But for some unexplained reason people think you shouldn't apply the performance/price metric to these products because they are somehow special. Of course that's baloney, there is absolutely no rational reason for that differentiation to be made, both are products that can be bought by anyone. If the performance/dollar is dogshit , it can be dogshit whether it's an RTX Titan or a GT 1030. That can't be denied nor ignored.
People think that though (maybe Fluff - but he's a fringe case, LOL)? I just think they don't care. Its a metric for those looking to spend the least amount for the best performance...and clearly that isn't everyone. Some just want the faster [insert product here] regardless if it costs more. I think we all get this card doesn't cut it on that front (how could we not, LOL). Not even close. That said, clearly, it never intended to be a champion of $/perf... which is OK as well.
Honestly, if anyone is buying the Titan RTX for gaming only, well, good on them for having that ability in the first place. But the reality is gaming is second fiddle to its data science and compute capabilities (sans DP). So to insist this is a gamer card first and foremost, isn't an accurate depiction. It CAN game, and is the FASTEST gaming card out there (likely), but it does the other stuff better than Titan V and NVIDIA markets the card towards that community first. Gaming is really a secondary mention in their PR. But b/c it doesn't say Quadro specifically (which is another can of worms) some default to it primarily being a gaming card (and forgets those who can use the rest of the GPU). It's a crossover card. Buy it just for gaming and yeah that $/perf gets worse! But if you use its data science and compute capabilities (were time is money) and game with it... seems like it can pay for itself a lot quicker than the MORE expensive Titan V, and isn't quite a quadro. Sure, it isn't $2, which I think would be a good pricepiont, but it is cheaper than last generation for higher performance (again outside of DP). If they gave it full DP capabilities, then it would vulture sales from the Quadro line. Worth it is in the eye of the beholder.... though everyone wants lower pricing.
Zooming in a bit, we have already concluded that, while it still remotely a great perf/$ card, it will be, according to ATech, potentially 15% faster (in anything not DP which Vya, you minimized that impact in another thread yesterday) than the Titan V while costing almost 17% less than its previous generation. This is EXACTLY what some of the people are complaining about is the YOY (or Gen over Gen) price increase. Now that it is actually better, that same contingent (conveniently?) forgets about that and falls back to barking (speaking of dog shit - and there are those dramatic, polarizing, toxic words again...
) about the overall cost (which again, they are right). Now RT performance is actually going to playable as well... it seems like the arguments that were there are becoming less and less as time goes on. Which is a good thing for all consumers, right?
One also has to see the prices of the true gaming focused GPUs in the market now...the price to performance ratio isn't a static value.
2080Ti = $1300
1080Ti = $1100
V64 = $440
***2080Ti = 35% faster at 1440, 44% faster at 4K UHD and costs 18% more.
Against the V64 it is 65% faster at 1440, and 72% faster at 4K UHD while costing almost double. The problem is the V64 isn't anywhere close when comparing these cards (I did this for consumer flagship to consumer flagship. V64 will need to turn down eye candy to play 4K UHD and hit 60 FPS in most titles.
2080 = $720
1080 = $580
V64 = $440
***2080 = 33% faster at 1440, 38% faster at 4K UHD and costs 24% more.
Against the V64, the 2080 is 36% faster at 1440, and 38% faster in 4K UHD while costing ~64% more.
2070 = $499
1070 = $335
V64 = $440
V56 = $417
2070 is 25% faster than 1070 at 1080p, 28% faster at 1440 and costs 48% more.
2070 is 6% faster than V64 at both 1080p and 1440 over V64 and costs 13% more
***2070 is 22% and 23% faster than V56 at 1080p and 1440 and costs 19% more.
What I take away from this is in the current state of the market there are a couple of SKUs where the RTX cards are the better buy over the 1 series just looking at performance. But, performance isn't everything. Those who can afford these cards and need the performance, don't give as much of a hoot about pricing. Lower is always better, I do get that
. These metrics do not include considerations RE: power/perf. ratio, nor the RTX capabilities which are now playable thanks to some quick updates. Throw AMD in there and clearly its no contest. The Vega cards rule the price to performance, but, they aren't a capable 4K UHD card, nor High Hz 1440 card... and their pricing reflects that kind of performance. When one considers power/perf ratios there it gets ugly. But look at the 2070 and V64. 13% more $ for half the power use and 6% performance increases plus RT capabilities. Or the 2070 V V56... 22/23% faster for 19% cost... you get RT and a card that uses a lot less power and it wins the coverted $/perf. ratio.
Anyway, just throwing that out there. Apologies if I borked any numbers. These values were taken from here for reference:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2070_Founders_Edition/33.html
EDIT: WTH is with that GIANT arse pic from a phone. Resize that shiz... sheesh! LOL
RTX would have been better received if the card was an upgrade in performance from the previous generation, but because of its pricing it is a side step just touting new features.
It is an upgrade in performance though. Its just that price/perf. ratio that people get hung up on. Clearly they are better performing cards.
