RTX 2080 incoming...
  6 / 27    
AFAIK, Nvidia was planning to use their Volta architecture with HBM2 memory. Turing was never listed on their Road Map, Volta was. But because of the price and availability of HBM2, they came out with this Turing architecture. So just like being screwed with die shrinks not happening in previous generations, now we get screwed by memory architecture. Lets just hope that dx12 and Vulkan are fully supported without having to resort to emulation.
AFAIK, Nvidia was planning to use their Volta architecture with HBM2 memory.

Turing was never listed on their Road Map, Volta was.

But because of the price and availability of HBM2, they came out with this Turing architecture.

So just like being screwed with die shrinks not happening in previous generations, now we get screwed by memory architecture.

Lets just hope that dx12 and Vulkan are fully supported without having to resort to emulation.

#76
Posted 08/19/2018 04:48 PM   
[quote="eitan8385"]It’s actully a little bit crazy we’re almost at the same age[/quote] Look at the hobby we enjoy man it's probably only people of our age with that kinda spare cash to throw around. Meanwhile I am still renting. =x hmm ok it it's only at 25-30 percent over 1080ti maybe I will be skipping this gen after all.
eitan8385 said:It’s actully a little bit crazy we’re almost at the same age


Look at the hobby we enjoy man it's probably only people of our age with that kinda spare cash to throw around. Meanwhile I am still renting. =x

hmm ok it it's only at 25-30 percent over 1080ti maybe I will be skipping this gen after all.

i7-4790K CPU 4.8Ghz stable overclock.
16 GB RAM Corsair
ASUS Turbo 2080TI
Samsung SSD 840Pro
ASUS Z97-WS3D
Surround ASUS Rog Swift PG278Q(R), 2x PG278Q (yes it works)
Obutto R3volution.
Windows 10 pro 64x (Windows 7 Dual boot)

#77
Posted 08/20/2018 01:50 AM   
[quote="RAGEdemon"]Now now bo3b, let's not play the nitpicking game. I too, am a stupid guy, but there is a difference between a well meaning strategy not working out (business judgement rule), and knowingly not maximising profits for some personal ideology, e.g. save the animals, or 'don't be evil' as once was the google motto ;-) [quote="bo3b"]It is not true that companies are legally required to maximize their profits. It's always possible that elsewhere in the world this is true, but I can say for a fact that in the US there is no such law.[/quote] Umm, mate, The Delaware Court would like to disagree with you. Its decision in eBay v. Newmark is literally the opposite of the "fact" that you presented: [code]The Delaware court's decision in eBay v. Newmark has been viewed by many commentators as a decisive affirmation of shareholder wealth maximisation as the only legally permissible objective of a for‐profit corporation.[/code] This is set precedent, and now pretty much every corporation has to abide by it under US law.[/quote] Sorry I'm getting back to this late. And sorry for the off-topic, but this sort of broken thinking is bad for everyone. Your example is wrong. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/basr.12108 [code]The Delaware court's decision in eBay v. Newmark has been [i]viewed by many commentators[/i] as a decisive affirmation of shareholder wealth maximisation as the only legally permissible objective of a for‐profit corporation.[/code] Emphasis mine. "Viewed by many commentators" doesn't mean anything. That's just some socially conscious site trying to 'raise awareness' by deliberately misreading the case and stoke outrage. If you actually look at the case in question, it doesn't have anything to do with shareholder profits or business operations. The crux of the case is that Craigslist tried to change the corporate structure *after* eBay had already invested. They were trying to give themselves more power, and reduce the voting rights of eBay. The eBay case is absolutely not setting a court precedent for corporate governance. You will as always believe whatever you want to believe, but maybe a better example is in order? FaceBook has this form of governance, where Zuckerberg has all voting rights, and investors have no say. And I mean [i]no say[/i]. Zuckerberg has no requirement to maximize money for the shareholders, he has literally no fiduciary responsibility to them at all. The reason it is OK in the FaceBook case, and not OK in the Craigslist case is because of transparency. Nobody investing in FaceBook was ever led to believe anything other than how it was structured. Invest or not, based on the structure, but there was no lying or trickery, or changes after the fact. The real answer is not at all hard to find, but I'm going to go with the New York Times, and a professor from Cornell: [url]https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits[/url] Now that is an opinion piece, so maybe we don't like it super well. Let's look at the case she cites, HHS vs. Hobby Lobby: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html A quote from the [b]US Supreme Court[/b] in that case: [i]While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. [/i] You've made this patently false statement at least twice. Please stop.
RAGEdemon said:Now now bo3b, let's not play the nitpicking game. I too, am a stupid guy, but there is a difference between a well meaning strategy not working out (business judgement rule), and knowingly not maximising profits for some personal ideology, e.g. save the animals, or 'don't be evil' as once was the google motto ;-)

