For people who have it, just how is the real world RTX performance with current cards?

leng jai · Oct 21, 2019

So we all hear constantly how poorly the first generation of Nvidia's RTX cards perform with all the features on and how it's not really ready. Just how "bad" is it though? I know we don't have a huge selection of games that take advantage of it but there's enough to spend significant messing around with it.

How hard is it to get 1080p60fps with it on in stuff like Control and Exodus? Can a 2080Ti even do it with everything turned on? Is it even worth trying on the lower end cards like the 2060 Super and 2070? Does locking the frame rate to 30 make it usable on at higher resolutions? What about DLSS?

Would be cool to get some practical thoughts on people who have access to the hardware and spent a fair amount of time using it. Something like Quake 2 RTX and even the upcoming CoD campaign has me interested.

delete12345 · Oct 21, 2019

Run decently. Owner of RTX 2070.

I don't own Control, Exodus, nor many PC games. Instead, I do game development, and I think it was able to handle around 355 objects using compute shaders. I was playing around making Mandelbrot shaders and pixel shaders and was doing a bit of metaball calculations.

Nugnip · Oct 21, 2019

At 1080/60? Absolutely no issue with my 2080. At 1440, I had to start making *some* concessions playing Control, but it was still mind blowing.

Boy · Oct 21, 2019

A lil bit off topic, but is the Rtx worth it over the 1080ti?

Theswweet · Oct 21, 2019

Boy said:
A lil bit off topic, but is the Rtx worth it over the 1080ti?

IIRC the 2070 Super is close to the 1080 ti (better in some, worse in other games) that it's probably worth going for it over a 1080 ti if buying both new.

FHIZ · Oct 21, 2019

nevermind misunderstood

Peter Ian Staker · Oct 21, 2019

Boy said:
A lil bit off topic, but is the Rtx worth it over the 1080ti?

Not really if it's anything below a 2080.

inner-G · Oct 21, 2019

My 2080ti can run stuff like Metro at 1440p

you can run BFV with ray tracing on medium at 1080p on a Pascal 1080ti even. That's not doing the illumination like metro and control though.

leng jai · Oct 21, 2019

Boy said:
A lil bit off topic, but is the Rtx worth it over the 1080ti?

The 2070 Super is basically a 1080Ti with RTX support and less VRAM.

Hzoltan969 · Oct 21, 2019

A 2080ti shouldn't break a sweat at 1080p. It is built for 4k.

I've only tried Metro Exodus so far and performance is fine - around 40fps at 4k and a more or less stable 60 fps at 4k DLSS. I'm very sensitive to resolution, but 4k DLSS is almost indistinguishable from native 4k during play.

I've yet to try BF V or Control.

Spinky · Oct 21, 2019

1080/60 with RTX is ez pz if you've got a good card.

leng jai · Oct 21, 2019

Spinky said:
1080/60 with RTX is ez pz if you've got a good card.

This is partly why I made the thread. The narrative and vibe around RTX performance seems really negative but I think a lot of people would be happy with playing at 1080p60fps with RTX on.

Tahnit · Oct 21, 2019

with dlss enabled its absolutely fine at 1440p.

devSin · Oct 21, 2019

Boy said:
A lil bit off topic, but is the Rtx worth it over the 1080ti?

Not unless you're having performance problems.

RTX support is limited, and by the time it improves, the current cards are almost certainly going to be woefully underpowered.

GrrImAFridge · Oct 21, 2019

There's no denying that RTX is a performance killer, but as someone who actually still uses a 1080p60 monitor, actually has a 2080 Ti, and has made more than 30 PC performance threads on Era alone, I can say with confidence that 1080p60 + RTX is perfectly achievable.

packy17 · Oct 21, 2019

The performance on these cards is pretty good for normal things. The "bad" talk comes from this being gen 1 of hardware-based ray tracing and performance there is hit and miss.

Jockel · Oct 21, 2019

I upgraded from a 1070 to a 2070s, so far it seems worth it. Hardly any RTX Support in Games, but that general performance increase is pretty noticeable. I ran control in 1080p fine, will try the 4K upscale eventually.

leng jai · Oct 21, 2019

JaseC said:
There's no denying that RTX is a performance-killer, but as someone who actually still uses a 1080p60 monitor, actually has a 2080 Ti, and has made more than 30 PC performance threads on Era alone, 1080p60 + RTX is perfectly achievable.

This is me, I'm on a 1080p plasma still so that's fine by me. Been some okay 2070 Super deals here lately and it would make it a bit more tempting if RTX worked well at 1080p60fps on it.

0451 · Oct 21, 2019

I have a 2060 and there's a very noticeable framerate dip with any of the RTX features enabled. I really regret buying it at launch especially since they announced the Super models months later.

astro · Oct 21, 2019

2700x / 2080
Control at 1080, maxed, RTX on full, 60fps.

Really stunning and worth sitting st that resolution for.

leng jai · Oct 21, 2019

How taxing is Quake 2 with RTX on?

GrrImAFridge · Oct 21, 2019

leng jai said:
This is me, I'm on a 1080p plasma still so that's fine by me. Been some okay 2070 Super deals here lately and it would make it a bit more tempting if RTX worked well at 1080p60fps on it.

The extent to which RTX settings scale between cards can vary heavily depending on the game in question. It's been a year since the launch of RTX Gen 1, so unless you've the disposable income to justify an impromptu purchase of a 2080 Ti, I'd say you're much better off sitting on your hands for another 6ish months and waiting for RTX Gen 2/AMD RT Gen 1.

Fjordson · Oct 21, 2019

On a 1440p 144Hz screen I honestly haven't been all that happy with it. But you could say it's more of a "me" problem than anything wrong with RTX cards.

I have a 2080 Super and could tinker with settings to get 60 FPS with RTX on in something like Control, but I place a lot of value on framerate and resolution. So far I find myself turning RTX off so I can play at 1440p and stay above 100 FPS.

GrrImAFridge · Oct 21, 2019

leng jai said:
How taxing is Quake 2 with RTX on?

Quake 2 RTX is literally "Quake 2 rendered entirely via ray tracing (with some sprinkles on top)", so despite the underlying game being two decades old, you want at least a 2070 Super for 1080p60 at High (to round up a bit):

Zukuu · Oct 21, 2019

I have a custom PCB RTX 2080 TI. I play everything on ultra without struggle. I'm not sure if RTX is in the games I play(ed) tho.

Tahnit · Oct 21, 2019

leng jai said:
How taxing is Quake 2 with RTX on?

quake 2 is rendering each point of light individually through raytracing. There is 0 triangle rasterization, period. so yeah. it is a performance hog.

On my 2080 super i can pull about 50 fps at 1440p.

RadicalDreamer · Oct 21, 2019

Anyone have feedback between a GTX 1660 Ti and an RTX 2060 or higher? Specifically, was the performance (minus ray-tracing and other extra tech) worth the extra money?

Ra · Oct 21, 2019

RadicalDreamer said:
Anyone have feedback between a GTX 1660 Ti and an RTX 2060 or higher? Specifically, was the performance (minus ray-tracing and other extra tech) worth the extra money?

I'd personally would buy the 1660 Ti over the 2060, or choose a higher tier card.

The 2060 is in limbo where it can't handle RTX features like big bro and sis, yet it's just ~15% faster than little cousin 1660 Ti, leaving it with not enough reason to be at like $75 more expensive than the latter.

That's my take.

leng jai · Oct 21, 2019

JaseC said:
Quake 2 RTX is literally "Quake 2 rendered entirely via ray tracing (with some sprinkles on top)", so despite the underlying game being two decades old, you want at least a 2070 Super for 1080p60 at High (to round up a bit):

Tahnit said:
quake 2 is rendering each point of light individually through raytracing. There is 0 triangle rasterization, period. so yeah. it is a performance hog.

On my 2080 super i can pull about 50 fps at 1440p.

Damn that's pretty impressive.

No Depth · Oct 21, 2019

It's mostly good on my end!

2070 Super
i9900k
32gb RAM @3200
3440 x 1440 Ultrawide

Control = ~45-55fps with everything maxed including all RTX. I sometimes lower a couple settings to hit 60 no prob.

Q2 RTX = I actually enjoy this the most at lower resolutions like 1080p or even 720p. I play with black bars as even widescreen can feel a bit stretched on this old game. But at say...1024x768 or even a but higher, it screams with everything on! But it's lousy at native 1440p 21:9...

BFV...DX12 and this engine don't feel they play great together. I usually go DX11 with Fristbite which is sooooi much smoother and reliable. I barely notice RTX effects anyway here...

Metro and SoTR I have yet to play(but I own).

Nida · Oct 21, 2019

I want to get a new card for Red Dead and Control, but it feels like the next set of RTX cards are going to be huge improvements...

I just want to play on Ultra 60 fps at 1080p without having buyers remorse.

leng jai · Oct 21, 2019

Nida said:
I want to get a new card for Red Dead and Control, but it feels like the next set of RTX cards are going to be huge improvements...

I just want to play on Ultra 60 fps at 1080p without having buyers remorse.

Definitely feels like the 3000 series will be a lot better but at 1080p something like the 2070 Super should last a long time without RTX at least. Also depends on what you're using right now. The problem is RDR 2 and Cyberpunk will be out before the the next gen of cards arrive.

Col.Asher · Oct 21, 2019

I want to upgrade, but I'm hoping the 3000 series are better, or maybe the amd 6700.

Sanctuary · Oct 21, 2019

Theswweet said:
IIRC the 2070 Super is close to the 1080 ti (better in some, worse in other games) that it's probably worth going for it over a 1080 ti if buying both new.

Yeah, probably. Although it really is still in the "Hairworks 2.0" phase, since barely anything supports it yet. I know this is an RTX specific thread, but at this point I honestly couldn't care less about it. I'm more interested in them first releasing a GPU that can sustain (see: not simply "reach") 4K/60fps without making huge concessions than I am getting "better shadows" at 1080p, or even 1440p. The landscape might look a bit different 3-5 years after the next consoles launch, but that's not right now. I had zero reason to upgrade from a 1080 Ti since the 2080 Ti was colossally overpriced for the performance gains, all in the name of ray tracing.

leng jai said:
Definitely feels like the 3000 series will be a lot better but at 1080p something like the 2070 Super should last a long time without RTX at least. Also depends on what you're using right now. The problem is RDR 2 and Cyberpunk will be out before the the next gen of cards arrive.

??? You don't even need a 2070 to have a good 1080p/60 specific card that will last a good while.

Nida · Oct 21, 2019

leng jai said:
Definitely feels like the 3000 series will be a lot better but at 1080p something like the 2070 Super should last a long time without RTX at least. Also depends on what you're using right now. The problem is RDR 2 and Cyberpunk will be out before the the next gen of cards arrive.

Currently a 970.

samred · Oct 21, 2019

Here's the thing: 1080Ti was *so* good when it launched in 2017, and only now is the RTX 2080 Super truly in a "better product for similar/less money" ballpark. Was Nvidia milking its market lead? Did Nvidia pivot to RTX-specific perks to push back on cryptocurrency mining fever? It's not really clear. But we definitely didn't get the 1180Ti that we had all hoped for for whatever reason.

The 2080Ti is a beast, but it's also $1,200. Anybody who got a 1080Ti at a reasonable market value won this decade's GPU lottery. That card is gonna continue to rock (outside of ray tracing effects and the like) for another coupl'a years, especially for games that have internal 3D resolution sliders. 1800p as a resolution looks quite good on a 4K screen, and you can squeeze a lot of frames out of a 1080Ti doing that. Or stick with 1440p and enjoy consistent 100-144fps content at near-max quality values.

EDIT: I offered this as context since most other folks are talking about RTX cards in general. If you can get any of the first-wave non-Super RTX cards for cheap, you'll be in fine shape for 1080p gaming. But those were definitely undercooked in terms of price-to-performance at the time.

Sanctuary · Oct 21, 2019

samred said:
especially for games that have internal 3D resolution sliders. 1800p as a resolution looks quite good on a 4K screen, and you can squeeze a lot of frames out of a 1080Ti doing that. Or stick with 1440p and enjoy consistent 100-144fps content at near-max quality values.

I can tell the difference between 1440p and 2160p, but barely on a 4K TV. 1800p and 2160p? Can't tell the difference at all, and whenever a game comes with the resolution slider, I'll start out at 90% and lower it, usually settling on 80% - 85%. For games that don't come with a slider though, I do just set it to 1440p. That's the resolution where games stop looking like a blurry mess anyway on a 4K TV, and the difference is even less noticeable compared to a bump in resolution while the game is in motion.

leng jai · Oct 21, 2019

Sanctuary said:
Yeah, probably. Although it really is still in the "Hairworks 2.0" phase, since barely anything supports it yet. I know this is an RTX specific thread, but at this point I honestly couldn't care less about it. I'm more interested in them first releasing a GPU that can sustain (see: not simply "reach") 4K/60fps without making huge concessions than I am getting "better shadows" at 1080p, or even 1440p. The landscape might look a bit different 3-5 years after the next consoles launch, but that's not right now. I had zero reason to upgrade from a 1080 Ti since the 2080 Ti was colossally overpriced for the performance gains, all in the name of ray tracing.

??? You don't even need a 2070 to have a good 1080p/60 specific card that will last a good while.

I wouldn't buy anything less than a 2070 these days if I wanted something that would last a long time and not have to worry about even at 1080p.

samred said:
Here's the thing: 1080Ti was *so* good when it launched in 2017, and only now is the RTX 2080 Super truly in a "better product for similar/less money" ballpark. Was Nvidia milking its market lead? Did Nvidia pivot to RTX-specific perks to push back on cryptocurrency mining fever? It's not really clear. But we definitely didn't get the 1180Ti that we had all hoped for for whatever reason.

The 2080Ti is a beast, but it's also $1,200. Anybody who got a 1080Ti at a reasonable market value won this decade's GPU lottery. That card is gonna continue to rock (outside of ray tracing effects and the like) for another coupl'a years, especially for games that have internal 3D resolution sliders. 1800p as a resolution looks quite good on a 4K screen, and you can squeeze a lot of frames out of a 1080Ti doing that. Or stick with 1440p and enjoy consistent 100-144fps content at near-max quality values.

EDIT: I offered this as context since most other folks are talking about RTX cards in general. If you can get any of the first-wave non-Super RTX cards for cheap, you'll be in fine shape for 1080p gaming. But those were definitely undercooked in terms of price-to-performance at the time.

It's pretty obvious that for the 20 series we're paying a premium for first generation RTX support instead of getting another 20-30% raw performance that people wanted. The fact that's no real competition didn't help either. I guess we they had to start somewhere but people would have probably been happier to forego RTX support and get 30% extra raw frame rate. Especially people with the 1070/80/Ti who have no real upgrade right now that isn't grossly overpriced.

Santini · Oct 22, 2019

I finished Control with a 2070 Super on a 1440p/144Hz display.

With the quality preset at high (motion blur off, no MSAA), all RTX features and DLSS rendering on, my fps averaged around 55-70 when running around and 51-60 during intense action scenes. Very playable.

With the same settings at 1080p (with NVIDIA DLSS render resolution being different), my fps was 75-100 during exploration and 75-85 for action.

Haven't played other RTX games yet, but thoroughly enjoyed Control and have no complaints.

leng jai · Oct 22, 2019

Santini said:
I finished Control with a 2070 Super on a 1440p/144Hz display.

With the quality preset at high (motion blur off, no MSAA), all RTX features and DLSS rendering on, my fps averaged around 55-70 when running around and 51-60 during intense action scenes. Very playable.

With the same settings at 1080p (with NVIDIA DLSS render resolution being different), my fps was 75-100 during exploration and 75-85 for action.

Haven't played other RTX games yet, but thoroughly enjoyed Control and have no complaints.

That 1080p performance is pretty nice for a high end title.

zerocalories · Oct 22, 2019

It's different. Women swoon when I walk in. Men tip their cap. I never have to look for parking and waiters tip me at the end of dinner. I'm so glad I upgraded

BigTnaples · Oct 22, 2019

leng jai said:
So we all hear constantly how poorly the first generation of Nvidia's RTX cards perform with all the features on and how it's not really ready. Just how "bad" is it though? I know we don't have a huge selection of games that take advantage of it but there's enough to spend significant messing around with it.

How hard is it to get 1080p60fps with it on in stuff like Control and Exodus? Can a 2080Ti even do it with everything turned on? Is it even worth trying on the lower end cards like the 2060 Super and 2070? Does locking the frame rate to 30 make it usable on at higher resolutions? What about DLSS?

Would be cool to get some practical thoughts on people who have access to the hardware and spent a fair amount of time using it. Something like Quake 2 RTX and even the upcoming CoD campaign has me interested.

I'm play Control, all RTX features on, with like 2 settings turned down, 1440p>4K with DLSS and get pretty great performance.
2080ti FTW3 Ultra here.

Of note, right now I'm running it on an ancient i7 3770k, so my performance is not even as good as it should be.

Quake II runs great, BFV runs okay from what I played, but I think my CPU was kind of screwing me there so I'll save thoughts for when I upgrade my CPU next month.

Modern Warfare runs fantastic on the cards, and RTX Shadows alone shouldn't be too demanding.

I have yet to play Exodus, but it's on my list.

Deleted member 32442 · Oct 22, 2019

yeah thanks to this thread i'll wait until the next gen RTX cards hit the market :)

TheModestGun · Oct 22, 2019

leng jai said:
This is partly why I made the thread. The narrative and vibe around RTX performance seems really negative but I think a lot of people would be happy with playing at 1080p60fps with RTX on.

