# NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Super



## W1zzard (Jul 2, 2019)

The $400 GeForce RTX 2060 Super increases memory size from 6 GB to 8 GB and shader count to 2176, which almost lets it achieve performance parity with the RTX 2070 for a much better price. Especially the added memory will help maintain competitiveness against AMD's upcoming Navi offerings.

*Show full review*


----------



## Pumper (Jul 2, 2019)

So pretty much a $400 2070. Not a bad deal overall. Shame about the lacking 1080p performance gains, seeing as that will be the resolution most of its buyers will be gaming at.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 2, 2019)

Super rtx 2060 x rtx 2060, 18% more money for 13% more performance and 3% more power consumption.

Super rtx 2070 x rtx 2070, 3% more money for 11% more performance and 4% more power consumption.

The winner here hands down is the Super rtx 2070 but since the rtx 2060 has a 256 bit memory and got 13% more performance for just 3% more power. I call it a draw in performance / cost.


----------



## Raendor (Jul 2, 2019)

I disagree. The card is clearly poised towards 1440p mainstream gamer. For 1080p you don’t need even 1660TI as the regular 1660 will do great and for cheap.


----------



## Markosz (Jul 2, 2019)

14,3% more expensive for 11% more performance.

What a progress...


----------



## Metroid (Jul 2, 2019)

Markosz said:


> 14,3% more expensive for 11% more performance.
> 
> What a progress...



The super rtx 2060 would be the best choice if Nvidia had increased its price to $350 or left at $340, $400 was a bad move. Looking at the competition, the rx 5700 at $380 is supposed to be 10% faster than the rtx 2060, which would fall in line x super rtx 2060, the super rtx 2060 will in theory at moment be 3% faster than the rx 5700 and will cost 6% more money.

On the other side, the super rtx 2070 at $499 is supposed to be 10% faster than the rx 5700xt and cost 12% more money.

What I see here is, AMD x Nvidia has never been so close in price performance market segmentation like this in years. It will be your choice to decide what to get, both are pretty much equally priced and matched.


----------



## chinmi (Jul 2, 2019)

Dayum, looks like a small upgrades from 2060 there, but still it's faster then the original 2060. I can be wrong, but looks like this card can make the rx5700 doa. Unless amd reduced it's price to around the $200 sub range like $299


----------



## JalleR (Jul 2, 2019)

Well… if you play Anno 1800 @ 4K it is superior


----------



## Metroid (Jul 2, 2019)

JalleR said:


> Well… if you play Anno 1800 @ 4K it is superior
> View attachment 126038



That makes no sense, super 2070 is behind that. Clear something is wrong on that test, super rtx 2060 63 fps x super rtx 2070 38 fps.


----------



## scooze (Jul 2, 2019)

The original 2060 can already be found for 300-320 dollars, I think this is a much better deal than this super card, especially for 1080p.


----------



## Mistral (Jul 2, 2019)

Pricing is not in the "thumbs down" category at the end? An $400 midrange card...


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 2, 2019)

JalleR said:


> Well… if you play Anno 1800 @ 4K it is superior
> View attachment 126038


Typo in the results, should be fixed now


----------



## B-Real (Jul 2, 2019)

chinmi said:


> Dayum, looks like a small upgrades from 2060 there, but still it's faster then the original 2060. I can be wrong, but looks like this card can make the rx5700 doa. Unless amd reduced it's price to around the $200 sub range like $299


Why would it make the RX5700 doa when the RX5700 will perform the same for $20 less?



W1zzard said:


> Typo in the results, should be fixed now


Hasn't the Anno 1800 4k performance affected the performance summary in 4K?


----------



## Zubasa (Jul 2, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Super rtx 2060 x rtx 2060, 18% more money for 13% more performance and 3% more power consumption.
> 
> Super rtx 2070 x rtx 2070, 3% more money for 11% more performance and 4% more power consumption.
> 
> The winner here hands down is the Super rtx 2070 but since the rtx 2060 has a 256 bit memory and got 13% more performance for just 3% more power. I call it a draw in performance / cost.


One thing of note on the memory, these newer Micron GDDR6 chips seems to overclock much better than the original.


----------



## jeremyshaw (Jul 2, 2019)

You still noted Taiwan on page 4, when the chip is clearly marked Korea!

Oh, nevermind. I see you already have a separate article for that.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 2, 2019)

jeremyshaw said:


> You still noted Taiwan on page 4, when the chip is clearly marked Korea!
> 
> Oh, nevermind. I see you already have a separate article for that.


