legend

Also, their analogy to the Geforce 3 is precisely the point I've been trying to make. People need to look beyond the immediate results on games as they are when it releases. It's fine to have some skepticism there and want to wait a bit longer to see how strong it really is, but you have to factor it in and thus far all signs are really positive.

1 minute ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

It seems so! I'm also hopefully that this particular feature will see broad adoption. 

 Me too! Also, lets get VR headsets to have 4K displays and then use DLSS to make it practical!

1 hour ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

Nice. So this is indeed suggesting that that the standard way DLSS is going to be used is rasterizing at something lower like 1440 and then using DLSS to superscale it to 4K (as opposed to rasterizing at 4K, superscaling to something higher, and then downsampling it for AA).

55 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

Frank Oz says that it doesn’t matter what sexuality they are but he obviously thinks it matters if he’s going out of his way to clarify that they aren’t gay.

He never thought it important to convey to people their sexuality and he's questioning peoples need to label it anyway. But if people insist on knowing, he designed the characters to be best friends and that's it; they were not designed to be lovers.

Speculating on my part: he might also be a little annoyed that people insist that their relationship can't be one of just friendship: the original motivation; that it has to have a sexual component too.

8 hours ago, sblfilms said:

He may have had additional thoughts, but these additional thoughts don’t seem to deal with what he said in the quoted tweet. I’ll look later. But the key line in the original tweet is the last one which is exactly the sentiment of the “I don’t see color” folks. The point is that straight people don’t have to be concerned with their identity in the same way white people don’t have to be concerned with their race, so it seems strange to many straight people and white people when marginalized people do.

I can see how in isolation it can be taken that way, but I also don't think it has to read that way either. Twitter is kind of awful in how its forced brevity can easily lead to multiple interpretations. It's easy to project a lot more onto what is said based on  expectations, often the worst expectations. On multiple occasions on twitter I've sat there and tried to find the best way to phrase something within the limit that would avoid bad interpretations; still have people leap to the misinterpretation I was striving to avoid; and then after they talk with me a bit more realize that's not what I was saying. 

I think in general when we look at a tweet we need to be a little more circumspect before we morally chastise some for that reason. (I'm also guilty of not being perfect about this)

Unless you're Donald Trump who (1) ought to have professionals supervising his tweets to make sure they come out well; and (2) for whom there never is anything deeper going on in his head.  

Also, I realize you already said you'd take a look at the other stuff, but I kind of felt like ranting about this for independent reasons  

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I don’t think he did, actually. What did you take Oz to mean other than the LGBT equivalent of “I don’t see color”?

Frank left a bunch of replies on twitter which perhaps helps gives some further context to his thoughts. My read of what he's saying isn't the gay equivalent of "I don't see color" it's that society insisting on knowing the sexuality is a perverse tabloid kind of thinking. It's not important to who the characters are and it would be no one's business if they were real people, but society insists on knowing and labeling them all the same. 

In something more grounded to real people, it parallels society's in insistence on knowing what the relationship status was between Tessa Thompson and Janelle Monae. Something I only know about because I saw people on twitter obsessed with it, despite the fact that they just wanted to be private and not have to label it themselves.

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/doctor-who-showrunner-chris-chibnall-promises-no-daleks-no-missy-no-river-in-new-season

 

@legend

 

I dig it. I don't want them to be gone forever but they do need to have occasional breaks for it to keep being special/exciting to see them.

Yeah I think it can be fun to bring some characters/monsters back, but I don't think we need any of that in the first season of a new doctor and show runner.

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

Roy Moore calls on GOP to 'take a stand' and support Kavanaugh amid sex abuse allegation

 

Just now, Boyle5150 said:

What does this have to do with him?

Well I guess just the "make up" part. We can both still kiss you. 

28 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

@legend @Spork3245   You guys need to kiss me and make up!!

I won't object, but I don't think there is any need  I'm still down with spork.

49 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Actually, let’s just review for a moment. I legitimately thought that you were asking me to clarify my position and have been attempting to do so. You now tell me that I am “pleading” by responding to you with clarification of my posts, thoughts, reasoning and position on something I have been consistent on for the 7+ years I have posted here, even after your second insult to me when I did no such thing to you prior to your attempted “gotcha”. Yet, now I am somehow “pleading” because your “gotcha” was just me going “  “ and responding with more clarification. I’ve never known you to act like an arrogant douchebag until now, but it’s good to know your actual character, I suppose. I eagerly await more of you attempting to talk down to me and a reply laden with lol and rofl emojis.

Enjoy your dinner. 

Okay, lets review. I was legitimately trying to have a discussion with you. Then you accuse me of putting words in your mouth when I've put in an effort to carefully look at what you said and respond to it.  So I give you back a little bit of sass in kind and now you're upset with that? Really?

But yes, you are engaging in special pleading. You took a hardline stance that because a card won't always max out a game a 60fps that it couldn't be called a 4K/60 card. I showed how this led to the conclusion that basically no card is ever safe in that sense, and suddenly you're willing to grant exceptions. There's no more reason to disqualify ray tracing as a critical aspect of maxing out a game than there is literally any other graphical feature. In fact, because ray tracing can have impacts on how you play the game, it's arguably a more worthy feature to be concerned with than a higher res texture map, or foliage draw distance, or hairworks, etc. When you take a hardline position in opposition to someone's claim, and then adhoc add exceptions whenever it suits you, that's special pleading.

Of course I'm with you that disqualifying the 1080Ti as a 1080/60 card because it won't be able to do ray tracing--or any number of potentially really cool graphical features these new cards will afford--is silly.  But that's the point: an absolutist simple criteria for this term is not a useful criteria. Unless you want to also deny 1080Ti being a 1080/60 card, you're in no position to reject Crispy taking a slightly more nuanced definition.

That's all I'll further say on the matter.

Just now, Spork3245 said:

 

Actually, since RT isn’t available I would not consider it part of the max settings on a card that doesn’t support it.

In regards to RT performance, I would only compare it to other cards that support RT and specifically when RT is used. In which case the 2080 Ti becomes almost a 4k/60 card and a 1080p/60 RT card.

This really isn’t hard to follow, especially since I previously stated that RT is a whole different story (twice).

 

Go home, Legend, you need to reboot your OS.

 Your special pleading is over 9000!!!! I'm out. I need to eat dinner anyway.

6 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

No, I never stated such a thing, though your attempt at changing my argument and putting words in my mouth is noted.

I wouldn’t change the target performance/settings for an AMD card because it doesn’t support hairworks either.

Oh? Lets review:

3 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

I'd say it's a 4k60 card.  Just not one that will always run that way under maxed out settings.

3 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

Then it's not a 4k/60 card, and if it is then so is my SLI 980 Ti.

You explicitly disagreed that its a 4K/60 card if it can't run at 60fps at maxed out settings for everything. Yet here you are refusing to disqualify a 1080Ti as a 1080/60 card even though we know that very soon it will not be able to maxout the settings *at all*, let alone at 60fps! 

Go home Spork, you're drunk.

1 minute ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Then it definitely does not disqualify the 10xx series as the option to use it isn’t even available...

5 minutes ago, legend said:

But that just makes it worse! Not only can you not maxout at 1080P at 60fps with a 1080Ti, you can't even max it out on a 1080Ti card period, which by your absolutist definition disqualifies it.

Just now, Spork3245 said:

 

I’m asking of the option will be greyed out...

Almost surely.

7 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Ray-Tracing is really a different story, and will a 1080 Ti even be able to use RT? I thought it was hardware dependent?

Could it? Sure. It would run like complete and utter dog shit and I seriously doubt developers will take the time to even try to support it on a lesser card. But that just makes it worse! Not only can you not maxout at 1080P at 60fps with a 1080Ti, you can't even max it out on a 1080Ti card period, which by your absolutist definition disqualifies it.

2 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

It's no longer a 1080/60 card, no. I would certainly say that it's good for 1080p/60 in most games, though (or a "mid-range card" where sacrifices should be expected).  

If 1080p/60 (ultra) is your goal for the next 12-months I wouldn't recommend less than a 1070/980 Ti... But, that card (your 980) is 4 years old now.

Forget about my 4 year old card; by this absolutist naming scheme it's even worse! The moment a game with ray tracing support comes out, a 1080Ti will also fail to be a 1080/60 card! Does it not strike you as a bit silly to draw the line like this?

19 minutes ago, Nokt said:

Yeah I definitely would like to see games adopt it more, but thats a big IF.

