Has Radeon VII caught up with RTX 2080?

[Gasaraki]

Nvidia is a (little) faster and use a (little) less power.
AMD has better drivers and better/more features and is smoother in gameplay.

Yeah ok... I think you meant

Nvidia is ~9% faster and uses a lot less power 33% less.
AMD now has prettier drivers and uselesss/less features and same smoothness in gameplay.

AMD can't even help in hardware transcoding. I know they have something equivalent to NVEDC but does nothing. Even the iGPU of Intel processors can do hardware transcoding better.

 

[juiseman]

How does the VII perform in content creation? 16GB HMB2 seems like it should help in 3d Animation/CAD/Video Editing guys if
the software is taking advantage of it. That is added value if you are doing gaming and creation on the same rig.
I could see some Hacktosh and Mac Pro 5,1 users picking this card over the 2080 for that reason.

EDIT:

Answered my own question;

DaVinci Resolve 15: AMD Radeon VII 16GB Performance

The Radeon VII is a very interesting card for DaVinci Resolve due to its 16GB of VRAM which is twice what you would get from a similarly priced NVIDIA GPU. But is it able to keep up in terms of raw performance?

www.pugetsystems.com

Looks like it performs uite well in
DaVinci 15. almost a tie against the 2080 ti

 

[moproblems99]

So the 2070 to 2080TI are good value? Just asking

It's not as bad as you may be thinking. Frankly, VII is about as good of a value as either the 2070 or 2080. None of the three cards win outright on that front. If you are purchasing any of those cards then you should come to the realization that the purchase you are making is because you want it not because it is a good deal.

If I was to buy a card right now it would likely be a 2080ti as to get enough level of performance jump, I would need to buy a VII, block, and extra rad to get the performance above a 2080. By the time those expenditures are calculated, a few hundred more would net a 2080ti.

Not a particularly great time to have 1070 performance or above and want to upgrade.

 

[SoNic67]

Only if the software uses OpenGL exclusive. That's the case on Macs, not so much on Windows, where some apps can use either OpenGL or DirectX.

Most of the editing apps are CPU bound though, in real life the GPU effects are not that heavy used.
Also, a lot of "professional" software doesn't use the hardware decoding/encoding blocks in the GPU.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Who buys a 2080 or a VII ($700) and doesn't have a 4K monitor ($300), but a 2K one ($250)??? It would be a waste of money IMO.
Why test those at all at anything else but 4K resolutions?

It's a waste to go 4k60 if you have 1440p144/165 available,this is what the majority is using them for.
Most of reasonable ppl will only jump from qhd to 4k once 4k 144 is more affordable.
Going from 1440p 144 to 4k 60 is a downgrade for gaming

 

[SoNic67]

Sure it is... I prefer my games to look good, 60FPS is plenty for any human reaction time (of 0.15 sec).
But this "you need 144Hz" is another myth that I don't feel like discussing.

 

[Vayra86]

So the 2070 to 2080TI are good value? Just asking

Of course not. They're stagnated entirely in perf/$ compared to Pascal, so no.

The only good value card in Turing's lineup is the 2060, and to somewhat lesser extent 1660ti/1660. RTX 2070 is nothing like for example Pascal's 1070 value wise. This also highlights the only breathing room for Navi that's coming now; compete with 2070 / 2080 on price; but unless its a major gap, that also represents pretty bad value.

By comparison, the 980ti and 1080ti at their MSRPs were good value. They offered considerable additional performance over last gen at a similar price point, that's progress. What we've seen the last year or so is just circling around a hot pile of dung, re-releasing half a dozen cards around 1070 ~1080 performance. Pointless..

 

[EarthDog]

Sure it is... I prefer my games to look good, 60FPS is plenty for any human reaction time (of 0.15 sec).
But this "you need 144Hz" is another myth that I don't feel like discussing.

You don't have to discuss it... sounds like you have never experienced it and the difference in smooth game play compared to 60 FPS/hz. I used to think like you did.........until I saw it in person, used it, and ultimately bought it.

But "needing" it... it isn't a need, but it is a better way to game, period.

 

[moproblems99]

You don't have to discuss it... sounds like you have never experienced it and the difference in smooth game play compared to 60 FPS/hz. I used to think like you did.........until I saw it in person, used it, and ultimately bought it.

But "needing" it... it isn't a need, but it is a better way to game, period.