Fixed in the review text too



B-Real said:


> Hasn't the Anno 1800 4k performance affected the performance summary in 4K?


not sure, I remade all charts already


----------



## medi01 (Jul 2, 2019)

B-Real said:


> Why would it make the RX5700 doa when the RX5700 will perform the same for $20 less?


5700 should actually more than 12% faster than non-super 2060.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 2, 2019)

Sad to see the "Super's" also use more power


----------



## londiste (Jul 2, 2019)

AMD slide puts RX 5700 at 9.8% faster than RTX2060 in 10 games they provided results from (at 1440p):


Spoiler











Edit:
6 of these games are in the review here, so based on AMD slide the estimated FPS for RX5700 can be calculated and compared to RTX2060 Super:

```
RTX2060 RTX2060S   RX5700 vs2060 vs 2060S
AC: Odyssey             44,3     50,1     45,2     2%     -10%
Battlefield 5           85,4     96,4    103,3    21%       7%
Metro Exodus            63,8     73,3     74,0    16%       1%
Shadow of Tomb Raider   70,2     80,1     74,4     6%      -7%
Civilization 6          96,2    109,0    104,9     9%      -4%
Witcher 3               73,4     82,2     76,3     4%      -7%
```

On average out of these 6 games, the estimate is that RX5700 is 3% slower and 5% cheaper.
@W1zzard, how far off is that?


----------



## unikin (Jul 2, 2019)

Navi = DOA Expect prices of Navi to drop like a stone in just a few months. My estimation are RX 5700 = 300€ and RX 5700XT = 350€, Radeon VII = 450€ (or discontinued) by the end of the year. That's when I'd be interested in buying them over 2060 and 2070S. But it might just happen that AMD will not lower prices this time around and leave PC market to NVidia all together.

Lisa Su, now's the time to show some love to PC gamers. Otherwise I'll start believing  that you'd like to milk your remaining GPU fan base... PS: That's Ngreedia's job, not yours


----------



## Khilos (Jul 2, 2019)

Thank you for your reviews, testing, and analysis. I've appreciated the insights that such reporting gives buyers like me.

I had a question / request for possible GPU test suites. In TechPowerUp's processor reviews, a Machine Learning test is run using Tensorflow ( I believe I saw a Resnet model as the baseline used ) for a comparison of CPU performance. Considering that Tensorflow's primary hardware use is on GPUs, can this same test and additional Compute/scientific workloads be run in the GPU test suite? Gaming is obviously a use, but my primarily use for my GPU these days is in AI / compute tasks and having some testing in this area would be a much appreciated gift. Thank you again.

Reference section








						Intel Core i9-9900K Review
					

Today, Intel released their new flagship processor for the LGA 1151 platform. The Core i9-9900K finally comes with eight core and 16 threads, reaching parity with AMD's Ryzen offerings. Maximum Boost Clock has been increased as well, now to a staggering 5 GHz.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## illli (Jul 2, 2019)

Anyone remember the good ol' days?
GTX 660    $214
GTX 760    $259
GTX 960    $232
GTX 1060 $250



Mistral said:


> Pricing is not in the "thumbs down" category at the end? An $400 midrange card...



yeah every NV review from various sites seem to just give negreedia a pass for this these days. I wonder when people will start voting with their wallet? People complain about prices going up but still buy nv products anyway


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 2, 2019)

Khilos said:


> Thank you for your reviews, testing, and analysis. I've appreciated the insights that such reporting gives buyers like me.
> 
> I had a question / request for possible GPU test suites. In TechPowerUp's processor reviews, a Machine Learning test is run using Tensorflow ( I believe I saw a Reset model as the baseline used ) for a comparison of CPU performance. Considering that Tensorflow's primary hardware use is on GPUs, can this same test and additional Compute/scientific workloads be run in the GPU test suite? Gaming is obviously a use, but my primarily use for my GPU these days is in AI / compute tasks and having some testing in this area would be a much appreciated gift. Thank you again.
> 
> ...


This is definitely something on my list. What apps other than Tensorflow would you use / suggest?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 2, 2019)

illli said:


> Anyone remember the good ol' days?
> GTX 660    $214
> GTX 760    $259
> GTX 960    $232
> ...



Yeah I also remember how these cards barely made a jump in performance until we saw the 1060 - and only the 6GB at that.

660, 760 and 960 were pretty bad cards, and the 2060Super now joins that fantastic line up as another weak price/perf option. Its _just _not high end, and its _just_ a bit too expensive.