bo3b said:It is not true that companies are legally required to maximize their profits.
It's always possible that elsewhere in the world this is true, but I can say for a fact that in the US there is no such law.

Umm, mate, The Delaware Court would like to disagree with you. Its decision in eBay v. Newmark is literally the opposite of the "fact" that you presented:

The Delaware court's decision in eBay v. Newmark 
has been viewed by many commentators as a decisive affirmation
of shareholder wealth maximisation as the only legally permissible
objective of a for‐profit corporation.


This is set precedent, and now pretty much every corporation has to abide by it under US law.

Sorry I'm getting back to this late. And sorry for the off-topic, but this sort of broken thinking is bad for everyone.

Your example is wrong. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/basr.12108


The Delaware court's decision in eBay v. Newmark 
has been viewed by many commentators as a decisive affirmation
of shareholder wealth maximisation as the only legally permissible
objective of a for‐profit corporation.


Emphasis mine. "Viewed by many commentators" doesn't mean anything. That's just some socially conscious site trying to 'raise awareness' by deliberately misreading the case and stoke outrage.

If you actually look at the case in question, it doesn't have anything to do with shareholder profits or business operations. The crux of the case is that Craigslist tried to change the corporate structure *after* eBay had already invested. They were trying to give themselves more power, and reduce the voting rights of eBay.

The eBay case is absolutely not setting a court precedent for corporate governance.

You will as always believe whatever you want to believe, but maybe a better example is in order?


FaceBook has this form of governance, where Zuckerberg has all voting rights, and investors have no say. And I mean no say. Zuckerberg has no requirement to maximize money for the shareholders, he has literally no fiduciary responsibility to them at all.

The reason it is OK in the FaceBook case, and not OK in the Craigslist case is because of transparency. Nobody investing in FaceBook was ever led to believe anything other than how it was structured. Invest or not, based on the structure, but there was no lying or trickery, or changes after the fact.


The real answer is not at all hard to find, but I'm going to go with the New York Times, and a professor from Cornell:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

Now that is an opinion piece, so maybe we don't like it super well. Let's look at the case she cites, HHS vs. Hobby Lobby: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html


A quote from the US Supreme Court in that case:

While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so.


