And it's much more powerful than our Beta RTX model called 2080ti 🤣

"...heres the RTX3090," *takes it out of the oven*

i died reading this!

Well is corona virus time so is hard making a huge announcement in a event.

And a 3090 in a fucking oven

At under half the price.

You wish so, just keep blindly believeing all what they saying and comparing. Nothing to do with smart marketing right 🤔 Anyway good luck to you when we see actual benchmarks ✌️

phong nguyenviet you should wait do you rly belive this????

Joonas N. Well Digital Foundry got the 3080 and proved that there is a minimum of a 70% performance gain over the 2080, with most titles getting near double performance. So I believe that it’s quite realistic to say that the 3070 will have somewhere near the power of a 2080 Ti

Adreaux yeah that shit is sick

6 DAYS LEFT

Lets hope the prices arent gonna suck and will stay the same...

@@ThunderBlastvideo hopefully

3.5 days left!

@@ThunderBlastvideo I've heard rumors of $1400 for the rtx 3090

You have an RTX 2080ti?

@@ClintochX RTX 4090 and RTX 2080ti on a old pc

​Upgrade your CPU bro

In traditional raster 2080 Ti is a 1080p GPU since the Geforce 40 series release. Considering RT it should render below or around native 720p res (then upscaled to 1080p with DLSS) for stable fps. 2080 Ti is a revolutionary GPU by 2018 standards in the graphics silicon industry. The rest of the market is building upon it today.

@@Shehryar89 its a 1440p gpu still on high and ultra settings,not with RT tho

Shut the fuck up :)

thank you xD

thank you

Thank you King

Ty

Thanks alot

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Yes indeed

But now they are focusing on data centers it's a bad idea

Lol what?

shut up

@@masternobody1896 data centers are more important. games dont really matter as it is for entertainment

Wow intel Launched the Acr First " Dual Channal " Vram Gpu [6Gb (2*2*2Gb) Vram]

This aged well

It is here

Who's gonna tell him?

@@deebo821 Noes goes

In the water and the particles

Yep! RTX 2000 was a scam. But they've outdone themselves with the 3000 series.

@@rickandelon9374 weel they nailed the tech in 3090

What's so funny about it? Those were the greatest GPU's at the time. And because it was a new tech, it was very expensive.

@@user-bv8wr3vw4x Historically, there have been bigger leaps of performance without ridiculous price tags.

price will go up again when Nvidia go back to TSMC for 5nm next year! samsung 8nm is not that good thats why higher watts and cheaper gpu!

I remember my first major step into better gpu and game play. I built a rig myself and part of build was 3 way sli with 280 video cards. the video cards cost more than all the other components. But was it smooth. Ran every bench I could find. Was a blast. Just built a new rig with a 2080. :)

The thing is you are still playing game on both the machines....

AMD be like "hold my beer"

Aged like milk

@@blazeddddddd Naw his 2080 will be fine for at least 2-3 more years, maybe longer

Wow intel Launched the Acr First " Dual Channal " Vram Gpu [6Gb (2*2*2Gb) Vram]

​@@INDIA-yi1sli think it's triple channel

They are doing great

They wouldn't need to. They have path tracing which is a superior technology.

Yes

On god

also 1:21:56

@@ploopybear xD

It just works. Works like Fallout 76

That aged well just like Todd Howard's quote

@@Koozwad well you shouldn't be expecting him to explain the mathematical computer science jargon on how everything just works to an audience who probably won't even understand most of it. Hell even he probably doesn't understand most of what's going on behind the scenes. You can just see for yourself if everything's just working or not

no its not

aged like milk

New awesome graphic cards that I can't afford

@@rawjames1 Well now can get an RTX 3050 GPU for only $250.

@@aninditabasak7694 rtx 2060 iz actually usually cheaper than 3050

We do know that NVIDIA KNOWS that Turing out performs Pascal 1080ti and prices Turing accordingly. It's funny that you're an obvious AMD troll that is here GeForce Green with envy watching NVIDIA GeForce RTX - Official Launch Event pumping late and lame AMD because YOU NOT WE doesn't, "even know how much better it is than the 1080 ti" when AMD has had NO answer to Maxwell, Pascal and now Turing. What we DO KNOW is that AMD's low yield high cost Watt Wasting HBM GPUs were DECIMATED by Maxwell, Destroyed by Pascal and Turing will OBLITERATE them.

