Review: GeForce RTX 2060 and 2070 SUPER Founders edition

Any cheaper? Same performance at exactly the same price level when 1080Ti went EOL last year?
At least in the Netherlands, that is.

 

In my eyes, this is what nVidia is practically doing here:
The 2060 Super is more or less a normal 2070, but priced where the initial price should have been.
Likewise, the 2070 Super is a 2080, but priced where the initial price should have been.
They save face, and they do get to actually pit the 5700 XT against a GPU that, performance wise is a 2080.

I do expect the AIB prices to be much higher than MSRP though.

 

Both GPU makers react well in advance to the release of their rivals products. Nvidia had this down even well before AMDs presentation last month. In effect, Navi may as well been released already.

 

Not fully understand the 3DMark Time Spy, the Radeon VII holds up really well in the games i looked at close to 2080ti and one, beating it. Yet low 3DMark Time Spy?

looked twice if wrong, 'Specsavers here I come.'

 

I have a feeling a lot of people are gonna say/feel this way^...with good reason too.

 

I feel sorry for anyone who bought into the initial RTX release. Six months later you have 40% cheaper cards with about the same performance. I had a feeling this is why Nvidia essentially bumped every card up a price tier. I'm pretty sure they had planned this from day one of the RTX release.

 

These are better performers then I had expected. I did not expect the 2070 S to equal a 1080 Ti; I would still rather have the 11 GB of vRAM personally. At least the price to performance ratio isn't as rapacious as it was when the RTX GPUs first launched 10 months or so ago.

 

wow wow wow
Ok i wasn't expecting that much of a performance improvement, they literally made the 2060S replace the 2070, and 2070s replace 2080, For 100-200$ less.

Nvidia isn't kidding, but as we all know, Nvidia has to make his raytracing cards lineup works, the earlier the better.

Same happened with the 980-ti owners and the 1080 , and it's closer to 10 months (11months for 2080-ti) after release come on, 6months sounds good for argument sake but those cards dates back to october 2018, we're in july 2019.

If i bought a RTX 2060-2070 is the last 3-4months, i would have been pissed. Especially that we had no idea that this new lineup wasn't leaving room for the old rtx cards at all. Aftermarket value gonna be disastrous for people wanting to sell their 'old' rtx cards now.

Overall i feel this was probably a precipited move from Nvidia to answer poor sales figure of rtx lineup and growing competition of AMD.

The naming of all those cards is really unsatisfying anyway. The serie XX60 of Nvidia should always be around 200$ entry level as the GTX560 8years ago. Entry level is long dead by now with serie XX60 starting at 400$

 

NVidia always does the same - they introduce new product at ridiculously high prices to skim the first buyers, then six months later they release the real product at still elevated prices. Then, IF there is something that competes to their profitability/market share ONLY then they release upgraded real product with normal pricing, aka expect the Ti Super some time before the Christmas shopping time. Because AMD doesn't need to make volume anymore - 1st they are design studio now, no manufacturing 2nd - they have volume in console chips - therefore AMD doesn't need to price compete with NVidia either.
At least the RX2060S finally got the proper match of 8GB and 256bit bus. I really hate the other usual NVidia tactics of castrating the memory bus on otherwise well balanced product.
NVidia does this marketing cycle since it exists for all ya teen aged gamers in the forum. Don't be surprised. That's the reason the NGreedia name came up some 15 years ago Btw it was the cheaper underdog to Ati, whose products started from $800 at the time.

 

Trying to sell RTX 2080 to try out AMD5700XT/RTX2070s but I only got one offer over the last 4 days and it was this lol.
Trade for A dodge charger

https://i.**********/y81fT8QZ/kijiji.png

 

Something isnt quite right.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-rtx-2060-and-2070-super-review,4.html
The 2070 super has 26% more transistors than the 2070FE yet only has 11% more shaders and RT cores and 28% more texture units.
The average transistor increase between them is around 15%.
Boost clocks are higher as well which should yield higher than 26% performance increase were those transistors put to good use.
Yet performance is only about 15% better.

Is there a typo or am I missing something?

 

Sure about that? https://videocardz.com/81043/confirmed-nvidia-to-introduce-geforce-rtx-20-super-series

There are a lot of sources that say there will be a 2080 Ti Super being released later this year.

