GTX 1180 incoming ?

[cucker tarlson]

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1180-spotted-on-gfxbench

makes a lot of sense.

 

[Space Lynx]

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1180-spotted-on-gfxbench

makes a lot of sense.

linustechtips already leaked it is coming by accident. but to be fair, it won't be much cheaper than the RTX variants knowing nvidia, and it won't be the equivalent rtx cards either in raw fps... so really seems dumb to me. still being patient and waiting for Vega 2 7nm myself summer/fall 2019. I mean I imagine $50-75 cheaper max... might as well just get the RTX equivalent at that point.

 

[Vayra86]

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1180-spotted-on-gfxbench

makes a lot of sense.

I don't see why, they will need to repurpose Turing shaders only to recreate a 1080ti?!

This only makes sense if there are lots of Turing 2080/2080ti dies with defective RT cores... while not being defective SMs'. Or if TSMCs Pascal node is no longer available. And it also doesn't really sit well with Nvidia's supposed push for RTRT. They will cannibalize their own RTX line that they just blew marketing budget on!?

 

[Space Lynx]

I don't see why, they will need to repurpose Turing shaders only to recreate a 1080ti?!

This only makes sense if there are lots of Turing 2080/2080ti dies with defective RT cores... while not being defective SMs'. Or if TSMCs Pascal node is no longer available. And it also doesn't really sit well with Nvidia's supposed push for RTRT. They will cannibalize their own RTX line that they just blew marketing budget on!?

same with Physx, no one supported it maybe 2% of all games released. same with ray tracing it will be dead within 3 years I bet, AMD is trying to bring it to vega 2 but i bet they scrap it and go for raw performance instead, no one cares about 1080p gaming at 60 fps anymore, and thats all ray tracing will get you. they said Physx would not be so taxing as time went on, but they lied, even witcher 3 hair physx on high would take a 20 fps hit... lol so eh i'll pass.

i game at 240hz 1080p these days, i require maximum FPS. you haven't played Tomb Raider or other adventure action games like it until you have done it at around 200 FPS steady, the lack of motion blur while aiming your bow and arrow and jumping in mid air, its freaking exhilarting.

60 fps can suck it.

 

[londiste]

This only makes sense if there are lots of Turing 2080/2080ti dies with defective RT cores... while not being defective SMs'.

From everything we know so far, both Tensor and especially RT Cores are attached directly to SMs. Cutting of these features on a Turing chip does not seem to be a trivial thing to do.

 

[phanbuey]

same with Physx, no one supported it maybe 2% of all games released. same with ray tracing it will be dead within 3 years I bet, AMD is trying to bring it to vega 2 but i bet they scrap it and go for raw performance instead, no one cares about 1080p gaming at 60 fps anymore, and thats all ray tracing will get you. they said Physx would not be so taxing as time went on, but they lied, even witcher 3 hair physx on high would take a 20 fps hit... lol so eh i'll pass.

i game at 240hz 1080p these days, i require maximum FPS. you haven't played Tomb Raider or other adventure action games like it until you have done it at around 200 FPS steady, the lack of motion blur while aiming your bow and arrow and jumping in mid air, its freaking exhilarting.

60 fps can suck it.

I agree - the immersion benefit of high FPS in every game is insane. GTA V driving is 100x more fun at 165FPS than at 60. Witcher sword fights, Deus Ex etc. 60 fps should be a minimum.

 

[the54thvoid]

While I entirely agree high fps gaming is technically superior, @lynx29 is missing the point when they say 'no one cares about 1080p gaming at 60fps'. High fps requires faster hardware, title dependent and faster hardware is more expensive. People are already making comments that the new RTX2060 is too expensive, many people, so that gives you an idea that a lot of folks will stay with or purchase cards unable to play high fps.

While we're being tech nerds, we also have to remember that the majority of the world of gamers can't just buy the hardware required for high fps, on high refresh monitors.

 

[londiste]

i game at 240hz 1080p these days, i require maximum FPS. you haven't played Tomb Raider or other adventure action games like it until you have done it at around 200 FPS steady, the lack of motion blur while aiming your bow and arrow and jumping in mid air, its freaking exhilarting.

60 fps can suck it.

Shadow of Tomb Raider does about 130-140 FPS with minimums just north of a hundred on 2080Ti and a 5GHz Intel 6+core CPU. That is on 1080p.
And no, with that kind of hardware you will definitely not be using any other settings than Ultra.

Not sure what hardware you are using. System Specs in your profile are not suitable for anything even remotely close to what you are describing.

