NVIDIA shares first 8K gaming benchmarks for its Ampere RTX 3090 GPU

DSOGaming writes: "NVIDIA officially revealed yesterday its Ampere RTX 30 series graphics cards, and the green team has just released some first-party gaming benchmarks in 8K resolution."

[LordoftheCritics]

The beginnings of 8k.

[Jin_Sakai]

And here I’d be happy with 4K 60fps with RT.

[Mithan]

I wont be happy until we get 4k/120FPS with MAX Detail in future games. Probably 2-3 years out.

[bumlezetru]

★I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly $30k, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart...
══════==========HERE► https://is.gd/WeWork1

[sprinterboy]

Aimed at the 1%, see you in 5/6 years when the mass market of consoles embrace it and actual games in 8k hit mainstream?
Great bit of hardware btw, not shitting on pc just keeping it real with 8k TV broadcasts, films etc being way off

[Magatsuhi]

There has been several 8k tvs now tho and even the 2080ti can do 8k with some games. Seems like 8k is approaching faster than 4k did.

[andy85]

Honestly seeing this makes me wish a little bit that the next gen (console) would have been next year, it's such a massive increase for the price point. Given the 3070 is 499 they could easily have put a similar one into the next gen consoles in a year, and be leaps and bounds above the specs now.

[PitbullMonster]

@andy
You know a system needs other parts too, right? A complete Pc build with 3070 etc. will cost you at least 1500€.

[Unspoken]

There are many who also use Ultra Wide Screen monitors. These cards would benefit those users as well.

[MajorLazer]

4K is literally just starting to be adopted properly. We are a long way off 8K. Very cool though, 8K must look phenomenal.

[andy85]

I know it needs other parts. My point was you're basically able to get double the performance now for the same price. The consoles will sell at a loss, a slightly scaled down version would have been doable next year, especially as we are talking about a console not a full PC build

[LordoftheCritics]

If you got the resources, get it. 5/6 years is a lot more expensive to lose.

[rainslacker]

I wouldn't doubt that 8K TV's become a norm. LED tech is just like that, where it's cheaper to make it at higher resolutions for the same space....kind of like how hard drives just continuously get larger storage, despite staying the same size.

But I think native content is going to be much further off than 5-6 years. Plus, if everything is going to streaming, I think the streaming services need to get their quality up to match UHD before they start attempting to pass through 8K streams.

[TheScotsman]

Who's gonna buy these cards, very few PC gamers will have one. There to expensive. My pc is good for 3 more years at its current spec. If someone brings a nice pc out with one of these cards in it at 500 pounds then I'll buy it other wise it's xsx or ps5 I'll be spending my money on.

[badz149]

@LordoftheCritics

yeah, like the beginning of RT before it. 8K will not take off to the mainstream for another 5 years AT LEAST!

[rainslacker]

There comes a point where it just becomes kind of silly to keep making higher resolutions. I think 4K is at that point. I'd rather see tech advance towards making those screens better, rather than just pushing more pixels into them. Granted, the nature of LED means that it's a natural progression, not unlike hard drives, but the constant changing for formats for the way people watch things on a screen makes it unnoticeable....especially on the average size of screens in people's homes.

To put it in perspective, IMAX 70MM lenses have resolutions that are closer to 8K, although they're 4K projectors in the theaters. The average IMAX screen is around 52 feet wide, and you wouldn't be able to see the individual pixels on a screen that size assuming it was coming from an actual LED screen.

[LordoftheCritics]

Imax digital projection is 4k

Imax 70mm film projection has no given resolution as it is a film and has a chemical process. Rough estimates are 18k digital lines.

So if you ever want to experience IMAX 70mm only go for the actual 70mm film print projections screenings.

[rainslacker]

A lot of 70MM film recordings are still projected digitally at the theater. Probably should have been more clear about that. What I've read is that a 70MM projection is equivalent to about 8K, but film is measured differently because it's grains, not pixels....or something like that.

And yeah, IMAX at film projection is awesome. We have both styles of theaters where I live, and it is pretty awesome. Not worth the extra money most of the time, but still pretty cool. We even have one of the larger screens around here.