 

That's different. It is to be expected that next-gen products will offer more performance for the same/lower price (AMD should take note...), especially when you know the architecture is so different. But here, these Super models are dipping into the same generation with the same architecture and they're muddying the product lineup. The sole reason for their existence is so they will be pitted against the upcoming AMD GPUs, either based on their supposed performance tier, or their price. Why else would they make the 2070S have a 5-10% performance loss for a 20% price decrease?
EDIT: You could also ask "why couldn't they just lower the price of their existing models?" but there's 2 answers to that: First, these Super models appear to be binned chips, and second, a lot of hardware reviewers do tests based on MSRP, not current market value. Nvidia can't confidently lower their prices and hope reviewers consider that price drop in their comparisons.
It reminds me of the 1070Ti or Intel's 7980XE: they were last-minute products that nobody was asking for and didn't fit a specific market need. They were only made purely as a way to 1-up AMD and say "no, I'm the one with the best product in this performance segment". The only difference is here with the 2060S and 2070S, they have good performance and a reasonable price.

I also found this weird, but it could just be driver improvements. I'm not sure if Hilbert re-tests all of his GPUs with the latest OS and driver updates.

 

The 2070S is using the same TU104 silicon as the 2080 not the TU106 that the original 2070 used. The TU104 in the 2070S has 1/6 of the texture units disabled but the cores are still physically there.

 

If they ever release a 2080 Ti S, it's gonna be a seriously short lived king card with Ampere expected early next year.
The reason i think we're not getting a 2080-ti S is that those cards already barely sell, and aren't facing any competition at 4K gaming. While Nvidia had to make a fast move for 2060 and 2070 because those are the supposedly the money maker cards and were under-selling.

 

Technology advances, those who don´t want to lose money, have to stop buying PC hardware. If instead of being refreshed cards, would price cuts be better? It will be the same in the end ... and price cuts on products with 9 months of market are very likely to happen.

I bought mine GTX 980Ti in July 2015 and 10 or 11 months later the GTX 1070 came out, with more performance and much cheaper. It´s progress, and no one should be against progress.

Who can not handle the fact that "tomorrow" might be something better and cheaper on the market, needs to stop buying PC hardware or any kind of tech!

 

I forgot to add, great review.
Love the number of titles covered and the very good overclocking coverage.

 

What are you implying? That I don't care for better technology? I do. But just like I don't want to pay 10K$ for an airplane ticket, I don't want to pay 500$ for a mainstream GPU. I am not alone, people vote with their wallets and they are not agreeing with you. nVidia sales are down, by almost 50% and are still falling. You want to pay for their R&D? Fine, you just go ahead. I won't. How is nVidia going to lower their prices, R&D costs, or make a better outlook for the long run? - I don't care, not my job. Not yours either (afaik) but you are not doing anyone a favor by supporting those greedy habits that companies started to embrace. Thankfully, there aren't that many rich enough people for them to rip off (sorry, they are ripping you off and you are feeling good about it, it's like Stockholm syndrome )...

 

This has been this way for every single generation. If you buy a card too close to the next generation, you'll feel "upset".

If they had labeled this the 3000 series, and was a refresh series, you wouldn't be comparing them as though you got screwed, you'd be saying how the 3000 series is not worth it, it's too close to performance, how pointless it is, etc.

AKA you'll apparently complain no matter what.

Some people bought a 980 ti a few months before the 1080 came out, should they feel screwed over too? No, again, this is how it's always been.

There's no way to release a product, without screwing yourself over (the company) by telling everyone "WAIT! don't buy my products i'll have a new generation in 2 months, and it'll be this price, and this performance!".

Nothing new has happened here to warrant these comments.

Then don't and move along and stop trying to make nonsensical ideas as consumers not caring how much it costs R&D and materials to make a product.

Again, deal with it, or live in LaLa land.

Sorry, but um....you do, have always done, and always will pay for "their" R&D. If the R&D does not get paid, they don't make money. If they don't make money, they don't continue to operate. If they don't continue to operate, you don't have new products.

So, tell me Mr. I don't pay for R&D, how many products have you purchased from companies that continue to exist today? Right, you've been paying for R&D this whole time. Stop this nonsense idea.

No company, least successful companies, go out and say "Hey lets spend all this R&D on products and not get any of it back! Lets operate in the negative! That's the way to do it!"

There's no logic in your statements.