I have them both and game on both so I have to switch back and forth regularly. I like 144 but I could drop it in a heartbeat and go 4k60 without missing a beat.

 

[SoNic67]

Autosuggestion is a marvelous thing...

 

[Vario]

Sure it is... I prefer my games to look good, 60FPS is plenty for any human reaction time (of 0.15 sec).
But this "you need 144Hz" is another myth that I don't feel like discussing.

I personally wouldn't mind having higher Hz but it will be some time before I upgrade monitors and graphics card again. Having higher Hz does help considerably with games that require fast reflex such as shooters.

 

[EarthDog]

I have them both and game on both so I have to switch back and forth regularly. I like 144 but I could drop it in a heartbeat and go 4k60 without missing a beat.

I couldn't (in a heartbeat).... my kids have 60 Hz monitors and I play on those PCs and certainly notice a difference. Could I go back if I had to? Of course, but the difference is night and day between the two.

When I experienced high Hz game play on a high hz monitor, I had no idea what I was even looking at. It took a salesman to come over and tell me why things were so smooth as I didn't catch any 144Hz signage on the display.

Autosuggestion is a marvelous thing...

So is ignorance. Some call it bliss.

 

[kapone32]

I couldn't.... my kids have 60 Hz monitors and I play on those PCs and certainly notice a difference. Could I go back if I had to? Of course, but the difference is night and day between the two.
So is ignorance. Some call it bliss.

I agree once you see a 120hz refresh rate monitor in action it is hard to go back. I had a QNIX 27" 1440P monitor that OC to 120hz. Even now that I am at 60Hz 4K I still will run some games on that monitor just for the refresh rate but when I get home today I am going to see if I can use CRU and apply a 1440P 120hz profile to my 4K . Is there anything I should watch out for?

It's not as bad as you may be thinking. Frankly, VII is about as good of a value as either the 2070 or 2080. None of the three cards win outright on that front. If you are purchasing any of those cards then you should come to the realization that the purchase you are making is because you want it not because it is a good deal.

If I was to buy a card right now it would likely be a 2080ti as to get enough level of performance jump, I would need to buy a VII, block, and extra rad to get the performance above a 2080. By the time those expenditures are calculated, a few hundred more would net a 2080ti.

Not a particularly great time to have 1070 performance or above and want to upgrade.

That is right gone are the days when high end was $299 and everybody would get the cut down card from the same GPU for $199 not that the 1060 or 570/580/590 are bad cards. The question I ask people when they ask me for a build with anything over a 1070 is what are you going to do and what kind of monitor are you using. If it is 60 hz 1080P I tell them it is a waste of money.

 

[cucker tarlson]

dunno why people always mention shooters
If a game has something that moves,then I can see it's more fluid at 120fps and less blurry at 120Hz,doesn't have to be a shooter altough it does obviously help in shooters
to me response,fluidity and sharpness are much more essential to immersion than more pixels once I've got 1440p on 24/27 inch screen. 4K60 I'd only use over 1440p 144 for 40 inch.


games like ac odyssey I notice 60 to 90 fps instantly,the more is happening on the screen the more pronounced the difference is.I can easily see 60 vs 90 just standing in the street watching people on the sidewalk in watch dogs 2.

 

[Bones]

All I can say is the expense of a 2080 vs a Rad VII was the deal breaker, I just couldn't justify paying out so much for something that in reality wasn't all that much better, esp for my use. I also had to figure how much time would pass before an upgrade would be needed, since these are largely doing the same didn't make any sense to spend twice as much for the same in the end, esp if one isn't a gamer which I'm not.
I'm not worried about having to have the baddest card period.

I came out much better grabbing a Rad VII, the card has been great since day 1 and no problems to mention with it.

 

[cucker tarlson]

All I can say is the expense of a 2080 vs a Rad VII was the deal breaker, I just couldn't justify paying out so much for something that in reality wasn't all that much better, esp for my use. I also had to figure how much time would pass before an upgrade would be needed, since these are largely doing the same didn't make any sense to spend twice as much for the same in the end, esp if one isn't a gamer which I'm not.
I'm not worried about having to have the baddest card period.

I came out much better grabbing a Rad VII, the card has been great since day 1 and no problems to mention with it.

I think in most cases local pricing will be the deciding factor.
here 2080 is cheaper.
used 1080Ti is a better deal than any of those two anyway.

 

[Bones]

Price is the ultimate factor, that's just how it is.
If the 2080 had been cheaper that's how I would have gone.