But its wrong to compare Turing line up by model name. And not just Turing either. We ARE entering the realm of diminishing returns by now, and 2060-70-80 are closer together than ever before.


----------



## chodaboy19 (Jul 2, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Super rtx 2060 x rtx 2060, 18% more money for 13% more performance and 3% more power consumption.
> 
> Super rtx 2070 x rtx 2070, 3% more money for 11% more performance and 4% more power consumption.
> 
> The winner here hands down is the Super rtx 2070 but since the rtx 2060 has a 256 bit memory and got 13% more performance for just 3% more power. I call it a draw in performance / cost.




The numbers are a bit off using the RTX legacy models as the base to compare vs. Super models:


RTX 2060 vs RTX 2060 SuperPerformance @ 1440p+13.6%Performance @ 4K+14.9%Video RAM+33.3%Power (avg. game)+12.2%Price (MSRP)+14.3%


RTX 2070 vs RTX 2070 SuperPerformance @ 1440p+13.6%Performance @ 4K+13.6%Video RAM0%Power (avg. game)+8.2%Price (MSRP)0%


----------



## xorbe (Jul 2, 2019)

illli said:


> Anyone remember the good ol' days?
> GTX 660    $214
> GTX 760    $259
> GTX 960    $232
> GTX 1060 $250



GTX 1660 $210 (pcpartpicker)
GTX 1660 Ti $265 (pcpartpicker)

*R*TX 2060 Super $400 <= not really in the GTX x60 family, just sayin' ...


----------



## Turmania (Jul 2, 2019)

We need same system specs to compare new AMD cards with these. We can't compare different configurations and make conclusions about it. In reality the games I play have been Intel/Nvdia favoured games but that issue is for me to look at. There is a lot of unknowns so far so best bet is to wait for each tech side to do their tests and compare when AMD launches their cards. Then we can talk about performance, Price and power consumption figures.


----------



## raptori (Jul 2, 2019)

Thank you for the review.

"Overclocking the RTX 2060 Super is a breeze, with a massive 29 percent GPU overclock (+200 MHz) without tinkering with the voltages, and an easy-peasy memory overclock to 16 Gbps. "

I think there is a typo : the massive 29% is for the memory OC , the GPU OC is +200MHz which = ~ 13%.


----------



## tajoh111 (Jul 2, 2019)

illli said:


> Anyone remember the good ol' days?
> GTX 660    $214
> GTX 760    $259
> GTX 960    $232
> ...



Lol how come there isn't a peep out of you about Radeon 5700xt or RX590 pricing?

As far as your excuse that AMD cards don't see well when they undercut, they sell incredibly well to the point where they were able to obtain nearly 50% marketshare going by the 4870 and 5870 successes. 

The problem is AMD does not undercut at launch and only take a reactionary measure when it is too late. That is they kill the marketing opportunity of reviews by launching at the same pricing as Nvidia cards which they tend to lose to in reviews at launch. 

The RX 570 is not selling well because the market has become too saturated from the length of the polaris/pascal generation. For most of it's life, the RX 570 has been massively overpriced because of mining which prevented it from being a gaming card which is why it does so badly in steam hardware survey. The RX 570 was priced $300+ during the mining crisis which turned cards like the GTX 1060 and even the 1070 the only options for many gamers. During this time, Nvidia was able to scale production mostly to meet demand and this allowed them to take AMD gaming marketshare on top of their own. This on top of selling some of the above cards to miners allowed them to create record profits which were normally not obtainable. Since the GTX 1050 ti series was not effected by the mining craze, unlike the GTX 1060, it's marketshare was allowed to flourish during the mining craze. On top of this, the GTX 1050 ti is amoung the most popular gaming GPU's in laptops because of its performance and power consumption, AMD had nothing comparable. Considering new laptops outsell desktops nowadays, this is a tremendous advantage. Similarly huge desktop system builders like Dell, lenovo and HP use 300-350watt power supplies, which due to this increases the likelihood to see a gtx 1050 ti in such a system(these companies don't get game bundles). 

By the time the RX 570 fell to the current steal pricing we see today, the market has moved on and people desiring this level of performance has purchased a GTX 1060/1070 or even a GTX 1050 ti. Basically there were no purchasers left because pascal/polaris has been on the market for 3+ years. This is why the card is not selling very well today even at todays pricing. Nvidia cards are equally effected by the consequences of the post mining boom and still sit on hundreds of millions of pascal inventory.


----------



## bug (Jul 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Yeah I also remember how these cards barely made a jump in performance until we saw the 1060 - and only the 6GB at that.
> 
> 660, 760 and 960 were pretty bad cards, and the 2060Super now joins that fantastic line up as another weak price/perf option. Its _just _not high end, and its _just_ a bit too expensive.
> 
> But its wrong to compare Turing line up by model name. And not just Turing either. We ARE entering the realm of diminishing returns by now, and 2060-70-80 are closer together than ever before.


True, I held on to my 660Ti until I switched to the 1060. The other mid rangers were too meh.
And while I can see why people love their mid range cards to remain in the same price segment (the 1660Ti is still $250), you have to account for inflation (Kepler was over 7 years ago). For those who remember, AAA games used to be $50 for years; not anymore.
So don't be surprised when prices go up a bit, but rather be thankful when they don't.


----------



## Dristun (Jul 2, 2019)

Inflation over last 7 years in the US is ~11% + costs of manufacturing everything (not just electronics) in China have also increased, wages there are steadily rising, etc.
Though it's slightly offset by a more favourable usd/yuan exchange rate.
But anyway - there you go, what cost 250$ in 2012 should now cost at least 280$, which, coincidentally, is the price of 1660ti (yknow, the card with a comparable die size to 560/560ti).


----------



## Totally (Jul 2, 2019)

This card is a bit lacklustre. They delivered with the 2070s but fell short quite a bit with this one. It's too close in pricing to a regular 2070 which dulls the appeal of the 2060s quite significantly.
For context the 2080 outperforms the 2070s by 7-10% and costs $200 dollars more were only $80 separates the 2060s and the 2070.


----------



## eltano06 (Jul 2, 2019)

i like how nvidia trolls every asshole who bought and non super rtx 2060/2070. (me included - 2060 user).


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 2, 2019)

Definitely, once you buy a card, the market isn't allowed to move forward until you wish it.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 3, 2019)

eltano06 said:


> i like how nvidia trolls every asshole who bought and non super rtx 2060/2070. (me included - 2060 user).



But... its standard operating procedure, and it was very clear Turing wasn't the optimal price/perf. Though your 2060 still is one of the highest bang/buck cards in the range.


----------



## John Naylor (Jul 3, 2019)

So ...

13.64% faster than 2060  FE outta the box @ 1440p, 12.44 % faster when both OC'd.
12.36% faster than Vega 64  outta the box @ 1440p,
96.15% as faster than reference 2060  outta the box @ 1440p

Can't talk about relative price as  yet as no 2060 FE's around these days; will have to wait will AIB versions arrive before any of this is really worth talking about.




raptori said:


> Thank you for the review.
> 
> "Overclocking the RTX 2060 Super is a breeze, with a massive 29 percent GPU overclock (+200 MHz) without tinkering with the voltages, and an easy-peasy memory overclock to 16 Gbps. "
> 
> I think there is a typo : the massive 29% is for the memory OC , the GPU OC is +200MHz which = ~ 13%.



Both core and memory Ocs are basically irrelevant since boost 3 ... what good is a 13 or 29 % OC when the fps increase is the only number that counts.   This is significant  that:  1)  fps rarely proportional to the memory of GPU increase and 2) the highest core / memory never gets the highest fps in TPU testing.  I'm guessing that the higher voltage needed to maintain those core and memory settings I imagine this is why undervolting has become a 'thng" of late.  You can confirm this by looking at the TPU OC pages, the blue and white table lists the comparative core and memory OCs, but the highest core and highest memory never get the highest fps.

As far as the performance and cost comparisons, faulty reasoning as a)  real costs aren't here yet, b)  5700's aren't here yet and have not been tested on same site on same box c) historically, at least since 2xx, AMD very aggressively clocks their card in the box and d) , we have not seen the AIB cards yet.  I think I will wait till all of these happen before drawing any firm conclusions.

As for the future-proofing, I agree, that's a perception that doesn't sync  very well w/ actual testing.


----------



## raptori (Jul 3, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> Both core and memory Ocs are basically irrelevant since boost 3 ... what good is a 13 or 29 % OC when the fps increase is the only number that counts.   This is significant  that:  1)  fps rarely proportional to the memory of GPU increase and 2) the highest core / memory never gets the highest fps in TPU testing.  I'm guessing that the higher voltage needed to maintain those core and memory settings I imagine this is why undervolting has become a 'thng" of late.  You can confirm this by looking at the TPU OC pages, the blue and white table lists the comparative core and memory OCs, but the highest core and highest memory never get the highest fps.
> 
> As far as the performance and cost comparisons, faulty reasoning as a)  real costs aren't here yet, b)  5700's aren't here yet and have not been tested on same site on same box c) historically, at least since 2xx, AMD very aggressively clocks their card in the box and d) , we have not seen the AIB cards yet.  I think I will wait till all of these happen before drawing any firm conclusions.
> 
> As for the future-proofing, I agree, that's a perception that doesn't sync  very well w/ actual testing.



Are you lost or something ?!! I was talking simply about a typo in the review , in the OC test page the 29% OC value was for the memory and on the conclusion page I think W1zzard mentioned that by mistake as a GPU OC value.


----------



## Zareek (Jul 3, 2019)

Ngreedia strikes again!!!


----------



## jmcosta (Jul 3, 2019)

It seems that Nvidia and AMD are gonna try to price fixing once again, which is a shame but thats how these corporations work. hopefully Intel will put a stop to it with the upcoming GPU


----------



## laszlo (Jul 3, 2019)

both launched super version seems good question is who will buy them once they'll be forced to cut prices of previous generation 

those who own 1080ti  can still wait at least 2 years from now to upgrade...


----------



## gridracedriver (Jul 3, 2019)

Good job for having updated the data of the old cards, in fact on famous sites like anandtech it has not been done and this shows the 2060S higher than 2070 which is technically impossible to do.
But as I said the other day there are some really badly optimized games on amd that kill the overall average of everything, from perf / watt to perf / cost to the summary performances, and it's a shame.


----------



## londiste (Jul 3, 2019)

gridracedriver said:


> Good job for having updated the data of the old cards, in fact on famous sites like anandtech it has not been done and this shows the 2060S higher than 2070 which is technically impossible to do.


Why would it be technically impossible? 2070 and 2060S are close enough and due to higher frequencies 2060S actually minimally exceeds 2070 in some aspects like anything ROPs are doing.


----------



## gridracedriver (Jul 3, 2019)

londiste said:


> Why would it be technically impossible? 2070 and 2060S are close enough and due to higher frequencies 2060S actually minimally exceeds 2070 in some aspects like anything ROPs are doing.


The clocks are practically the same, 2060S is a 2070 cut, it has the same characteristics except precisely 128cc.

Average clock 2070 = 1860mhz





2060S is 1840mhz




, so tell me how it can go the same or even stronger as seen in anandtech or guru3d?

In fact, here on TPU and on HU italia it does not happen, it is 5% below as it is obvious.

but then you never realized that in the first 100 seconds it clocked at 1900mhz and then gradually went towards the 1800mhz? is it from pascal that they do so, specifically for reviews and doing a few more fps in the benches?




eheh, in nvidia are smart, not like amd ...


----------



## londiste (Jul 3, 2019)

Different reviews, different circumstances?

Guru3D doesn't seem to show the clock speeds but Anandtech sees Super cards running at noticeably higher clocks:








						The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Super & RTX 2060 Super Review: Smaller Numbers, Bigger Performance
					






					www.anandtech.com


----------



## bug (Jul 3, 2019)

Fluffmeister said:


> Definitely, once you buy a card, the market isn't allowed to move forward until you wish it.


Yeah, the world will probably end if you bought a card and bam! a year later something faster was released.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 3, 2019)

gridracedriver said:


> is it from pascal that they do so


Yes, this was introduced with Pascal, I don't think it was changed for Turing.



gridracedriver said:


> specifically for reviews and doing a few more fps in the benches?


While I think this positive outcome for reviews is just a side-effect, it will affect many reviewers indeed, because they will start the benchmarks with a cool card, run a short test, and immediately record results. for my reviews i always include a warm up period in every test.

AMD does the same clocking, too, but to a lesser degree: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-vii/34.html

Navi data for this will be interesting


----------



## gridracedriver (Jul 3, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Yes, this was introduced with Pascal, I don't think it was changed for Turing.
> 
> 
> While I think this positive outcome for reviews is just a side-effect, it will affect many reviewers indeed, because they will start the benchmarks with a cool card, run a short test, and immediately record results. for my reviews i always include a warm up period in every test.
> ...


No, the working between amd and nvidia is not the same, those 20 mhz with the VII is the normal oscillation of the clock based on the management of the load and the turbo, the only card that had a similar operation made by amd is the Fury R9 Nano, where he had a maximum clock of 1000mhz to stay within 175watts, in fact the clocks were often lower during normal use, around 940mhz of average.
R9 Nano average clock:





I am pleased that you are using a "warm up" quote, this should be enough to make the bench real.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 3, 2019)

gridracedriver said:


> No, the working between amd and nvidia is not the same, those 20 mhz with the VII is the normal oscillation of the clock based on the management of the load and the turbo, the only card that had a similar operation made by amd is the Fury R9 Nano


Yeah, you are right. My mistake



gridracedriver said:


> R9 Nano average clock:


In case anyone wonders why they are so smeared out. It's because AMD reports averages over a short duration, whereas NVIDIA reports non-averaged values.


----------



## c12038 (Jul 3, 2019)

How many of you guys have shelled out a lot of money for the Series 10 range and RTX range now Nvidia have stuck this under your noses and said look newer cards come buy …..Erm NO why should I buy well you see what they don't tell you is they would prefer you to buy a new card once every year when new technology comes out Marketing tactics....

RTX range when first released was £1000 just shy of in the UK 
10 Series top of the range still going strong £1,200 Just Shy of in the UK

and same goes for AMD they are just as guilty

Your paying now for what was called the Bitcoin gold rush 


Start showing these companies your not going to stand being ripped off by using you spending power DON@T buy in to the biggest con yet......


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 3, 2019)

So basically a rebranded 2080.


----------



## Pumper (Jul 3, 2019)

Zareek said:


> Ngreedia strikes again!!!



Right, I bet it has nothing to do with AMD releasing Navi at nvidia pricing.


----------



## bug (Jul 3, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> So basically a rebranded 2080.


A slightly cut down 2070 actually, but I see nothing kookoo about it. Cheaper than a 2070, too.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 3, 2019)

bug said:


> A slightly cut down 2070 actually, but I see nothing kookoo about it. Cheaper than a 2070, too.


It's a TU104, which is the chip used in the 2080, not a TU106 like the 2070. It's hard to not call it rebrand because that's exactly what it is.


----------



## bug (Jul 3, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> It's a TU104, which is the chip used in the 2080, not a TU106 like the 2070. It's hard to not call it rebrand because that's exactly what it is.


No it isn't. The 2060 Super is TU106.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 3, 2019)

bug said:


> No it isn't. The 2060 Super is TU106.


My bad, I thought I clicked the thread for the 2070 SUPER. Whoops. Either way, I think this entire release is a whole load of crap. When push comes to shove, they're all rebrands in one way or another.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 3, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> My bad, I thought I clicked the thread for the 2070 SUPER. Whoops. Either way, I think this entire release is a whole load of crap. When push comes to shove, they're all rebrands in one way or another.


You'd prefer companies sit on their laurels between gens and not incrementally tweak their lineup to compete better in the market? I'm surprised!

Nobody made a claim these are anything but rebrands/tweaked cards. They keep the same name and add a suffix for clarity. The changes on these cards are more significant than say rx 480 to 580 to 590...and those are completely different names (at least the first two are literally clockspeed only changes - iirc)!!!!! Be pissed at AMD not nvidia... this is at least clear it's the same generation under the hood!


----------



## bug (Jul 3, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> My bad, I thought I clicked the thread for the 2070 SUPER. Whoops. Either way, I think this entire release is a whole load of crap. When push comes to shove, they're all rebrands in one way or another.


I had a feeling you were talking about the 2070 Super 
As for "load of crap", would you prefer Nvidia continued selling the old 2060, 2070 and 2080?
I mean, I'm not blown away by the new cards, but I won't complain about more bang for my buck. Even if it's 15% or less.
And look at the bigger picture: the only competition is Navi which will offer roughly the same perf/$ ratio, but will still lose on power draw despite the node advantage. This gives Nvidia the option to sit pretty while 7nm fab capacity is at a premium and only jump on the bandwagon next year. They'd be crazy not to take it.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> You'd prefer companies sit on their laurels between gens and not incrementally tweak their lineup to compete better in the market? I'm surprised!


I'd prefer them to adjust their prices and to not spend the resources developing a new lineup using the same technology.


bug said:


> would you prefer Nvidia continued selling the old 2060, 2070 and 2080?


Until there is a substantial change to be made, yes. That's exactly what I would expect.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 3, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> I'd prefer them to adjust their prices and to not spend the resources developing a new lineup using the same technology.


That's another option, sure. But they have offered something better to the people for less for that resource investment.

But let's be clear, this is not a rebrand. Yes, it's the same gen, but it's a different core for the same card, not just increased clocks... which most would consider a true rebrand. I dont e en think the sensationalist press even uttered the word rebrand once the cards were in hand because of the significant differences. I can jump on your bandwagon if the name implies something different but it's pretty clear it's an improvement on the same gen. 