 

[rtwjunkie]

no one cares about 1080p gaming at 60 fps anymore

Maybe a fair number here, but that’s far from a true statement among the general population.

The problem with generalizations when people say “nobody uses” or “everybody does this” is they are generally wrong.

 

[Space Lynx]

Shadow of Tomb Raider does about 130-140 FPS with minimums just north of a hundred on 2080Ti and a 5GHz Intel 6+core CPU. That is on 1080p.
And no, with that kind of hardware you will definitely not be using any other settings than Ultra.

Not sure what hardware you are using. System Specs in your profile are not suitable for anything even remotely close to what you are describing.

Have you never heard of lowering a settings? LOL wow

also not played shadow yet, only the first two... I will hit 200 FPS on a gtx 1070 though, on Low settings. watch and see babycakes.

Maybe a fair number here, but that’s far from a true statement among the general population.

The problem with generalizations when people say “nobody uses” or “everybody does this” is they are generally wrong.

obviously I am aware of this. and I feel bad for them.

 

[AsRock]

I wouldd of thought this owuld be for the $200 mark to fill the gap, nothing more nothing less. i would not be surprised they did a gimped memory version of it too to sell under $200.

 

[Vayra86]

Have you never heard of lowering a settings? LOL wow

also not played shadow yet, only the first two... I will hit 200 FPS on a gtx 1070 though, on Low settings. watch and see babycakes.



obviously I am aware of this. and I feel bad for them.

So great, you have 200 FPS on low, and you say it helps immersion versus, for example, 120 FPS on ultra?

I say you need a reality check - and I seriously doubt you're even speaking the truth. 240hz with major frame dips is never more consistent or immersive than half that number without dips - even regardless of IQ settings. Once you can hold minimums of 60 FPS, diminishing returns kick in, bigtime.

 

[Space Lynx]

So great, you have 200 FPS on low, and you say it helps immersion versus, for example, 120 FPS on ultra?

I say you need a reality check - and I seriously doubt you're even speaking the truth. 240hz with major frame dips is never more consistent or immersive than half that number without dips - even regardless of IQ settings. Once you can hold minimums of 60 FPS, diminishing returns kick in, bigtime.

I do both higher settings and lower frames, and higher frames and lower settings. All depends what I am in the mood for.

God forbid we have freewill and make decisions of our own in this life! agh!

 

[Vayra86]

obviously I am aware of this. and I feel bad for them.

i game at 240hz 1080p these days, i require maximum FPS. you haven't played Tomb Raider or other adventure action games like it until you have done it at around 200 FPS steady, the lack of motion blur while aiming your bow and arrow and jumping in mid air, its freaking exhilarting.

60 fps can suck it.

Are you training to be the new resident troll? Motion blur is not even eliminated by higher refresh - its an artifact of our human vision and it happens on every LCD panel that doesn't strobe. You can 240hz your ass off but it won't eliminate blur, it just increases motion clarity. To eliminate blur you need black frame insertion so your eyes can adjust to a new image without retaining the old one. Compare it to looking outside the window of a moving car - as long as you don't blink or keep moving your eyes to catch specific views, you will see 'blur' as things move by quickly. When you blink, all of a sudden you can make distinctions and it 'feels' like making a photo.

Free will is fine, but it is YOU saying 'EVERYBODY' who isn't on 240hz is missing out... I'm saying you fell for a bit of marketing BS.

 

[Space Lynx]

Are you training to be the new resident troll? Motion blur is not even eliminated by higher refresh - its an artifact of our human vision and it happens on every LCD panel that doesn't strobe. You can 240hz your ass off but it won't eliminate blur, it just increases motion clarity. To eliminate blur you need black frame insertion so your eyes can adjust to a new image without retaining the old one. Compare it to looking outside the window of a moving car - as long as you don't blink or keep moving your eyes to catch specific views, you will see 'blur' as things move by quickly. When you blink, all of a sudden you can make distinctions and it 'feels' like making a photo.

Free will is fine, but it is YOU saying 'EVERYBODY' who isn't on 240hz is missing out... I'm saying you fell for a bit of marketing BS.