With the 1080 being a good card that's something but getting one (Here) is still expensive.
I checked on those too before buying and the Rad VII was the cheapest out of the three.

 

[EarthDog]

I think in most cases local pricing will be the deciding factor.
here 2080 is cheaper.
used 1080Ti is a better deal than any of those two anyway.

They can be had for the same price here too. The 2080 has a higher ceiling but they both start out at newegg (currently) at $679.

Honestly, for the same/similar pricing, I don't see how the VII is a choice (outside of simple brand preference which is of course OK) considering the big picture... unless you planned on buying the two games that come with it and the NV GPUs don't? I don't know. I will take the faster card which uses notably less power over a slightly slower one that uses notably more power any day.

 

[Vayra86]

I agree once you see a 120hz refresh rate monitor in action it is hard to go back. I had a QNIX 27" 1440P monitor that OC to 120hz. Even now that I am at 60Hz 4K I still will run some games on that monitor just for the refresh rate but when I get home today I am going to see if I can use CRU and apply a 1440P 120hz profile to my 4K . Is there anything I should watch out for?



That is right gone are the days when high end was $299 and everybody would get the cut down card from the same GPU for $199 not that the 1060 or 570/580/590 are bad cards. The question I ask people when they ask me for a build with anything over a 1070 is what are you going to do and what kind of monitor are you using. If it is 60 hz 1080P I tell them it is a waste of money.

Yes, dropped frames, there is no way your 4K panel will push 120hz. In addition, even if it does, there is likely to be a lot of ghosting.

 

[John Naylor]

Any comparison that ignores the very real difference in overclocking headroom and the fact that so very few folks are not using MAI Afterburner or similar utility is, to my eyes, of absolutely of zero value to the the great majority of the TPU audience. Also tests from different sites with different systems and different procedures can't be compared.

Unfortunately, TPU has yet to test an AIB Radeon VII, hopefully a better assessment can be made when that data is available. However keep in mind the difference between the reference and fastest AIB is typically less than 10 fps and that the cards with the fastest OCs on core and mempry, rarely get the highest fps due to Boost 3. Here's the numbers from TPU testing, take from them what you will.

Note, placed an space between "h" and "ttp" to eliminate clogging the post with bunch of boxes

First at 1080p ....

h ttps://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_VII/images/relative-performance_1920-1080.png

Reference Cards
RX 2070p = 99%
Radeon VII - 100%
RX 2080 = 116%

Looking at Overclock on the cards from TPU Reviews:
h ttps://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2070_Gaming_Z/36.html
h ttps://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_VII/33.html
h ttps://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2080_Gaming_X_Trio/36.html

RX 2070 = 144.5 / 128.3
Radeon VII = 131.0 / 121.1
RX 2070 = 180.2 / 155.0

So with all cards overclocked ....

$475 RX 2070p = 99% x 144.5 / 128.3 = 111.50 % (5.07% faster than the Radeon VII)
$690 Radeon VII = 100% = 131.0 / 121.1 = 108.18 %
$740 RX 2080 = 116% = 180.2 / 155.0 = 134.86 % (24.66% faster than the Radeon VII)

1080p Performance / Dollar Ranking (Performance x 10 / Cost)

RX 2070 = 111.50 x 10 / 475 = 2.35 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.49)
Radeon VII = 108.18 x 10 / 690 = 1.58
RX 2080 = 134.86 x 10 / 740 = 1.82 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.15)

Now at 1440p ....

h ttps://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_VII/images/relative-performance_2560-1440.png

RX 2070p = 94%
Radeon VII - 100%
RX 2080 = 114%

So with all cards overclocked ....

$475 RX 2070p = 94% x 144.5 / 128.3 = 105.87 % (97.86 % as fast as the Radeon VII)
$690 Radeon VII = 100% x 131.0 / 121.1 = 108.18 %
$740 RX 2080 = 114% x 180.2 / 155.0 = 132.53 % (22.51% faster than the Radeon VII)

1440p Performance / Dollar Ranking (Performance x 10 / Cost)

RX 2070 = 105.87 x 10 / 475 = 2.23 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.58)
Radeon VII = 108.18 x 10 / 690 = 1.41
RX 2080 = 132.53 x 10 / 740 = 1.79 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.27)

And finally at 2160p ....

h ttps://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_VII/images/relative-performance_2560-1440.png

RX 2070p = 90%
Radeon VII - 100%
RX 2080 = 110%

So with all cards overclocked ....