I can see movies going up to 8K projections at some point. But the nature of projection tends to saturate the picture either way as you aren't displaying the pixels directly, and the lens diffuses the individual dots. I'd actually like a projector for my set up, but 4K ones that I find acceptable for image quality are way too expensive for what I'm willing to spend. Think some of the Epson one's are nice for the price, but they use multiple 1080 images to make a 4K, and I'm not sure how well that would work for my gaming. Just got an 85" screen recently, and I'm still a sucker for bigger screen.:)

[soulrebel]

If this is the beginning of 8k then we're in for another decade of focus on making games look sharper rather than playing better.

[waverider]

Just crazy the power of this cards.

[badz149]

maybe with this, MS will stop screaming "12TF!!" at the top of their lungs. hate to admit it as someone who prefers consoles like myself but nVidia just killed all the vibe for "TERAFLOPS" regarding the next-gen consoles with their 3070 at $500.

[waverider]

yes, its was destroyed. Also best 3rd party games version is also out of the window.... But microsoft already started to talk less about that, because it got nothing that shows that power....

[anonymousfan]

And here I am with my 10 year old 1080p TV lmao and I can't get my head around replacing it because it still works so well :P

[Rainbowcookie]

Aim for 1080p at 240 fps 😂

[anonymousfan]

I highly doubt my TV supports that 😆 on a different topic it does have a neat passive 3D mode ... But nobody myself included cares about that anymore 😆

[XxINFERNUSxX]

I have that panel :D Alienware 25 Gaming Monitor - AW2518H

[badz149]

@XxINFERNUSxX

where I live, that one cost around $500. for a 25" and 1080p to boot, if you're not a competitive gamer, it's a bit steep asking price. all those power in the GPU especially these new ones are nice and all but to harness and exhibit their true potential is still a bit expensive.

I do pc gaming as well and just recently bought a new pc with the 3300X (not gonna call it a gaming rig LOL). put in the 1650S in there because I was waiting for the new cards. I have a 32" 1440p 144Hz Viewsonic monitor and before yesterday, I was only aiming for the possible 3060 down the line but that 3070 is tempting af. gonna wait for benchmark first if the 3300X will be a bottleneck for it because the 2080Ti is CPU limited by the 3300X from the benchmarks I've seen.

[rainslacker]

A good 1080 display will look better than a cheap 4K display. However, a decent to great 4K display is a sight to behold. Just got a 85" TV, not OLED, but about as good as you can get before that, and I was floored at how good it looks compared to my modest 4K TV it replaced. It's also made me a believer in DolbyVision with UHD sources(not streamed, they still kind of look compressed although the colors are nice). HDR10 is also great on it too.

Luckily, the tech is advancing so quick, that TV's that were $2K a year or two ago are now available for 1/4-1/2 that price, and newish ones like that have significant image quality improvements over ones just a few years or more old.

[Tacoboto]

In other words, this card will hit 4K120fps in virtually every released and upcoming game we know of.

Except OG Crysis

[catlover316]

Crysis would be held back by single thread cpu performance.

[RonsonPL]

No it won't. 2080ti has 40fps in 4K even in current-gen games.
That's 300% of 2080ti for what you're hoping for. 3090 is not 300% of 2080ti.
Actually it's not 100% enough for 1440p 120+fps gaming. Overclocked 2080ti is like 80-100% capable of that. 3090 won't be 2x as fast outside raytracing enabled games.

And then there is the matter of nextgen games, which will be way more demanding.
This card will struggle even with 4K60 a few years from now, in some games.

[anonymousfan]

I completely agree with you but I thinn Tacoboto was being sarcastic ... With the Crysis reference :)

[Bladesfist]

If we are just talking about cuda cores then it has 10496 vs the 2080 Ti's 4352. Which is 241% but it's also clocked higher than the 2080 Ti which means it has a theoretical max floating point performance of 36 tflops vs 13.45 on the 2080Ti which is 267% of a 2080 Ti.

It's not just RT that this thing has a major theoretical performance jump on. Of course games wont scale linearly based on theoretical performance so wait for benchmarks, if I had to guess I would expect 200% of a 2080Ti in most games.