Take this torch and pitch fork to camp amd for now.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> But let's be clear, this is not a rebrand. Yes, it's the same gen, but it's a different core for the same card, not just increased clocks... which most would consider a true rebrand.


They shifted the lineup essentially by one card, but I've yet to see anything in these cards that weren't already done with the last lineup. The 2060 SUPER is basically a 2070 and the 2070 SUPER is practically a 2080. I'm not seeing anything new here which is why I call it a rebrand. AFAICT, nothing is really all that new about these cards other than the fact that it used to be on a higher model card.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 3, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> They shifted the lineup essentially by one card, but I've yet to see anything in these cards that weren't already done with the last lineup. The 2060 SUPER is basically a 2070 and the 2070 SUPER is practically a 2080. I'm not seeing anything new here which is why I call it a rebrand. AFAICT, nothing is really all that new about these cards other than the fact that it used to be on a higher model card.


By a half card. There is still a few/several percent difference to the next tier up.

(See edits in earlier post)

Yes, it's a GPU from the tier up...we get that. It isnt new....nobosy said as much. But the point I'm trying to make is that the branding is clear it's the same gen and incremental. A rebrand implies the same hardware but with a different name. As you said, the 2060 has a 2070 core (different clock, note), 2070 has a 2080 core (different clocks, note), etc. It isnt the same thing.

Your head must have popped off with AMDs recent spate of true rebrands if this is "crap".


----------



## bug (Jul 3, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> They shifted the lineup essentially by one card, but I've yet to see anything in these cards that weren't already done with the last lineup. The 2060 SUPER is basically a 2070 and the 2070 SUPER is practically a 2080. I'm not seeing anything new here which is why I call it a rebrand. AFAICT, nothing is really all that new about these cards other than the fact that it used to be on a higher model card.


If you want to argue semantics, rebranding means taking an existing product and putting a different nametag or logo on it. While the new GPUs are in the same, existing family, they are all new configurations so technically they're not rebrands.
As for your wish about Nvidia essentially competing with themselves, it only shows you should not be entrusted with running a business


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Your head must have popped off with AMDs recent spate of true rebrands.


I've never been happy with AMD doing it either and it hasn't been that long since the 2000-series was released. The 2000-series isn't even a year old and we're talking about cards at 400 USD or higher.


bug said:


> If you want to argue semantics, rebranding means taking an existing product and putting a different nametag or logo on it. While the new GPUs are in the same, existing family, they are all new configurations so technically they're not rebrands.


Technically the 590 isn't a rebrand either, but it might as well be.


bug said:


> As for your wish about Nvidia essentially competing with themselves, it only shows you should not be entrusted with running a business


AMD is about to release some Navi cards. This is nVidia being like "look at us, we have something too," except it's not new. It's different, sure, but it's not new. This is intended to be a direct counter to AMD comparing their upcoming cards to the 2060 and 2070 and I'm not convinced that it's going to have the kind of impact they expect it to have and investors seem to share that sentiment.


----------



## bug (Jul 3, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> AMD is about to release some Navi cards. This is nVidia being like "look at us, we have something too," except it's not new. It's different, sure, but it's not new. This is intended to be a direct counter to AMD comparing their upcoming cards to the 2060 and 2070 and I'm not convinced that it's going to have the kind of impact they expect it to have.


That's one way to look at it. Another one is, this is Nvidia looking at Navi and not really bothering. But we still get faster cards.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 3, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> The 2000-series isn't even a year old and we're talking about cards at 400 USD or higher.


and the price of rice in China is..... ?

Sorry, I have no idea the relevance here...I'll get some coffee.



Aquinus said:


> AMD is about to release some Navi cards. This is nVidia being like "look at us, we have something too," except it's not new. It's different, sure, but it's not new. This is intended to be a direct counter to AMD comparing their upcoming cards to the 2060 and 2070 and I'm not convinced that it's going to have the kind of impact they expect it to have.


It is stealing some thunder from 5700xt, sure. Gamesmanship. But it wasn't at the detriment of the consumer. It has improved the situation (not that it is good, the pricing, but better). 5700xt is low single digit percent better than a FE 2070 according to AMD's own slide (so cherry picked results in some cases). Nvidia just made sure it beats it AND lowered the price AND made the naming convention clear!!!! It's not all roses due to how RTX was priced initially, but it's an improvement (and NOT a true rebrand).