I'm sorry your eyes are worse than mine. I notice a difference from 120hz to 144hz, and again from 165hz to 240hz. I can tell a difference in CSGO (and i don't even like that game) but I can tell a difference. I know I am not alone, so call it BS all you want and go enjoy your 60 fps. later now

 

[Vayra86]

I'm sorry your eyes are worse than mine. I notice a difference from 120hz to 144hz, and again from 165hz to 240hz. I can tell a difference in CSGO (and i don't even like that game) but I can tell a difference. I know I am not alone, so call it BS all you want and go enjoy your 60 fps. later now

That isn't what you said You don't even half know what the hell you're saying and hardly a day goes by where I can correct one of your statements because you're missing the mark. Enjoy your placebo mate, it ain't my loss, I cruise at 120fps/hz Ultra with strobe

 

[Space Lynx]

That isn't what you said You don't even half know what the hell you're saying and hardly a day goes by where I can correct one of your statements because you're missing the mark. Enjoy your placebo mate, it ain't my loss, I cruise at 120fps/hz Ultra with strobe

neat. take care, i also enjoy 120hz strobing sometimes. sometimes I enjoy 240hz and low settings too. its amazing. but you're right 60 fps has huge diminishing returns starting at 61 fps. lol. sure thing.

 

[sepheronx]

tell the difference between 120 to 240hz? Really? I somehow doubt that.

I game perfectly fine around 70fps. Anything lower than 60fps I will notice. But hey, to each their own.

 

[Space Lynx]

tell the difference between 120 to 240hz? Really? I somehow doubt that.

I game perfectly fine around 70fps. Anything lower than 60fps I will notice. But hey, to each their own.

I can tell the difference between 144hz and 165hz actually at 1440p. I switched back and forth several times in many games testing it out to see if I could tell. I could indeed, its barely noticeable, but it does "feel" smoother.

 

[Vayra86]

I can tell the difference between 144hz and 165hz actually at 1440p. I switched back and forth several times in many games testing it out to see if I could tell. I could indeed, its barely noticeable, but it does "feel" smoother.

You will always notice a difference on a panel that isn't on its native refresh rate. But you will also always notice fluctuations in framerates if you can notice the difference between 144-165hz. So, the bottom line is that you will only have a better experience if you can keep your maximum refresh rate as minimum FPS. Otherwise, any claims about smoothness are 100% BS. And how many games can hold >150 FPS minimums? Exactly. I completely understand your CS:GO example but that is an exception to the rule here. For every other game, you won't maintain those minimums - even on low.

BTW I'm very curious what monitor you have, saying as you can do 120hz/strobe, 240hz, 144hz and 165hz all in one and switch back and forth. Care to enlighten us? It ain't the 75hz POS in your specs

 

[Space Lynx]

You will always notice a difference on a panel that isn't on its native refresh rate. But you will also always notice fluctuations in framerates if you can notice the difference between 144-165hz. So, the bottom line is that you will only have a better experience if you can keep your maximum refresh rate as minimum FPS. Otherwise, any claims about smoothness are 100% BS. And how many games can hold >150 FPS minimums? Exactly. I completely understand your CS:GO example but that is an exception to the rule here. For every other game, you won't maintain those minimums - even on low.

a lot of games if not all can reach those FPS with shadows turned off and several other settings set to low. even with MSAA at x2 I have found being the only thing turned on, games still look decent at 1440p and hit 150 fps easily. i actually find ambient occlusion holds back most games and shadows - those two turned off generates a lot of fps in most games. and i usually prefer them off oddly enough.

 

[Vayra86]

a lot of games if not all can reach those FPS with shadows turned off and several other settings set to low. even with MSAA at x2 I have found being the only thing turned on, games still look decent at 1440p and hit 150 fps easily. i actually find ambient occlusion holds back most games and shadows - those two turned off generates a lot of fps in most games. and i usually prefer them off oddly enough.

Here, this one is for you. ULMB/strobe at lower refresh is much more useful than a 240hz refresh without it (and guess what, that better option has been available since 2013 ). Add in the difficulty in keeping 240 fps consistently and I think it should be obvious what's preferable. It certainly is not a TN at 240hz... which also has ghosting, crosstalk, reduced viewing angles and shitty contrast (often lower than IPS, 800-850:1 is not uncommon).

So, bottom line: 240hz is marketing BS, and another way to lure gamurs into cheap to produce TNs with fat margins.

Still curious what monitor you have right now.

 

[Space Lynx]

I'm well aware that strobe is the best option, however, every time I turn it on the screen gets so dim brightness wise I can't stand it. I never owned your particular monitor though so it might not be as bad.

 

[Vayra86]

I'm well aware that strobe is the best option, however, every time I turn it on the screen gets so dim brightness wise I can't stand it. I never owned your particular monitor though so it might not be as bad.

So double your brightness, that is what I do over here... Or are you already maxed

 

[Vario]

lynx29 channeling his best "pcgamingmasterrace1337" hard right now. Plenty of people care about the value segment, myself included.
Wondering if the 1180 is a 1080ti re-release?