No 3080-ti in sight, interesting.

kanenas:

Nvidia really?Hahahahahahaha

I don't think there's much to read into there - it's just to demonstrate how the skus are banded. More interesting is the lack of Ti - and that the 3080 20gb isn't one.

Dragam1337:

Lol, who the **** cares about power consumption... if that is a concern at all, then get a console instead. Choosing a highend gaming gpu on the basis of power consumption is just... yeah...

Why does this always need to be addressed: The actual power draw isn't the concern. It's everything else associated with high wattage that people rightfully have a concern over, like temperature, OC stability, fan noise, and whether or not the GPU is so big that it'll actually fit in anything smaller than a mid tower.

XenthorX:

No 3080-ti in sight, interesting.

I guess the 3080 with 20GB VRAM's supposed to fill the gap but... dunno...

not sure why everyone thinks the units with higher vram are tis. 1060 was no ti, yet had 3 and 6gb available. and going back till the first ti, the rule shows it wont have more vram than the non ti version. @Sylencer shafted? last time i checked, the 10 and 20gb versions have the same perf output. by the time more than 10gb are needed (not just to cache stuff) the card will probably run out of HP might wanna ask some 3080 buyers if they were handed lube and told "bend". by the time the cards were getting listed for order/purchase, virtually every hw site hard had reported that there will be a 20gb, so they either dont care/want it, or didnt do their research before buying. not sure how any of that is Nvs fault.

shamus21:

Looks like the rumours are coming true for the rtx 3060 being on par with a rtx 2080

Even with the low performance upgrade 2000 series, the RTX 2060 managed to equal the GTX 1080, so it's not a big deal really. What is most striking is that Galax is listing the RTX 3070 way below the 2080Ti while NV claimed it will be faster.

XenthorX:

No 3080-ti in sight, interesting.

Seeing that the 3090 is rumoured to be faster by only sub-10% than the 3080, it is not a big loss.

schmidtbag:

Why does this always need to be addressed: The actual power draw isn't the concern. It's everything else associated with high wattage that people rightfully have a concern over, like temperature, OC stability, fan noise, and whether or not the GPU is so big that it'll actually fit in anything smaller than a mid tower.

The only problem with this statement is i feel people have this idea that there SHOULDN'T be high powered graphics carda out there simply because of their own needs, as though just because there is power hungry graphics cards, somehow that means they have no options for less power hungey graphics cards. ...like no one should be upset if amd and nvidia went so far crazy, and made a 1000 watt gpu somehow work. It doesn't change the fact there are lower power GPUs, it only changes how powerful a GPUs we have today. And before anyone states "thats not the issue its the efficiency!", Literally no matter how efficient an architecture is, doesn't mean they couldn't make high power versions....efficiency doesn't mean low power, it simply determines power to performance ratios.

That 3060 is gonna be great bang for your buck.

Dragam1337:

Lol, who the **** cares about power consumption... if that is a concern at all, then get a console instead. Choosing a highend gaming gpu on the basis of power consumption is just... yeah...

Power consumption = heat. If you have a small room without AC, it can really get hot. Perhaps someone needs a PC for work and uses the same computer to play games or perhaps consoles are not interesting. I do respect people who try to lower their consumption of power and other resources.

Honesty speaking, still waiting for a big games to launch then we can think of upgrading a GPU at this price. Not like we are under-power on this low end games that launch nowadays that we need to use a 3090 to fix in.. But come to think I would rather get more Vram/TI version if the margin price is around the sideline, unless as mention before "if there is a high end games" that interest the gamers world that will be a different story.

Aura89:

And before anyone states "thats not the issue its the efficiency!", Literally no matter how efficient an architecture is, doesn't mean they couldn't make high power versions....efficiency doesn't mean low power, it simply determines power to performance ratios.

which in another word, you saying 3000series efficiency not better than 2000series ? as it using more power to gain better performance over 2000series? if the architecture efficient why they make high-power-versions in first place ? as obviously efficient architecture should perform better with same/similar power usage

Aura89:

The only problem with this statement is i feel people have this idea that there SHOULDN'T be high powered graphics carda out there simply because of their own needs, as though just because there is power hungry graphics cards, somehow that means they have no options for less power hungey graphics cards. ...like no one should be upset if amd and nvidia went so far crazy, and made a 1000 watt gpu somehow work. It doesn't change the fact there are lower power GPUs, it only changes how powerful a GPUs we have today.