$475 RX 2070p = 90% x 144.5 / 128.3 = 101.36 % (93.70 % as fast as the Radeon VII)
$690 Radeon VII = 100% x 131.0 / 121.1 = 108.18 %
$740 RX 2080 = 110% x 180.2 / 155.0 = 127.88 % (18.21% faster than the Radeon VII)

2160p Performance / Dollar Ranking (Performance x 10 / Cost)

RX 2070 =101.36 x 10 / 475 = 2.14 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.51)
Radeon VII = 108.18 x 10 / 690 = 1.41
RX 2080 = 127.88 x 10 / 740 = 1.73 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.23)

Now if we are going to take in other issues ....

Power * (difference in OC ability will have different effect on each and hit the )
RX 2070 = 203
Radeon VII = 313
RX 2080 = 226

Safe to say tho, that, I'd want an extra 100 watts on a PSU ($10) with a Radeon VII and an extra case fan ($15).

4 Year Power Costs @ Average US Rates ($0.11) @ 30 hrs / week w/ Bronze PSU
RX 2070 = $358.88
Radeon VII = $553.86
RX 2080 = $399.56

Sound
RX 2070 = 0 dbA idle / 30 dbA Load + OC
Radeon VII = 27 dbA idle / 43 dbA Load + OC
RX 2080 = 0 dbA idle / 36 dbA Load + OC

Temps (Load + OC)
RX 2070 = 69
Radeon VII = 76
RX 2080 = 71

Responses to some comments ...

1. I wasn't going to incluse 2160p diue to it's miniscule market share but idn't want to get hammered as this is where Radeon VII does best. But the reality is ...

1920 x 1080 has 62.65 % market share
1366 x 768 has 12.57 % market share
2560 x 1440 has 4.42 % market share
3840 x 2160 has 1.50 % market share

At this point in time, almost all the gaming users we come into regular contact with use ULMB or a monitor otherwise equipped with Motion Blur Reduction technology. Until they can play most games under ULMB at 100 - 120fps, they just not going there. The argument of whether you can see/ react at above 60 fps is irrelevant. The issue is simple, can you and can you not use ULMB (or an alternative monitor manufacturer provided MBR technology) and for that you want 100 or 120 fps and for those real challenging games, 80 fps at minimum. Until 4K comes with MBR technology, have 0 interest.

2. If value is to be considered, it should include more than card cost.

a) If upgrading then it should be the cost of the card - the value when old card is sold
b) If building a new box, the cost of the entire build must be used; it's the entire system that delivers the performance, not just the card
c) Secondary costs for larger PSUs and extra fan(s) if warranted should be considered
d) If you, (or ya mom) are paying an electric bill, costs for power should be considered
e) When talking about overclocking, increases in clock speed are NOT proportional to increases in FPS. It's not how high you can OC the core, it's how much more FPS it brings. Looking at TPU testing, the highest core / highest memory OC almost never result in highest OC. Of all the 2080 Ti's tested on TPU (all w/ Micron memory), the one with the highest FPS was 6th highest in core speed and tied for 3rd in memory OC.

3. No math isn't hard ... just have to be consistent with definitions. When doing a performance comparison, generally, the slowest is the base. If comparing the Radeon VII (the slower performer), with the 2080 .... the Radeon VII should consistently be the base.

4. "3d Animation/CAD/Video Editing " ... these 3 should not be lumped together.

2D and 3D CAD is 99% single threaded and works far better on Intel Gaming and Nvidia CPUs / GPus
nVida workstation cards take the title in 3D Animation / Rendering / Video Editing
As for CPUs, AMD has the edge in the some of the middle budget range, Intel has it both the low and high end

5. To my eyes, the 2080 Ti is the only card in the lineup not providing value. The 1xxx series "new card" prcing is more than the corresponding 2xxx sereis cards. Within the 1660 => 2080 range I have a hard time justifying any other **new** card.

 

[Lindatje]

Yeah ok... I think you meant

Nvidia is ~9% faster and uses a lot less power 33% less.
AMD now has prettier drivers and uselesss/less features and same smoothness in gameplay.

AMD can't even help in hardware transcoding. I know they have something equivalent to NVEDC but does nothing. Even the iGPU of Intel processors can do hardware transcoding better.