@@maxfacts1...I own a gtx 1070 myself, what I am saying is that Nvidia needs competition, it was the lack of competition that caused the original Titan to cost over $1000, now that price tag is taken by the XX80 ti, and the Titan will be even more expensive. These prices can be stopped if AMD was a good competitor. I wish I could choose between two competitors instead of only having one option. I don't think AMD Radeon will catch up for a long time now, what I really should be rooting for is Intel, which feels so wrong due to the current state of the CPU market.

@@maxfacts1 and by the way, normally the one calling out people for being a fanboy is the fanboy. Be rational, this is mad! They expect us to pay over $1000 on a card and we don't even know how it performs.

OK then I kinda understand but why the Titan when the 1080ti is the gaming version at a much lower price point? Over hyping AMD's cred is as dead as a dino, dodo and disco, low yield high cost was never needed on a gaming GPU AMD needed it because its uArch sucked so many watts. I don't think Intel's GPU will be competitive in the high performance market NVIDIA's years R&D will be hard to catch. Lets see if Turing's new graphical features like Ray Tracing and performance justifies its price but I'm sure NVIDIA priced Turing according to its performance. Debt dumb and R&D poor AMD dGPU margins are next to nothing so they are NOT a good example of how to run a leading edge company.

You be rational and NOT mad, nobody is GeForcing you into buying it before you know how it performs, wait for the benchmarks before having a hissy fit about not knowing how it performs. "we don't even know how it performs." well don't consider buying it until you do know how it performs and if its new graphical features are worth it to you.

now look where we are crazy..

Dude, you must be smoking some real good shit.

Lol

Me

Yeah

Me

Me

You're the hero we need; not the one we deserve.

more like skip to min. 4:00. dude the whole show is interesting. you know what the card is capable of, and also the technologie behind it.

Ok watch what you want, but it's basically the same demo in different games over and over. Once you get board, skip to the announcement.

W

Your my hero

and they botched it, like bad.

I can tell you aren't very bright...

In terms of real world benchmarks, they showed that the 2080ti did 2.5x the FPS of the 1080ti on the Infiltrator benchmark at 4k.

I don't remember seeing a whole lot of benchmarks in past keynotes. Pascal was the exception, not the rule. Anyway, reviews aren't that far off. No reason to stress over it.

Nvidia just now released some traditional rasterized gaming performance graphs- there's a pcgamer article I think

you'll have an idea to the benchmarks when you listen to him properly. they've revealed the most important thing already. "Ray Tracing"

Many things usually has to draw by game developers to simulate things related to how light interact with things. Soon those things wont be drawn into games anymore because developers will assume IT JUST WORKS. Saves them a lot of unnecessary effort and gives much better results. If you have a 1080 Ti...it wont just work...it'll look like crap because all the fake shadows, reflections, etc are not meticulously drawn into the game anymore...but by the GPU itself...in real-time. And then there's the AI image enhancement.

If I had to guess, they would probably focus their efforts first towards VR. They've done a lot of work on it but it's more a question of "how optimised can you get" at this point. Even if they'd conquered the 2D space, real-time VR rendering would need serious touching-up to achieve that level of realism without using monstrous resources. This is probably true for most aspects of computer graphics; as Jensen said Ray Tracing was an incredibly intensive process that was just inefficient for the most part since tracing every photon's trajectory - even the ones that you can't see - was just wasting resources, so they literally thought backwards and thought of reverse ray tracing, this time starting from the eye instead of the light source, and that basically perfectly optimised the issue. Big achievement on the lighting and reflection front. After this generation of graphics, they would probably tackle physics optimisations like smoke effects, considering that many of these still clip through solid textures (you can even see it in this demo, the steam from the machines just clips through the ascending platform - 43:53). I would picture the bomb at 1:31:28 exploding around the buildings instead of through them, with smoke rolling up the street, creating more realism. Even though NVidia showcased dynamic smoke and fluid physics back in 2007, it looks like most developers don't use it in today's games for the sake of preserving resources, and I believe that's what they'll tackle next. After VR, I guess they would start tackling more real-world problems, maybe microscopic renderings for medical applications, using AI to create more accurate projections, damn I mean who knows? But hey, that's just a theory.

Wow, thanks for taking the reply. I agree completely and a it's a very plausible theory. Don't really have anything else to add to what you just said. Thanks for taking the time to type that.

