..... I can give recommendations just like anyone else doesn't mean if they buy a 570 and I was recommending a 1660 ti either of us is wrong they just grabbed what they felt best fit their needs.
That's the truth. Buy the fastest card you can/need. If you want to buy extravagantly more than you need, awesome! Ultimately, there is no wrong answer some are just better than others. Only how good of a "deal" you got.
Posted on Reply
#94
oxrufiioxo
moproblems99
You are a lucky man.



The problem isn't necessarily price/performance, that is just part of it. Everybody says 'but but but, these are so complicated to make. Of course they are expensive.' Yet somehow NV has managed to increase their margins on their products. The other part of it:

980ti launch price: $649.
1080ti launch price: $699. 35% performance increase over 980ti at 1080. +43% @4k
2080ti launch price: $1199. 19% performance increase over 1080ti at 1080. +28% @ 4k.
Trust me I think your $900 price is probably spot on but I also think die size played a large part in current GPU pricing.... Minus the FE Tax.... so $499 2070/ $699 2080 / $999 2080 ti

980 ti 601 mm²

2070 445 mm² / 2070 S 545 mm²

1080 ti 471 mm² / 2080 545 mm²

2080 ti 775 mm² I truly hope they make a similar sized 7nm gpu but I also cringe at the thought of what it will cost.

You have to figure even though the 1080 ti was a pretty amazing card for its time it cost significantly less to produce than the 980 ti or 2080 ti.... I think mostly what happened with Turing is in order to get the extra performance the die size had to increase substantially. you have to figure if 7nm was ready at Turing launch we may have gotten slightly better pricing..... But also AMD hasn't competed at the ultra high end in forever so who knows.

At the same time AMD has a much smaller die with the 5700 vs 2070 and sill prices the card similarly I'm guessing part of that is 7nm is more expensive but Also amd in the past 7970 up until now has mostly just matched Nvidia pricing on similarly performing cards.
Posted on Reply
#95
moproblems99
oxrufiioxo
You have to figure even though the 1080 ti was a pretty amazing card for its time it cost significantly less to produce than the 980 ti or 2080 ti.... I think mostly what happened with Turing is in order to get the extra performance the die size had to increase substantially. you have to figure if 7nm was ready at Turing launch we may have gotten slightly better pricing..... But also AMD hasn't competed at the ultra high end in forever so who knows.
It got bigger because they had to put so much RT and Tensor cores in it to even barf out the half baked RTRT that exists now. If they used all the die space for good stuff, it would have been a monster. Imagine if they did a 1680ti? Oh yeah, probably not many people would have bought the 2080ti. Or 2080. They took a large portion of the die and used it on stuff a large amount of people don't care for. I possibly would have a bought a 1680ti day one at the price they could have launched it at. Most definitely by now.

oxrufiioxo
At the same time AMD has a much smaller die with the 5700 vs 2070 and sill prices the card similarly I'm guessing part of that is 7nm is more expensive but Also amd in the past 7970 up until now has mostly just matched Nvidia pricing on similarly performing cards.
Of course they did. And they are absolutely loving life right now. If Big Navi is good, they can bank on these inflated prices.
Posted on Reply
#96
oxrufiioxo
It would have been interesting to see how large a 1680 ti would have been the 1660ti is 284 mm² so you'd probably figure around 600 mm² still making it substantially bigger than a 1080 ti.

I personally would have taken a 2080 ti at the same price with more smu and no RT cores.

Volta was technically slower in gaming with more SMs though so who knows past a certain amount the architecture may be bottlenecked by something else.
Posted on Reply
#97
Theliel
And what about the people who already bought the TITAN RTX? Will they throw it away for this marginally faster card?
Posted on Reply
#98
oxrufiioxo
Theliel
And what about the people who already bought the TITAN RTX, will the throw it away for this marginally faster card?
Pretty sure most people who grabbed the Titan RTX are using it for something the 24GB of vram make sense for.
Posted on Reply
#99
Theliel
oxrufiioxo
Pretty sure most people who grabbed the Titan RTX are using it for something the 24GB of vram make sense for.
Just as the RTX 2080 Ti/2070 Ti make little sense considering most games don't have such requirements and the majority of people don't use a native 8K 240Hz display.
Posted on Reply
#100
oxrufiioxo
Theliel
Just as the RTX 2080 Ti/2070 Ti make little sense considering most games don't have such requirements and the majority of people don't use a native 8K 240Hz display.
Actually I barely get 60fps at 1440p in some areas with a 2080ti with ultra settings in RDR2 so it just depends I guess
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment