whats your thoughts on a gtx 1080?

[Bing Chilling]

just curious, needed upgrade? or stick with it?

[ulia]

Very much depends on the benchmark, even calling it a 3060 equivalent is far fetched when it can barely keep up with a 2070/RX5700 in games using Vulkan. Add DLSS on top of that and the 1080ti is more comparable to a 2060. Justifying upgrading a 1080ti is debatable, but buying one used is IMO a very poor investment.

[_I_]

ulia a écrit :

_I_ a écrit :

a gtx 1080 is as fast as a rtx 3060, even at rt tasks

This is factually incorrect, a 1080ti does not have tensor or rt cores and doesn't even outperform a 2060 in actual rt accelerated workloads such as Optix. This does not make the 1080ti a bad card for the majority of games as they don't utilize modern APIs like Vulkan, but when API support is there you can realize a massive performance uplift through DLSS and other hardware acceleration.

There are arguments to be had about whether a 1080ti is worth upgrading from if the games you play don't utilize Vulkan or latest DX12, but raw FP/Shader performance is becoming all the less valuable of a metric with performance gains largely coming from offloading tasks to dedicated compute units.

the name of the core makes very little difference, other than the ability to do specific tasks slightly faster

you can do rt tasks with the intel hd, but it will not do them nearly as fast as any nvidia mx/gt/gtx/rts dedicated gpu

1080/ti support dx12 and vulkan just fine
it is missing some instruction sets from the later dx/ogl/vulkan libraries, but still works with them

as for its value, completely depends on what you can get the card for
if its cheaper than a 3060 and works, get it and use it

or since the op has it, just keep it until you need something stronger
mining with it could be a small profit, ~$1.50/day - electricity cost
https://www.nicehash.com/profitability-calculator/nvidia-gtx-1080

[ulia]

_I_ a écrit :

the name of the core makes very little difference, other than the ability to do specific tasks slightly faster

you can do rt tasks with the intel hd, but it will not do them nearly as fast as any nvidia mx/gt/gtx/rts dedicated gpu

Looks like you're struggling with the concept of hardware acceleration. By your justification we don't need GPUs at all, why offload processing to dedicated hardware when software emulation already does it!

_I_ a écrit :

1080/ti support dx12 and vulkan just fine
it is missing some instruction sets from the later dx/ogl/vulkan libraries, but still works with them

Of course it's backwards compatible, the relevance is that it's missing everything that nets a performance uplift

[_I_]

the intel hd or ryzen vega is a gpu module on the cpu (igpu)

parts of the igpu or dedicated gpu can be disabled for software mode, but its still hardware that sends the image to the display

hal is hardware doings the software tells it to do, rather than the cpu
sometimes the cpu can do it faster, like with some physx tasks when using a weak/older gpu

not having the hardware shortcuts or instructions doesnt mean it cant do it, it just means it needs to do more steps for the same result

an older faster card can be quicker than a newer slower card using the instruction shortcuts it supports
its not as efficient, but gets the same job done

[Illusion of Progress]

尺.し工几句ヨ尺 a écrit :

1080 Ti is also barely faster than the 3060 in most games, only a few frames here and there which actually makes it ironic that the 3060 "doesn't have the actual power" to push all 12GB considering the 1080 Ti is basically the same and that was never said

This is something I noticed too.

I suppose there is an argument to be made that the GTX 1080 Ti would have been a product in a higher price point and the higher VRAM would have been for helping it at higher resolutions and settings. That's the only reason I can think of as to why the inconsistency as to how the cards are held.

Granted, the 12 GB is a bit of fluff on the RTX 3060, but it was that or 6 GB and 6 GB is too low. The 11 GB of the GTX 1080 Ti was also a lot of fluff five to six years ago. I felt my 6 GB VRAM was a lot back then. I went from 256 MB to 512 MB to 1 GB to 6 GB.

[r.linder]

Illusion of Progress a écrit :

尺.し工几句ヨ尺 a écrit :

1080 Ti is also barely faster than the 3060 in most games, only a few frames here and there which actually makes it ironic that the 3060 "doesn't have the actual power" to push all 12GB considering the 1080 Ti is basically the same and that was never said

This is something I noticed too.

I suppose there is an argument to be made that the GTX 1080 Ti would have been a product in a higher price point and the higher VRAM would have been for helping it at higher resolutions and settings. That's the only reason I can think of as to why the inconsistency as to how the cards are held.

Granted, the 12 GB is a bit of fluff on the RTX 3060, but it was that or 6 GB and 6 GB is too low. The 11 GB of the GTX 1080 Ti was also a lot of fluff five to six years ago. I felt my 6 GB VRAM was a lot back then. I went from 256 MB to 512 MB to 1 GB to 6 GB.

Part of it I feel like was the stigma against lower end SKUs and the fact that almost everything above the 3060 has 8 or 10. It made no sense. But saying it can't pull all 12 is probably inaccurate considering its almost equal to the 1080Ti, which in some instances could, but how well it performs depends on the game.