You know that 9% is almost nothing.
also 215 watt vs 268 watt is 25% not 33%, you use the TDP but TDP is not the power consumption.
Yea they have the better drivers and driver support these days. Features is also better, you can do and check al the things on your phone, Relive is better with more options, AMD chill, AMD link, AMD streaming ect.
Also in the most games the 1% and 0.1%low are better so you have a very smooth gameplay, you can check Adored`s VII review.

Don't get me wrong Nvidia`s 2080 is a very good card, but if you have a choice between the two, the choice would be easy (The VII is 19% cheaper in my country).
By the way, I have both brands, so I know how Nvidia`s driver/software is and I know how, for example shadow play is. I have used Nvidia video cards for years, so I can draw conclusions from there.
Sure the VII consumes slightly more power (25%) and the 2080 is slightly faster (only 9%), FPS and consumption are not the most important things.

 

[kapone32]

Yes, dropped frames, there is no way your 4K panel will push 120hz. In addition, even if it does, there is likely to be a lot of ghosting.

I did not mean at 4K but 1440P

 

[EarthDog]

You know that 9% is almost nothing.

If you call nothing more than halfway to the next card tier, I agree.

Also in the most games the 1% and 0.1%low are better so you have a very smooth gameplay, you can check Adored`s VII review.

If only those meager differences translated to the experience.

the choice would be easy (The VII is 19% cheaper in my country).

Yeah, if the price is 20% less, its a no brainer! Otherwise, in places where the pricing is close, like here where it is the same, seems like it's a no brainer the other way.

 

[Vayra86]

Any comparison that ignores the very real difference in overclocking headroom and the fact that so very few folks are not using MAI Afterburner or similar utility is, to my eyes, of absolutely of zero value to the the great majority of the TPU audience. Also tests from different sites with different systems and different procedures can't be compared.

Unfortunately, TPU has yet to test an AIB Radeon VII, hopefully a better assessment can be made when that data is available. However keep in mind the difference between the reference and fastest AIB is typically less than 10 fps and that the cards with the fastest OCs on core and mempry, rarely get the highest fps due to Boost 3. Here's the numbers from TPU testing, take from them what you will.

Note, placed an space between "h" and "ttp" to eliminate clogging the post with bunch of boxes

First at 1080p ....

h ttps://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_VII/images/relative-performance_1920-1080.png

Reference Cards
RX 2070p = 99%
Radeon VII - 100%
RX 2080 = 116%

Looking at Overclock on the cards from TPU Reviews:
h ttps://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2070_Gaming_Z/36.html
h ttps://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_VII/33.html
h ttps://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2080_Gaming_X_Trio/36.html

RX 2070 = 144.5 / 128.3
Radeon VII = 131.0 / 121.1
RX 2070 = 180.2 / 155.0

So with all cards overclocked ....

$475 RX 2070p = 99% x 144.5 / 128.3 = 111.50 % (5.07% faster than the Radeon VII)
$690 Radeon VII = 100% = 131.0 / 121.1 = 108.18 %
$740 RX 2080 = 116% = 180.2 / 155.0 = 134.86 % (24.66% faster than the Radeon VII)

1080p Performance / Dollar Ranking (Performance x 10 / Cost)

RX 2070 = 111.50 x 10 / 475 = 2.35 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.49)
Radeon VII = 108.18 x 10 / 690 = 1.58
RX 2080 = 134.86 x 10 / 740 = 1.82 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.15)

Now at 1440p ....

h ttps://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_VII/images/relative-performance_2560-1440.png

RX 2070p = 94%
Radeon VII - 100%
RX 2080 = 114%

So with all cards overclocked ....

$475 RX 2070p = 94% x 144.5 / 128.3 = 105.87 % (97.86 % as fast as the Radeon VII)
$690 Radeon VII = 100% x 131.0 / 121.1 = 108.18 %
$740 RX 2080 = 114% x 180.2 / 155.0 = 132.53 % (22.51% faster than the Radeon VII)

1440p Performance / Dollar Ranking (Performance x 10 / Cost)

RX 2070 = 105.87 x 10 / 475 = 2.23 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.58)
Radeon VII = 108.18 x 10 / 690 = 1.41
RX 2080 = 132.53 x 10 / 740 = 1.79 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.27)

And finally at 2160p ....

h ttps://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_VII/images/relative-performance_2560-1440.png

RX 2070p = 90%
Radeon VII - 100%
RX 2080 = 110%

So with all cards overclocked ....

