By "should", you mean you wish it did. Why "should" it? Would you prefer they cancelled it and came up with something more expensive that could?

If I pay that kind of money for the latest and the best videocard I expect to be able to max it out.

Well they found 4 games where you still cant, Kingdom Come goes way beyond other games and the 3 other games simply have optimization issues. PC games have these settings for a reason, and devs dont really care if you can or cant max the game when it comes out. Heck sometimes they are targeting using the full power of future cards at lower than 4k. Hell some games have 4x msaa enabled when you set max settings, there is no need of it at 4k!

Yea, the cards are solid but the prices are not great. The 2080Ti has some great numbers attached, but it is a card that is currently being sold for no less than $1200. That is an absurd price point. It is 70% more expensive than the 1080Ti launched for over 2 years ago, but the in-game performance only improves an average of 25%. This is something I, along with others, called ages ago. You could tell that typically rasterized games were going to top out around that when looking at the number of CUDA cores these cards had over their 10xx series counterparts.

Maybe the Ray Tracing or AI cores will prove to be very useful, have better performance than the initial hands on (struggling to hit 1080p 60fps with Ray Tracing on), and will be widely supported features (even though they are only available on a very select few new cards compared to the sea of older, non-RTX cards). I think that there is a lot of disappointment to be had with this generation of cards when looking at how generational leaps used to occur and how it took 2 years between the 10xx and 20xx series cards to just get here.

The RTX features are a big unknown, so that may change the outlook on the value proposition going forward. And I think the next gen of RTX cards will be where things get truly interesting. But for now, I can see why people are mostly underwhelmed. If you have a 1080Ti, you aren't going to get $1200 worth of performance out of these cards in traditionally rasterized games. And, for now, that's all we can really focus on.

No offence but the 2080Ti, is about 100% increase over the standard 1080 - 50% over the 1080Ti

@ossyc, the problem is it probably needs to be more like 200% more powerful to do 4K @ 60fps (at the same ultra settings) reliably. People don't appreciate how big the increased demand of 4K is.

@ossyc - no, just no. The benchmarks clearly show it's about a 25% gain over a 1080ti.

Why are you defending it so hard?

4 demanding games.

It's fair game. They're benchmarking the card, and frankly, I see why people disagree with you.

It is powerful, no doubt. But the asking price and not getting pristine performance is a little insulting, don't you think? Especially if you're in the market to "future proof" your rig.

Honestly, this is JUST a GPU and it costs so much. People shouldn't need to compromise and turn down settings, in my opinion.

@KwietStorm because this is misleading journalism and should be called out, I thought this was obvious.

The ps4 runs it at high 1080 and 30 fps, running at ultra on pc enables very expensive soft shadows which eats 20-40 fps depending on scene. Why wouldnt people just turn that off? You can barely even notice the difference but there is a huge performance hit, i actually think the soft shadows look like garbage.

The expectation that the 2000 series was going to make 4k at 60fps+ a reality was always a pipe dream. There was a time when the high end cards of the day couldn't max out every game at 1080/1200p.

Remember, Ultra being one step above high doesn't mean that the performance deficit scales linearly. It has never worked that way with PC games, so I'm a little stumped as for why you would use a metric like that.

@WeebLord All these games have settings that tank fps, deux ex has soft shadows that eat 20-40 fps and they dont even look good. So yes the 2080ti can do 4k 60 fps end of story. Even if there is one game that only gets 50 fps no matter what, that is the game more than the card wouldnt you agree?

You are missing the point, they found 4 games where they can turn settings high enough to tank it down to around 53 fps. Deus Ex soft shadows look horrible and tank fps, why would you leave them on other then to make the card look bad?

This is the standard, it always has been. The only times they take stuff off, is the real proprietary or buggy stuff like hairworks are something like that. I've even seen the 2080ti WITHOUT hairworks still can't hit 4k/60 with a 2080ti.

You are also missing the point that if you turned down a couple of settings the 1080ti in many games would hit 4k/60.

Hell a 1070 can get pretty close on many games if you turn down a bunch of settings. 45-70 FPS at 4k isn't hard on a 1070 if you lower the settings quite a bit. But that's a 2 1/4 year old card that cost $399.

The 2000 series is a sidegrade mostly. They shifted the lines. The 2080ti is really the 2080. The 2080 is really the 2070. The 2070 is really the 2060. They are basically asking $499-599 for the XX60 line, and $799 for the XX70 line, and $999-$1099 for the .

The 2080 barely beats a 1080ti in many games.

The raytracing stuff runs horribly taking games that could be 4k/60-100 down to 1080-1440/50-60... and that's on the 2080ti.

We see the Star Wars RT thing hitting 45-65 at 1440p with the 2080ti, 35-55 for the 2080. The 2070 is likely 25-45. That's at 1440p. It's horrible.

At 4k even the 2080 hits a min framerate of 4 or 6 FPS.

So the Raytracing stuff just isn't ready. It's just to get it in there as a stepping stone and to get developers to support it so that in 1-3 GPU generations from now, the GTX 2100 to 2300 series actually runs them well.

In the meantime it's simply a more expensive sidegrade where they shifted the lines down one.

It's just not good for the consumer. Exciting future tech, maybe a hit they had to take at some point, but the higher prices and poor overall upgrades leave much to be desired from a gamer standpoint. Had they called it more of a sidegrade and priced it similar or even cheaper, it would have been received much better. But that's not what they did. They threw in tech that is mostly worthless that increased the costs of the chip while sacrificing gains they could have had, used charts with DLSS and other stuff to say it would hit X, which is a bit disingenuous (though this time it's worse and in conjunction with everything else it gets called out), it doesn't hit that X (which makes that even worse because they can't even hit their cherry picked scenario), they continued with the founder edition scalping price that they caught flack for last time, and it costs way too much.

Gamers had to pay the mining tax, now they are paying the ray tracing tax.

I truly hope this is a short GPU generation and they release the 7nm next year.

Unless your card burns out or you have a really, really old one, or you want to do a big class upgrade it just isn't worth it.

Again, let me put it to you this way. The GTX 970 was $329 at launch. The GTX 2070 (which is now the 3rd fastest card at launch or basically really a GTX 2060) costs $599. Founders addition AND ray tracing tax.

@kevnb I respectfully disagree, regardless of whether the RTX series is good enough or not my impression is lots of gamers (myself included) believe it is overpriced.

It's not wasting money, it's me supporting the developer, in hopes it helps them in the long run to continue making amazing games.

This one was certainly not a needed purchase. As for the Steam copy, I wanted to be able to take the game on the go, and it was on a good deal besides.

Pay-per-view was almost cheaper than the cost of gas and rental fee from Blockbuster. Blockbuster doesn’t exist today. Are you being sarcastic?