[Reefskye]

It's just not a new graphics card tho is it, it RTX IO SSD to VRAM technology, it will have new DLSS 3.0, i tested anthem with a 2060 last night with DLSS 2.0 and the results are staggering, from badly optimized game going from medium 1440p 45-60fps, to ultra setting 1440p with 144fps, i mean with some games this is going to be a game a changer. I mean this is a direct response to the new consoles, These cards are nothing like what has come before in terms of technology, Big Navi is going to need something special to compete on price which is what AMD always do.

[BehindTheRows]

Nah, it'll still struggle with games in 4K/120Hz. Difference is, it won't be as many and DLSS will continue to help.

[badz149]

not if you don't use ultra settings

[BehindTheRows]

@badz149

If you aren’t using Ultra Settings, then it isn’t worth talking about. Obviously, we’re talking maxed 4K/120.

[RonsonPL]

8fps in Control. Yeah, that's 8 F P S gaming, not 8K gaming, Nvidia wrote the wrong thing.
Wolfenstein in true Cinematic Experience (26fps).

What do you want, Captain Obvious?
- 8K will not be reasonable until 2030.

Thank you, Captain. You can fly away now.

DLSS is crap in motion. Just because people who don't use displays capable of handling the image in fast motion properly, tell you "you can't see the difference", doesn't mean it's all good and magical.

I'll take 4K native over 16K DLSS, thank you very much.
Fuck false advertising. And fuck Ngreedia lies.

[kneon]

Never mind when 8k will be reasonable, how about when will it not be pointless. It's about 15 years since I saw my first 8k and 16k TVs in a lab in Japan, and those screens were huge.

The mass market for TVs is around 55 inches, monitors much much less than that. The impact of 8k at these sizes is pretty minimal. They would be much better off pushing for better contrast ratios and better color fidelity. But those are harder to achieve and it's much easier to market 8k because "clearly" it must be twice as good as 4k.

[RonsonPL]

8K on 40" can be reasonable.
8K on 90" can be pointless.

Imaginine the world where everything works 10x slower. Well, that's about where we are now when you demand clear image in fast motion. The things you think you see, are not there. Temporal reconstruction, DLSS and all other filters. Everything is just a way of fooling your eyes (or rather your brain) to think it's better than it is. And while it works great on static images, the truth is, the real image is horribly pixelated. If you're fine with blurred and a bit washed out image, then it might not be a problem, but I would like to see at least as many details as I was able to see in the PS2 era. And adjusting for TV size, it's not even there.
You either get clear image and a really severe pixel crawl/aliasing, or you get a change. it's not just less blurry - more blurry. Not "less sharp, more sharp". It's more.
We need 8K capable cards
Personally I can live with pixels. I've learned that it's a lesser evil and by a lot.
I could stay with maybe 2880p without any AA.
But people who think we're in "past aliasing" era, could be angry about going back to more aliasing even if you go from 1440p + filters to 2160p or even to 2880p
I think it's pointless to have 4K or better screen if what you can see in motion doesn't even hold up to 480p native res.

If you want 1440p native + no AA image clarity in motion + no aliasing as you can see on even some Xbox one games, a fake 8K (lower res + processing/reconstruction) card is still not past that.

For consoles, 8K won't be possible before 2030 at the earliest. For PCs, we'd need 3-4x more power than 3090 for games released after 2022. It is pointless to market a 2020 card with this. But 8K rendered games are not pointless. I'd love to play some games in native 8K without any AA. Well, not the games designed for being filtered, like Red Dead Redemption, cause this will look like crap even at 16K compared to 1440p+temporal AA filter it uses. But a game without this problem? 8K is where it starts to be "not aliased" independent of what's in the game scene. Surely it is a major breakthrough. Not for cutscenes and such, cause for images that are barely moving, temporal AA solutions are reasonable and helpful.
Actually, to think of it. My ultimate res would be DSR 4x to 5120x2880. So 10240x5760. Maybe wider, so 12800x5760. That's even more than 8K. After that, I wouldn't care about higher resolutions. It's enough for static images, for fast motion, for wide screens, for huge screens (100" and larger) and even for VR 12800x5760.