There is still lots of ways to go. To get fully path/ray traced games running at say a 8k 60fps would be the first big goal. It could take 18 years to achieve that on a reasonably priced card. Then comes maxing out the frames, 8k 144fps or 8k 360 fps then 16k 60 fps or 16k 144 fps would be the second goal. Then comes doing all of that on VR. VR requires the same image to be rendered twice with some offset for both eyes so that could take a while. That would be the third goal. Then comes more texture detail, better realistic physics and stuff like that and being able to run that on VR as well. That would be the 4th goal. After that idk larger worlds, more polygons? That could be a 5th goal Doing all of this would take ages. We could also have realistic npcs with some proper ai instead of current decision tree based npcs. That is also something a gpu does. That could be a 6th goal.

After no more improvements will be left then integrated graphics cards will attract focus, and competition will be based on price, size and power usage. But once that is done, these manufacturers will have to find a new market, or better yet *create* a new market, that is, making processing units entirely designated for physics simulation. Games today look realistic but they don't feel as realistic because there are a lot of limitations compared to real life. In some modern games, something like a tank can't run-over a tree.

It fascinating that we are advancing in technologies that are better than us

Thanks to mining.

Good luck for the giveaway = )

i do.

Over ten thousand

RTX can't handle Minecraft shadow details xD

@1234 True

not me either bro

Underrated comment

u didn't get it did you? :D

The reality is the fabrication process is becoming difficult because we are getting to the point of such small transistors, the yields are getting smaller and smaller. a 7nm transistor gate is so small that if a spec of dirt larger than a couple of atoms can spoil a chip. yield goes down price goes up. we are in the era of more expensive silicon. the truth is i'm willing to pay more because i know how powerful this new technology is. I'm 40 and started playing with the atari 2600. the chip in the atari had 4,237 transistors on it. My gtx 1080 has 9 billion transistors. my parents paid 300 dollars for the atari 2600. i paid 860 dollars for the gtx 1080. the math works out to 2 MILLION times more transistors. that is incredible.

Richie Dhillon this is founders edition price is not 1400$ the tax makes it that Wait for the card to actually release Amd Vega 20 will not be able to beat 1080ti and 2080ti has ray tracing

AMD GPUs don't have hardware and AI accelerated ray-tracing. They didn't raise the prices for no reason.

And judging by AMD's past it will be too late most likely. NVIDIA being a bigger company can easily pull the rug from under them. I bet they are already working on the next gen of cards after Turing.

Have you seen the AMD leaks thus far? Vega 20 is coming out THIS year, would be less than half the die size of Nvidia while offering 25% higher performance. Even if both of those leaks are gross overestimates, AMD will atleast have a competing product at much smaller die size, making it much cheaper for AMD to produce. Nvidia refresh wont come around for atleast a year and a half. And Nvidia just launched a new architecture, they have never before refreshed a product in less than 18 months. You do the math.

What they might do though is make a version without the the ray-tracing and AI cores (it's a bit early for ray-tracing still) and sell it for cheaper. We don't have any performance figures about any of these cards. I think NVIDIA was justified in making the move towards ray-tracing (someone has to do it) and that obviously comes at a price. I'd jump ship to AMD if they could actually compete properly in the high end market. So far they haven't really done it.

Sneakerhead_107 me

Games and graphics are often the main drivers of innovation in computer science.

I wonder if they sell them in man-size as well

2080

Boring to see he wear those jackets, he should wear bikini next year.

To who?

probably the comp scientist from the 1970's

Also would have to bring a modern PC and games to show off what you can do. Pairing an RTX card with any really old CPU would be a major bottle neck. Plus old motherboards couldn't even support modern GPUs.

"heh. easy money."

£1099 for flagship card, WTF!!!

fucking hell, that's me AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Its like NVidea HairWorks. If the game doesn't support the technik, you don't cna use the extra performance. But if the Game support it, you have much more detail without losing performance.

yeah but more developers will use the technology... they said, before this technology all reflectiosn and lights and so on were difficult to make, but not anymore. Besides prettier games = more costumers ;) Besides it doesnt affect only games but also hardware like monitors. you could play in 4k hdr 100+ fps, now imagine if the demand for 4k 144hz rises in the next years, the prices will go down too.

btw 1:40:56 benchmark (sort of)

5 years later are you still running the gtx?

"I don't think hardcore gamers really pay attention to graphics" Then why to good looking games keep selling hardware? And do you think Fortnite/PUBG/Overwatch run good on a potato or look bad? No, they need decent hardware too to play well. Nonsense argument IMHO. Casual players maybe don't care or don't know better, "hardcore" gamers are more likely to however.

FeAr FOX I have a 1060 and I do art with ray tracing on 2 hours of rendering is what it takes to make 1 raytraced frame

me too gtx evga gtx 1050 ti its great for gaming especially battlefront 2 and pubg

Yeah "great"

I have a 970m