Thats exactly the problem, if the adoption rate is low support will be lost and I'll have wasted a couple hundred bucks.

Not planning on upgrading to 4k for some time. 2k 144hz on high is my bar for now.

This is why I think we should encourage this stuff. If you're the kind of person willing to drop that dough on a video card, and the tech is what it says it is, lets reward it and give it the support to get this awesome new era started!

22 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Then it's not a 4k/60 card, and if it is then so is my SLI 980 Ti.

There has to be a little fuzziness to this though, no? Otherwise my 980 isn't a 1080/60 card, because I can find games with some really demanding high-end features that cause it to be sub 60 for a fair chunk of the time.

Also, just to give a taste of why DLSS is only the beginning, you can train the net to do all kinds of additional things, not just super scaling. That means you can have really compute-intensive post-processing techniques and then train a net to do it in a more efficient way.

It will be really interesting to see how creative devs get with this. This many tensor cores is a wild card, but it could lead to some truly awesome stuff.

Just now, Mr.Vic20 said:

Ah, just the man I wanted to see! So I was thinking, is it actually possible for the DLSS and Ray tracing to run together? Because if DLSS is dynamically altering asset details is it not totally screwing up the per pixel ray tracing? The things I think about while putting my pants on, poorly, in the morning! 

Unless the ray tracing pipe is also consuming tensor cores for parts of its rendering and takes too many, yes, they can be run together   

DLSS is quite independent from how the base-level rendering is done; whether it be pure raster, or otherwise. All the neural net is based on is "here is an input image." When you train the net, you can train it using images that used ray tracing to generate both the low-res and high-res images, at which point it learns to upscale for that setting.

So all it means to use DLSS with ray tracing, is that when Nvidia trains the net, it uses images with ray tracing rendering.

56 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

 

... Did you even read any of my posts? The issue is that it's not and/or barely achieving 4k/60 on current games. Your first reply to me you even quoted me as saying it's still under or barely above 60fps at 4k.  

New games that embrace DLSS will be more 4K viable than top end games at this exact moment (unless they're patched for DLSS).

That's not to mention other features that come with the new card that may be used to gain performance.

25 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

 

Not sure if this was posted in this thread yet, but it gives an example of the FPS gains with DLSS vs TAA. Its not perfect, and I noticed that in a few of the higher action scenes that the benefits became overall negligible. That said, its still quite impressive and seemed to deliver quite the performance boost. 

Is this 4K base with DLSS "AA" from super sampling from something even higher; or is it 1400P rastered with DLSS upscaling to 4K? Nvidia talked about both ways you can use the tech.

37 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Other than having my picture taken, I have literally never been told to smile by anyone.

You were never on candid camera?

I'll see myself out.

47 minutes ago, Nokt said:

2080 is pretty much on par with the 1080ti. May as well save a few hundred and get a 1080ti instead. May just wait until the generation of cards too as the 1080 isn't under performing in any sense at 1440p.

It is not on par with the 1080Ti. The 2080 is far ahead. The problem, though, is the ways its ahead won't start appearing until later this year, and you don't know what the adoption rate of those features is at the moment.

If you were looking for a 4K card and would pay the price of the 2080 if it provided that, I would not get the 1080Ti now. The 2080 very well may be what you're looking for, but you should wait it a bit to see how adoption in the wild goes first. It would be a shame in that scenario to get a 1080Ti now, only to find out that indeed the 2080 is what you wanted if you just waited a bit longer.

19 minutes ago, cusideabelincoln said:

This is pretty good considering they're still basically on the same node.  It's a little faster than I initially expected, plus they also managed to cram Tensor and RT cores which aren't even being used in any of these reviews yet.

Right, this is the critical piece to bear in mind. On just regular classic rasterization, you're getting a bump. But you're also getting a shit ton more of really exciting stuff that will simply take a little time to trickle out rather than being there right out of the gate (if nothing else but because of waiting for MS to release an DX update).

If you want practical 4K, you can't look at these stats and be disappointed, because current results don't tell the full story: they're not using the innovative systems (DLSS) Nvidia has provided to address that.

If you want to wait for real world analysis of the new stuff, that's completely reasonable, but you really shouldn't be evaluating this card on the pure classic rasterization only being a fairly typical bump.