You've made this patently false statement at least twice. Please stop.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#78
Posted 08/20/2018 02:06 AM   
That's great bo3b, You will note that the [u][b]opinion[/b][/u] piece you linked to is in agreement that the "Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end" - a direct quote from Chief Justice Leo Strine of the Delaware Supreme Court (Delaware being the preeminent state for corporate law). All the opinion is saying is that short term and short sighted profit is not necessarily the best thing for shareholders; she argues that Directors should be concerned about the long term profits and strategise towards that for the long term benefit of the shareholders. Furthermore, Honorable Leo E. Strine, Jr. of the Delaware Supreme Court, [color="gray"][[i]The Dangers of Denial: The Need for A Clear-Eyed Understanding of the Power and Accountability Structure Established by the Delaware General Corporation Law, 50 Wake Forest L. Rev. 761 (2015).[/i]][/color] rails against such opinion. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court specifically writes: "In current corporate law scholarship, there is a tendency among those who believe that corporations should be more socially responsible to avoid the more difficult and important task of advocating for externality regulation of corporations in a globalizing economy and encouraging institutional investors to exercise their power as stockholders responsibly. Instead, [b]these advocates for corporate social responsibility [url="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pretend"] [u]pretend[/u] [/url] that directors do not have to make stockholder welfare the sole end of corporate governance, within the limits of their legal discretion, under the law of the most important American jurisdiction--Delaware."[/b] Since you like NYTimes "Opinion" pieces, Here is one from David G. Yosifon, an associate professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. [url]https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/its-law-but-it-shouldnt-be[/url] "[i]Most large businesses buy their corporate charters from the state of Delaware. And the law of Delaware is clear about corporate purpose. The chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, Leo Strine, put it simply in a recent law review article: “Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end.” In cases where directors have acknowledged sacrificing shareholder interests for other groups, Delaware courts have found those directors violated their fiduciary duties...[/i]" As he states literally in his title: "[u]It’s Law[/u], But It Shouldn’t Be". [quote="bo3b"]You've made this patently false statement at least twice. Please stop.[/quote] [url="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/no-u"] "no u" [/url] bo3b, you know, a wise man once said that arguments try to decide [u]who[/u] is right, while discussions try to decide [u]what[/u] is right. [u]What is right[/u] is that corporations have no obligation towards consumers' welfare; it only matters to them when it fits in with their strategy of maximising shareholder value/wealth. We, as consumers, need to always be weary of this fact. Whether it is against the law or not has no real bearing in regards to the above point. Such an argument is a personal, ego-driven notion you pose to try and prove [u]who is right[/u], and I don't want to entertain that. Believe what you will, it will not change facts such as: NVidia made $60 Billion profit for their shareholders last year. They could have lowered prices so that more people could afford their products, but they didn't because it would have meant less profit for their shareholders. A point fraction of that could have enabled a superb redesigned 3DVision driver, but because 3DV isn't profitable, it was not pursued, however a PR manager [u]was[/u] assigned to us, to mitigate any fallout which might negatively impact shareholder profit. - All solid decisions to protect the shareholders. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence[/url] in most appliances, pervading into other areas such as electronics. NVidia, Intel, AMD, et al; they are all the same. (AMD's CEO Lisa Su is nVidia's CEO Jensen's niece; imagine that) We as consumers have to be wise to this fact so that we too can maximise the value of their products; e.g. by seeing through their marketing. Otherwise, whatever man. [url="http://blog.zorinaq.com/i-contribute-to-the-windows-kernel-we-are-slower-than-other-oper/"] I know you have an almost irrational hate for Windows 10; I thought this might float your boat. [/url] All the best ;-)
That's great bo3b,

You will note that the opinion piece you linked to is in agreement that the "Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end" - a direct quote from Chief Justice Leo Strine of the Delaware Supreme Court (Delaware being the preeminent state for corporate law). All the opinion is saying is that short term and short sighted profit is not necessarily the best thing for shareholders; she argues that Directors should be concerned about the long term profits and strategise towards that for the long term benefit of the shareholders.

Furthermore, Honorable Leo E. Strine, Jr. of the Delaware Supreme Court, [The Dangers of Denial: The Need for A Clear-Eyed Understanding of the Power and Accountability Structure Established by the Delaware General Corporation Law, 50 Wake Forest L. Rev. 761 (2015).] rails against such opinion.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court specifically writes:

"In current corporate law scholarship, there is a tendency among those who believe that corporations should be more socially responsible to avoid the more difficult and important task of advocating for externality regulation of corporations in a globalizing economy and encouraging institutional investors to exercise their power as stockholders responsibly. Instead, these advocates for corporate social responsibility pretend that directors do not have to make stockholder welfare the sole end of corporate governance, within the limits of their legal discretion, under the law of the most important American jurisdiction--Delaware."

Since you like NYTimes "Opinion" pieces,

Here is one from David G. Yosifon, an associate professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/its-law-but-it-shouldnt-be

"Most large businesses buy their corporate charters from the state of Delaware. And the law of Delaware is clear about corporate purpose. The chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, Leo Strine, put it simply in a recent law review article: “Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end.” In cases where directors have acknowledged sacrificing shareholder interests for other groups, Delaware courts have found those directors violated their fiduciary duties..."