With consoles which are not even fully capable of conquring the 1440p120 gaming (native) and PC cards just being released at 1500$ which are far too slow for 2160p120 gaming, I think it's a bit too early to throw such gullible opinions as "we live in post-resolution era". And that's what a Digital Foundry is saying.
About the TVs. Those are getting only bigger and bigger. Granted, they also went crappier, cause the cheapest 4K TV is crappier than cheap 1080p TV at the same stage of 1080p life cycle. Sure. The push to go from 30" to 60" is not the same as to 60 - 120, but there's still plenty of people who would start being interested if 100" 8K becomes cheap (while not being total crap). Especially if the tech allows it to be rolled out or installed with one hand because it's based on tiles (micro leds). In 2030, such TVs may be mainstream tech. The content should also start being there. Maybe not in 2030, but by 2050, I'm pretty sure no one will question 8K and no one would want to go back to 4K.

[kneon]

Increasing the resolution further only makes the situation worse as they will have to cut even more corners to try and keep up the resolution and frame rate. 4K resolution is more than enough for all but the biggest screens. But if they are not using assets and models of sufficient quality then you aren't getting the best image possible at that resolution, regardless of the FPS, color accuracy etc.

[Tacoboto]

Digital Foundry has videos and analyses of games with DLSS 2.0 where visual quality is actually exceeding native - Death Stranding and Wolfenstein Youngblood specifically.

[Charal]

You sounds like your wife cheat on you with a guy working at Nvidia.
Sure there is some exaggeration from PR talk on new products, but at least Nvidia is not saying it does 8k native at 60fps.

Take a break and go get some fresh air, it is not good for your health to be so pissed for some GPU features.

[LightofDarkness]

DLSS 2.0 looks great in motion, and keeps more detail than native rendering. I think your info and experience is a little outdated, this has been confirmed by many different sources, including DF and HUB.

[rainslacker]

Anything in motion at 30fps or above is going to have distortion. That's just how our brains perceive it. Doesn't matter how sharp the image is. In fact, sharpness tends to exasberbate this effect as it removes the natural saturation that our brains apply to what our eyes take in. That's why the "video effect" was so jarring to a lot of people when 4K first came around. Wave your hand in front of your face at an equivalent speed, and it'll have that same "blurriness" or distortion. It won't be pixelated, as we don't see pixels in real life, but everything else you talk about is the same. You don't tend to notice pixelization in motion, although you can notice aliasing which is different, because of how the brain constructs an image.

DLSS isn't crap in motion, it's just a crap implementation that makes it look bad. Same goes for most other techniques that devs use to fool the eye into doing more than what the power suggests it can do.

[RonsonPL]

Please visit Blurbusters.com and read the articles, see examples, because you're totally wrong on this one.

[rainslacker]

Sure. I'll do that. That one source I suppose is going to refute what I know from my work, or can experience first hand without being told what to believe, but sure I'll go read it. Or I won't, and you can continue on believing what you want to believe, and I'll continue on believing what I believe.

[HarmonyFirth]

oh hhh

[XxINFERNUSxX]

This is great but, who the hell has 8K panels lol. They need 4K to become as mainstream as 1080p is right now. But seeing this damn, I can only imagine how the FPS witll be in 4K with max settings. I'm sure it will be well over 60fps all the time. I'm still using a 240hz gsync 1080p Alienware panel it's barely 1yr old. What I am waiting for is a 4k 240hz gsync IPS panel :D I'm sure they will be coming maybe next year. I just want the FPS to be about the same as we get in 1080p right now, in the 100's with max settings. I'm just not sure if I should buy a 3080 or 3070 to replace my 2070 Super. 3080 with max settings all RT settings maxed in 1080p would probably get me over 100FPS I'm guessing. I'm using a 3700x soon to upgrade to a new Zen 8 or maybe 12 core CPU with a simple BIOS update. I'm still using PCIE 3.0 but for gaming it will be fine now and in the future because many benchmarks show no difference in 1080-1440p res and very minor at 4K maybe 1% difference nothing to write home about lol. My 970 EVO will be fine to, should be enough to keep up with the new games and the demand for faster I/O.