$475 RX 2070p = 90% x 144.5 / 128.3 = 101.36 % (93.70 % as fast as the Radeon VII)
$690 Radeon VII = 100% x 131.0 / 121.1 = 108.18 %
$740 RX 2080 = 110% x 180.2 / 155.0 = 127.88 % (18.21% faster than the Radeon VII)

2160p Performance / Dollar Ranking (Performance x 10 / Cost)

RX 2070 =101.36 x 10 / 475 = 2.14 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.51)
Radeon VII = 108.18 x 10 / 690 = 1.41
RX 2080 = 127.88 x 10 / 740 = 1.73 (Relative Value to Radeon VII = 1.23)

Now if we are going to take in other issues ....

Power * (difference in OC ability will have different effect on each and hit the )
RX 2070 = 203
Radeon VII = 313
RX 2080 = 226

Safe to say tho, that, I'd want an extra 100 watts on a PSU ($10) with a Radeon VII and an extra case fan ($15).

4 Year Power Costs @ Average US Rates ($0.11) @ 30 hrs / week w/ Bronze PSU
RX 2070 = $358.88
Radeon VII = $553.86
RX 2080 = $399.56

Sound
RX 2070 = 0 dbA idle / 30 dbA Load + OC
Radeon VII = 27 dbA idle / 43 dbA Load + OC
RX 2080 = 0 dbA idle / 36 dbA Load + OC

Temps (Load + OC)
RX 2070 = 69
Radeon VII = 76
RX 2080 = 71

Responses to some comments ...

1. I wasn't going to incluse 2160p diue to it's miniscule market share but idn't want to get hammered as this is where Radeon VII does best. But the reality is ...

1920 x 1080 has 62.65 % market share
1366 x 768 has 12.57 % market share
2560 x 1440 has 4.42 % market share
3840 x 2160 has 1.50 % market share

At this point in time, almost all the gaming users we come into regular contact with use ULMB or a monitor otherwise equipped with Motion Blur Reduction technology. Until they can play most games under ULMB at 100 - 120fps, they just not going there. The argument of whether you can see/ react at above 60 fps is irrelevant. The issue is simple, can you and can you not use ULMB (or an alternative monitor manufacturer provided MBR technology) and for that you want 100 or 120 fps and for those real challenging games, 80 fps at minimum. Until 4K comes with MBR technology, have 0 interest.

2. If value is to be considered, it should include more than card cost.

a) If upgrading then it should be the cost of the card - the value when old card is sold
b) If building a new box, the cost of the entire build must be used; it's the entire system that delivers the performance, not just the card
c) Secondary costs for larger PSUs and extra fan(s) if warranted should be considered
d) If you, (or ya mom) are paying an electric bill, costs for power should be considered
e) When talking about overclocking, increases in clock speed are NOT proportional to increases in FPS. It's not how high you can OC the core, it's how much more FPS it brings. Looking at TPU testing, the highest core / highest memory OC almost never result in highest OC. Of all the 2080 Ti's tested on TPU (all w/ Micron memory), the one with the highest FPS was 6th highest in core speed and tied for 3rd in memory OC.

3. No math isn't hard ... just have to be consistent with definitions. When doing a performance comparison, generally, the slowest is the base. If comparing the Radeon VII (the slower performer), with the 2080 .... the Radeon VII should consistently be the base.

4. "3d Animation/CAD/Video Editing " ... these 3 should not be lumped together.

2D and 3D CAD is 99% single threaded and works far better on Intel Gaming and Nvidia CPUs / GPus
nVida workstation cards take the title in 3D Animation / Rendering / Video Editing
As for CPUs, AMD has the edge in the some of the middle budget range, Intel has it both the low and high end

View attachment 123558

5. To my eyes, the 2080 Ti is the only card in the lineup not providing value. The 1xxx series "new card" prcing is more than the corresponding 2xxx sereis cards. Within the 1660 => 2080 range I have a hard time justifying any other **new** card.

So... /thread I guess ?

That is pretty complete.

I did not mean at 4K but 1440P

Ahaa I see. Fun experiment, but still, I don't think it will be pretty

 

[londiste]

you use the TDP but TDP is not the power consumption.

As far as graphics cards go, it is. Both Nvidia and AMD GPUs are power limited at stock. Power limit, which is set at declared TDP is what determines the eventual (maximum) power consumption.