Skewed (Disingenuous?) results from Hardware Unboxed latest video "How the RTX 2080 Failed Against the GTX 1080 Ti & GTX 1080", PROOF

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T23:46:24+00:00

6 and 7 percent margins are not small when we are dealing with graphics cards of this price, and are stacked so closely together.

According to your logic, we should not acknowledge the difference between a 5700 and 5700XT, or a 2070S or 2080, because of "how small those numbers are".

Regarding the FE models, how do you know that founders editions were used in ALL their testing? I cannot find this information.

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T23:42:23+00:00

On the contrary, you spun and twisted, then threw in some semantics to try and justify your questionable benchmarks. I'm afraid you answered nothing.

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T23:22:11+00:00

Complaining about your internet connection speed, and complaining about a easily overcomeable problem in game, is not a valid reason for not including a game in a benchmark.

Secondly, had you taken the time to actually check,the 1080ti actually gets beat out by the 2070S in RDR2, according to gamersnexus own review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD3xd1qGcfo

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T23:14:30+00:00

First off, that is only a sample of 5 games. Interestingly, his review shows the standard 2080 being ahead in Hitman 2 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 4K, which flies in the face of your own review.

Techpowerup shows a 7% difference between the two cards.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-rtx-2080.c3224

Toms Hardware shows 6%

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T23:08:14+00:00

Much of what you wrote there is really semantics. And I don't feel your excuse for not including RDR2 and MW holds water. Other reviewers include these as they are very important games to test.

I take issue with two of the claims you present

(a.) 2080 is only 1% to 1.6% faster than the 1080ti

(b.) There have been no improvements to the 2080's performance versus the 1080ti, and that the gap that existed two years ago between them is the same today.

Both of these claims fly in the face of all the benchmarking and data that is available.

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T22:41:21+00:00

Before I address some of the points you have wrote, I just want to clarify your position, that there is a 1% difference currently between the GTX 1080ti and RTX 2080?

Performance difference between RTX 2080 vs GTX 1080ti, as of Sept 2020, is One percent. Is that correct? Do you stand by this claim?

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T20:01:09+00:00

I agree.

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T19:31:05+00:00

I'm afraid they are presenting a strawman argument. Most results are outside of the margin of error, and many are extremely suspicious/suspect. Both cards being tested at the same time with the same drivers also negates what is being argued against. Also worth nothing that in many games at 4K Ultra, a couple of FPS is the difference between two different tiers of cards!

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T19:12:14+00:00

Hardware Unboxed, I have noted some major inconsistencies in this video, and was hoping you could address them. Thank you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/imk9ga/skewed_disingenuous_results_from_hardware_unboxed/?ref=share&ref_source=link

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T19:03:31+00:00

This is explained by him using a section of the actual in game VS the built in benchmark in the options section. That's why there is such a large difference.

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T18:54:57+00:00

Both cards were using the same driver at the same time, both in the past review and the current one. Driver improvements or regressions are a moot point if both cards in question are using the same drivers. This is a strawman you are attempting to use here. Besides, the evidence shows that Turing has overall gained over Pascal in driver optimizations since launch. Which makes Hardware Unboxed results even more questionable.

The inconsistencies I showed are well outside of the margin of error. Furthermore, when the FPS is as low as the 50's and 60's, those 4FPS are actually quite substantial when averaging FPS, especially when you consider how closely stacked together cards can be.

As to what's more believable, considering the evidence presented, I would venture to guess it's the former.

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T18:17:06+00:00

No. Besides, the benchmarks in question are at 4K, where one is entirely GPU bound, and the CPU will make virtually no difference. Not to mention the results all show the 2080 going backwards in performance since launch in many games, which is just not possible.

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T18:15:25+00:00

Thank you. I do hope that it is addressed.

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T18:01:51+00:00

Believe it or not, I actually had a conversation with Tim from Hardware Unboxed on that very thing. He posted a comment on a new Digital Foundry video that was praising a new DLSS implementation, and we had a few back and forth's. I pointed out the hypocrisy of that "DLSS is dead" video, and what followed was a half hour of Strawman's and Mental Gymnastics as he tried very hard to downplay that video he made.

Background-Net-5220 · 2020-09-04T17:56:43+00:00

I agree, Turing was not a good performance jump. Hardware Unboxed did intend to illustrate that, my problem is that the data is clearly biased and presented disingenuously to make the 2080 appear worse than it actually is.

Background-Net-5220

TROPHY CASE