[TravsVoid]

Having used a 55" 4ktv for the past 2 years I'm more interested in getting a 24-27" 144hz 1440p monitor for gaming than anything else. Why people recommend big screens for gaming I will never know.

[BQ32]

Can it do 4k 120 with rt turned on on high settings. That would be much more applicable with many buying the 4k 120 tv sets with hdmi 2.1. If I can get get the most out of my new LG 48cx I would sell some stuff to buy it.

[Charal]

Completely useless, especially when in Parallel Nvidia shows with DLSS that native 4k resolution details can be achieved by processing much lower resolution.

The only application I see that could benefit short term from such resolution is VR.

[Miacosa]

Not native but it's a start.

[FPSFox]

So happy with the 3080's price and performance. So ready to play Cyberpunk in the best way possible, 144FPS, Ultra-wide

[FlyingFoxy]

As i said in another post, they have indeed used much less demanding games to make these claims of 8k 60. 26FPS minimums in Wolfenstein. Eight! (yes 8) in Control. Anything remotely demanding is going to run like ass.. doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

My only concern with the 3080 card is the 10GB of Vram, i think John Carmack recently said something about 8GB being the minimum going forward, now I'm not sure if it's going to be an issue but there is some debate going on about it on forums etc.. But if AMD bring their new cards with more Vram you can bet Nvidia will likely do the same.

Hard to say if it's safe to jump in on these new cards as soon as they come out, or wait a couple of months to see what's what with each company (AMD/Nvidia) but doing so may mean waiting longer for a product if stock is an issue.

[neomahi]

This is how it's going to continue to go. They say competition is good for the market, then how come Microsoft's Xbox is using an AMD graphics and Processor and so is Sony? Last gen, Sony used an Nvidia graphics processor and a custom IBM Chip for it's processor. Now, Xbox Series X and PS5 are pretty much the same, yet to play every game out there we have to buy two separate consoles..... At least with differing hardware we had a reason to buy two. Why is nobody talking about corporate sabotage either? You're telling me it's coincidence Microsoft and Sony's consoles are identical? Was the SNES the same as the Genesis? Was the Saturn the same as the PSX or the N64? Was the Dreamcast the same as the PS2, GameCube, or the Xbox? Was the PS3 identical to the Wii or Xbox 360? Yet strangely, the PS4 and Xbox One were so similar as is the Xbox Series X and PS5, and they haven't even launched yet to take apart, but Microsoft knows exactly what's under the PS5s hood enough for Microsoft to try and make it more powerful, before they've boughten one and taken it apart to analyze it. Something really is fishy here and nobody is talking about it, at all.

[rainslacker]

"then how come Microsoft's Xbox is using an AMD graphics and Processor and so is Sony"

Because AMD doesn't charge nearly as much for their processors as NVidia does. Also, NVidia kind of screwed MS over with the original Xbox.

[Hitman007]

So many People so many opinions i think the 3090 will be just right on time for 4K Cyberpunk

[Pricey]

3090 == Gold Dust

[XxINFERNUSxX]

Now to put all those pcie 3.0 vs 4.0 questions to rest. This is from Reddit where someone asked an nvidia rep about the 3.0 vs 4.0 with the 3090.

Q: Will PCIe 3.0 bottleneck the RTX 3090? Concerned because my Intel system does not support 4.0.

A: System performance is impacted by many factors and the impact varies between applications. The impact is typically less than a few percent going from a x16 PCIE 4.0 to x16 PCIE 3.0. CPU selection often has a larger impact on performance. We look forward to new platforms that can fully take advantage of Gen4 capabilities for potential performance increases."

Even at 4K if anyone buys the 3090 and its using PCIE 3.0 your ok for now and in the future. PCIE 4.0 will really only matter when gaming at 4K or higher and even then it's a few percent. 1440p and below will be no difference. Not using a 3090 for those resolutions more like a 3080, 3070, 3060.

[aaronaton]

Is it true 8K or 4K with DLSS?

[waverider]

Its strange why Microsoft or Sony didnt try to get a deal with nvidia. Even being more expensive. Their GPU are beastly. Maybe because they dont have CPU... its easier and cheaper with AMD....