Of course there can be power-hungry models. The RTX 3090 is a good example of something tremendously power-hungry. There are also OC models provided by AIB partners. However, if there is no limit to power consumption, there's less of an incentive to make designs more efficient. Dragam1337 was asking who care about power consumption. Well, a lot of people do, and rightfully so. If AMD or Nvidia made a 1000W GPU and it actually had noteworthy performance, I don't expect it would sell well, because it'd be prohibitively expensive, and cooling it would be a logistical nightmare. Even the R9 295x2 was a major hurdle to figure out cooling. That's why SLI and Crossfire were made - so you could get 1000W of GPUs in a more manageable way. They might be dead technologies, but servers still prefer a mGPU solution over a single beefy one.

schmidtbag:

However, if there is no limit to power consumption, there's less of an incentive to make designs more efficient.

I don't think thats true at all. There's only so far you can go with increasing power. There will always have to be efficiency increases to increase performance overall. Maybe if there were a true monopoly, i'd agree, minor increases every year in efficiency, minor upgrades. But this would be true regardless of how much wattage something uses.

slyphnier:

which in another word, you saying 3000series efficiency not better than 2000series ? as it using more power to gain better performance over 2000series?

Not...at all. How much power something uses has nothing to do with its efficiency...i have no idea how you came up with that statement based off of what i posted

slyphnier:

if the architecture efficient why they make high-power-versions in first place ? as obviously efficient architecture should perform better with same/similar power usage

Your questions aren't even making sense and there's many articles that show how much more efficient the 30 series is compared to the 20, so what is it you are even going on about? What made you post anything you have currently posted about? Do you just not believe reviewers? Can you not do simple math? I'm seriously confused but everything in your reply to my post. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/iuhjoj/nvidia_rtx_3080_power_efficiency_compared_to_rtx/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body Explains everything you need to know....

I could maybe see a use for more than 10GB of VRAM for 4K or higher but anyone planning on playing at 1440P high refresh rate with a regular 3080 is unlikely to run out of VRAM for the next few years

Aura89:

I don't think thats true at all. There's only so far you can go with increasing power. There will always have to be efficiency increases to increase performance overall.

Then what are you arguing about? We have only come so far because that's as far as modern tech realistically allows us to go. It's not that we can't get, for example, a GPU that can play games at 8K@120FPS, but at that point, efficiency must be sacrificed somewhere along the line. Maybe not in terms of its performance to the end user, but anything that led up to its existence. I'm pretty sure AMD and Nvidia are aware that people want something better than what either of them offer, but if throwing more cores and Hz at the problem (and therefore, cranking up the wattage) was a viable solution, they'd continue doing it. I say "continue" because both companies have been heavily ridiculed for making "space heaters", and such things affect their sales and reputation. A lot of people don't care if you've got the most powerful product if it means compromising on practicality. Of those who do care, they'll just overclock with a liquid cooling system. To that, I say more power to them (pun intended). It's really no different than the car enthusiast market. It's not particularly hard for someone to buy a sportscar, slap in a turbo or supercharger with a tuned ECU, and then squeeze another 300HP out of the engine. You could ask "if there was so much potential in there, why wasn't the car made like that from factory?" and it really comes down to the sacrifices you have to make in order to achieve that, let alone use that power in any meaningful way.

schmidtbag:

Then what are you arguing about?

I'm not arguing about anything, i was just stating that people have this idea that there SHOULDN'T be high power stuff, that that i disagree with. Caring about how much a GPU power uses, absolutely correct to do. Caring about its cooling capacity, absolutely correct to do. Saying that high power parts shouldn't exist....not so much, and no matter how efficient an architecture is, doesn't determine where that max wattage could be. For all we know there could have been a 500 watt ampere graphics card and a 650 watt turing graphics card that were never produced, (random numbers just an FYI) and if that were the case, i'd much rather they had been produced, then not, just because people think they shouldn't exist.

@Tat3/schmidtbag but that doesnt mean that everyone else has "your" requirements/limitations, nor should products be limited "just because". e.g a Toyota prius hybrid is considered "green", yet doesnt go past 1xxHP for 50-60mpg and xxx digit emissions, when Porsche has a 900HP hybrid, getting +75mpg and producing only double digit emissions. the car is more powerful, but also more efficient, especially considering output to consumption/emissions ratio. so according to some we shouldn't have it/dont need it, because "hey dont have any use for it, and/or because it has more power than needed (for everyday driving). as long as there are ppl with enough money to buy what they like, they will do that, and i doubt anyone on this planet buys a high performance version of anything and expects it to be coming with the highest efficiency. but that doesnt mean i will sour it for them, nor do i want companies to hold back, just because some are happy running onboard gpu to play a game at 360p/30Hz, or have a case that wouldnt fit it.

On the topic of all the sour members here, i'm a delivery driver and deliver to rich and poor alike, there's good and bad everywhere folks. [youtube=ycRnO-nECNw]