I'll say for me that it's been absolutely worth it graphically. I get a close to 4K card for standard rasterization and then a solid 1080-1440 60fps with Ray Tracing on my 2080. Control looks amazing. It really is quite the leap if you are an attention to detail person. With Control, all of the objects and the world sit much more nicely together and appear more like they all exist in the same physical space unlike a lot of standard rasterization tricks.

with all of that said, if you haven't already bought one and can wait until the next generation of RTX cards, it might be worth it.

daninthemix · Oct 22, 2019

leng jai said:
So we all hear constantly how poorly the first generation of Nvidia's RTX cards perform with all the features on and how it's not really ready. Just how "bad" is it though? I know we don't have a huge selection of games that take advantage of it but there's enough to spend significant messing around with it.

How hard is it to get 1080p60fps with it on in stuff like Control and Exodus? Can a 2080Ti even do it with everything turned on? Is it even worth trying on the lower end cards like the 2060 Super and 2070? Does locking the frame rate to 30 make it usable on at higher resolutions? What about DLSS?

Would be cool to get some practical thoughts on people who have access to the hardware and spent a fair amount of time using it. Something like Quake 2 RTX and even the upcoming CoD campaign has me interested.

The only one I've played so far is Metro Exodus, and I had to turn on DLSS (at 4k - so 1440p native internal res) to get playable frame-rates. I also had tesselation turned off, and even then I would at times get fairly severe drops (into the 30s).

So yeah, RTX is brutal on performance, but it was still worth it - the game has the best lighting I've ever seen.

EDIT: wait, I actually had tesselation ON. My full settings are here.

Linus815 · Oct 22, 2019

I'll be honest. I do like rtx ,but most of the games I just check it out, then turn it off and enjoy the higher frames. I have an RTX 2080 coupled with an i7 8700k, playing on a 1440p165hz monitor with gsync.

I did play through Metro with RTX enabled, but it definitely had a lot of rough parts. Playing with DLSS on, the chapter for example where you're mostly stealthing around in the forest, was pretty brutal, dropping under 50 fps quite often.

Control, the raw framerate was fine with RTX and DLSS, but the stuttering was really annoying, which was caused by the dx12 mode. The DF analysis mentioned it too. I couldn't put up with that, even with gsync it was way too dstracting. Maybe it's got fixed since then, or at least I should hope so...

BF5 reflections are genuinely really cool, especially on the rotterdam map, however... its basically a multiplayer game and ill always prioritize higher framerates there. So while cool, I turned it off after a few rounds.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider ran fine with RTX on however the difference was really negligible in terms of visual quality as it only affects shadows. There were a few spots where I was like "yeah this is cool" but i just ended up turning it off so I can have more fps.

For 1080p and if you are targeting 60 fps I can imagine this being pretty awesome but Im too used to 100+ fps to compromise on that. Gsync helps to an extent, but there is still a clear difference.

daninthemix · Oct 22, 2019

Linus815 said:
I did play through Metro with RTX enabled, but it definitely had a lot of rough parts. Playing with DLSS on, the chapter for example where you're mostly stealthing around in the forest, was pretty brutal, dropping under 50 fps quite often.

For me the most brutal part was in that enormous indoor train yard where you have to steal the train. I was definitely dropping into the low 30s in that part, but it was also probably the best looking part of the game. The RTX lighting was completely insane.

Tangyn · Oct 22, 2019

I have a 2070 and it just hasn't been worth it for me on control or metro. I can't stand frame drops and yea I had those big time in control at 1080p with a 2070 so after tinkering a while I just turned it off.

ss_lemonade · Oct 22, 2019

I believe the bad talk mostly came from early performance impressions with the first games that had raytracing like Battlefield 5, but that seems to have been fixed with patches and driver updates.

Deleted member 11276 · Oct 22, 2019

Pretty good, can run Metro Exodus in high 1080p/60 and BF5 at 1080p/60 ultra and reflections medium with Raytracing no issues with DLSS, I have the laptop RTX 2060.

For people who have it, just how is the real world RTX performance with current cards?

One Winged Slayer

RPG Site

ONE THOUSAND DOLLARYDOOS

ONE THOUSAND DOLLARYDOOS

ONE THOUSAND DOLLARYDOOS

Rap Genius

Amico fun conversationalist

User requested account closure

Account closed at user request