As he states literally in his title: "It’s Law, But It Shouldn’t Be".

bo3b said:You've made this patently false statement at least twice. Please stop.
"no u"


bo3b, you know, a wise man once said that arguments try to decide who is right, while discussions try to decide what is right.

What is right is that corporations have no obligation towards consumers' welfare; it only matters to them when it fits in with their strategy of maximising shareholder value/wealth. We, as consumers, need to always be weary of this fact.

Whether it is against the law or not has no real bearing in regards to the above point. Such an argument is a personal, ego-driven notion you pose to try and prove who is right, and I don't want to entertain that. Believe what you will, it will not change facts such as:

NVidia made $60 Billion profit for their shareholders last year. They could have lowered prices so that more people could afford their products, but they didn't because it would have meant less profit for their shareholders.

A point fraction of that could have enabled a superb redesigned 3DVision driver, but because 3DV isn't profitable, it was not pursued, however a PR manager was assigned to us, to mitigate any fallout which might negatively impact shareholder profit. - All solid decisions to protect the shareholders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence in most appliances, pervading into other areas such as electronics.

NVidia, Intel, AMD, et al; they are all the same. (AMD's CEO Lisa Su is nVidia's CEO Jensen's niece; imagine that)

We as consumers have to be wise to this fact so that we too can maximise the value of their products; e.g. by seeing through their marketing.

Otherwise, whatever man.

I know you have an almost irrational hate for Windows 10; I thought this might float your boat. All the best ;-)

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#79
Posted 08/20/2018 07:07 AM   
[img]https://s8.postimg.cc/6qkkax25x/Zotac-_RTX-2080-precios.jpg[/img] Money Money Money ! FOB: Freight On Board (Supplier's price) SRP: Suggested Retail Price
Image

Money Money Money !

FOB: Freight On Board (Supplier's price)
SRP: Suggested Retail Price
Ok, good to know that I will not have any doubts. I stay with my current GTX 660 TI, and of course moving towards xbox/playstation.
Ok, good to know that I will not have any doubts. I stay with my current GTX 660 TI, and of course moving towards xbox/playstation.

- Windows 7 64bits (SSD OCZ-Vertez2 128Gb)
- "ASUS P6X58D-E" motherboard
- "Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC"
- "Intel Xeon X5670" @4000MHz CPU (20.0[12-25]x200MHz)
- RAM 16 Gb DDR3 1600
- "Dell S2716DG" monitor (2560x1440 @144Hz)
- "Corsair Carbide 600C" case
- Labrador dog (cinnamon edition)

#81
Posted 08/20/2018 02:35 PM   
Zotac is generally a lower priced brand. A $1170 standard Ti is a tad rich for my taste... So much for consumer welfare over Shareholder welfare ;-)
Zotac is generally a lower priced brand. A $1170 standard Ti is a tad rich for my taste... So much for consumer welfare over Shareholder welfare ;-)

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#82
Posted 08/20/2018 02:36 PM   
Duerf, you should see some amazing deals on 1070s and 1080s on the second hand market. I saw some 1080s selling for £300 ($375)!
Duerf, you should see some amazing deals on 1070s and 1080s on the second hand market.

I saw some 1080s selling for £300 ($375)!

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#83
Posted 08/20/2018 02:38 PM   
PNY is $1000 for 2080TI Nvidia founder's edition is $1199 https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/20-series/ https://variety.com/2018/digital/hardware/nvidia-rtx-graphics-card-pricing-1202910178/

Gigabyte Z370 Gaming 7 32GB Ram i9-9900K GigaByte Aorus Extreme Gaming 2080TI (single) Game Blaster Z Windows 10 X64 build #17763.195 Define R6 Blackout Case Corsair H110i GTX Sandisk 1TB (OS) SanDisk 2TB SSD (Games) Seagate EXOs 8 and 12 TB drives Samsung UN46c7000 HD TV Samsung UN55HU9000 UHD TVCurrently using ACER PASSIVE EDID override on 3D TVs LG 55

#84
Posted 08/20/2018 06:20 PM   
I like EVGA´s principles about doing what the fuck you wan´t with their cards. I don´t even think about anything other when talking about brands.
I like EVGA´s principles about doing what the fuck you wan´t with their cards.
I don´t even think about anything other when talking about brands.

CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@4.7
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele

#85
Posted 08/20/2018 06:43 PM   
Just preordered the 2080ti £1050 quid for a gigabyte windforce. (Cheapest one I’ll stick a water lock on it anyway) Don’t even know how fast it is without raytracing yet...... I put over 700 hours into battlefield one and after seeing the raytracing demo for battlefield V, I couldn’t resist..... They did say the 2070 will outperform the titan XP though ! Shhheeeeiiitt it’s going to be fast..........
Just preordered the 2080ti £1050 quid for a gigabyte windforce. (Cheapest one I’ll stick a water lock on it anyway)
Don’t even know how fast it is without raytracing yet......
I put over 700 hours into battlefield one and after seeing the raytracing demo for battlefield V, I couldn’t resist.....

They did say the 2070 will outperform the titan XP though ! Shhheeeeiiitt it’s going to be fast..........

#86
Posted 08/20/2018 07:37 PM   
[quote="GibsonRed"]Just preordered the 2080ti £1050 quid for a gigabyte windforce. (Cheapest one I’ll stick a water lock on it anyway) Don’t even know how fast it is without raytracing yet...... I put over 700 hours into battlefield one and after seeing the raytracing demo for battlefield V, I couldn’t resist..... They did say the 2070 will outperform the titan XP though ! Shhheeeeiiitt it’s going to be fast.......... [/quote]*in raytracing, not in normal gaming.
GibsonRed said:Just preordered the 2080ti £1050 quid for a gigabyte windforce. (Cheapest one I’ll stick a water lock on it anyway)
Don’t even know how fast it is without raytracing yet......
I put over 700 hours into battlefield one and after seeing the raytracing demo for battlefield V, I couldn’t resist.....

They did say the 2070 will outperform the titan XP though ! Shhheeeeiiitt it’s going to be fast..........
*in raytracing, not in normal gaming.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#87
Posted 08/20/2018 07:47 PM   
1259€ for the 2080Ti founders edition. Damn. That's also the lowest price for other vendors, like the Zotac. So it will take a while to see things approaching a non founders edition price. I was eager to get a 2080Ti, but for 900-950€ tops. I'll wait to see benchmarks at least. Those ray tracing demonstrations were dope, though.
1259€ for the 2080Ti founders edition. Damn. That's also the lowest price for other vendors, like the Zotac. So it will take a while to see things approaching a non founders edition price. I was eager to get a 2080Ti, but for 900-950€ tops. I'll wait to see benchmarks at least.

Those ray tracing demonstrations were dope, though.

CPU: Intel Core i7 7700K @ 4.9GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte Aorus GA-Z270X-Gaming 5
RAM: GSKILL Ripjaws Z 16GB 3866MHz CL18
GPU: MSI GeForce RTX 2080Ti Gaming X Trio
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
Speakers: Logitech Z506
Donations account: masterotakusuko@gmail.com

#88
Posted 08/20/2018 07:51 PM   
Nope In normal gaming is how I interpreted it. It’ll be 10x faster in raytracing with the tensor cores alone. He announced the cards and then said just so you know how fast these are in general gaming the 2070 is faster than the titan XP.
Nope In normal gaming is how I interpreted it.
It’ll be 10x faster in raytracing with the tensor cores alone.

He announced the cards and then said just so you know how fast these are in general gaming the 2070 is faster than the titan XP.

#89
Posted 08/20/2018 07:54 PM   
RAGE, it's time to fix the title of this thread! :-) [b] RTX 2080 incoming[/b]
RAGE, it's time to fix the title of this thread! :-)

RTX 2080 incoming

3D Vision must live! NVIDIA, don't let us down!

#90
Posted 08/20/2018 09:26 PM   
  6 / 27    
Scroll To Top