Honestly, how anyone with a half clue (which you Aquinas have a whole clue, sir) thinks this is not good blows my mind. I dont follow the logic.


----------



## Frick (Jul 3, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Yeah I also remember how these cards barely made a jump in performance until we saw the 1060 - and only the 6GB at that.
> 
> 660, 760 and 960 were pretty bad cards, and the 2060Super now joins that fantastic line up as another weak price/perf option. Its _just _not high end, and its _just_ a bit too expensive.
> 
> But its wrong to compare Turing line up by model name. And not just Turing either. We ARE entering the realm of diminishing returns by now, and 2060-70-80 are closer together than ever before.



The GTx760 is still going strong for me, but otoh I didn't pay anything for it so...


As for me I'm still waiting for the €100 cards to have 4GB VRAM and be a good upgrade from the 760. The first one doing that gets my moneys.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Nvidia just made sure it beats it AND lowered the price AND made the naming convention clear!!!!


I definitely didn't make the naming convention clear, it overloaded the use of existing model numbers. If anything it was to confuse people and to allow marketing to use some well crafted words.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 3, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> I definitely didn't make the naming convention clear, it overloaded the use of existing model numbers. If anything it was to confuse people and to allow marketing to use some well crafted words.


its more clear than AMD's true rebrands which infer a generational update.

I can see how rtx 2070 and rtx 2070 super priced less can be confused as the same exact card (sarcasm in case it was lost).

Anyway, I get your point, dont agree with its bunked assertions and they are "crap". At least admit it's a polished turd if you are going to label it crap. Lol

Cheers.


----------



## bug (Jul 3, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> I definitely didn't make the naming convention clear, it overloaded the use of existing model numbers. If anything it was to confuse people and to allow marketing to use some well crafted words.


Confuse people into what? The existing models are EOL.


----------



## Zareek (Jul 3, 2019)

Pumper said:


> Right, I bet it has nothing to do with AMD releasing Navi at nvidia pricing.


Disappointing, I doubt the prices will stand for long unless there is no margin to cut like the Vega series.


----------



## Renald (Jul 3, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Super rtx 2060 x rtx 2060, 18% more money for 13% more performance and 3% more power consumption.
> 
> Super rtx 2070 x rtx 2070, 3% more money for 11% more performance and 4% more power consumption.
> 
> The winner here hands down is the Super rtx 2070 but since the rtx 2060 has a 256 bit memory and got 13% more performance for just 3% more power. I call it a draw in performance / cost.


Well, you need to take the base in the equation 

3% more of 2070 is 20$ : Total 400$
18% more of 2060 is 50$ : Total 500$

And RTX 2070 SUPER x RTX 2060 SUPER : +25% in price for +17% perf
where RTX 2070 x RTX 2060 : +40% in price for +18% perf

So it's a good improvement mostly for 2060 because it's closing the gap between 2060 vs 2070 (2070 was priced way too high)

And the last of all to prove it :
RTX 2060 SUPER x RTX 2070 : +20%  in price for +4% in perf ==> As stated in the review, the RTX 2070 has no purpose anymore because it was overpriced.

Both gained, but 2060 gained a lot more, you can see it with perf/dollar chart on RTX 2070 Review.
I'm going to wait for reviews on 5700 to see what I'm buying


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jul 4, 2019)

If you pry the '2060 _Super' _badge off the front of the card, I bet the original 2060 logo is still there, hiding underneath.

I love it when AMD scare Nvidia or Intel into rushing out a hastily-relabelled product!


----------



## Frutika007 (Sep 16, 2019)

Markosz said:


> 14,3% more expensive for 11% more performance.
> 
> What a progress...



You didn't count the VRAM increase,RT core increase,Tensor core increase. These didn't got the inclusion in that 11% more performance. Overall the price is very justifiable,since the AMD's offering costs about 20$ less and doesn't have any ray tracing or AI hardware.


----------



## Vayra86 (Sep 16, 2019)

Frutika007 said:


> You didn't count the VRAM increase,RT core increase,Tensor core increase. These didn't got the inclusion in that 11% more performance. Overall the price is very justifiable,since the AMD's offering costs about 20$ less and doesn't have any ray tracing or AI hardware.



And you forgot the factor of time. Its Q3 2019 now. We've had this performance for over 3 years and RT/Tensor is mostly dead weight. VRAM is irrelevant, because that is already reflected in overall performance and all cards have enough anyway.

All things considered the 2060 (non S) was long overdue at that price point and the 2060 Super is comparatively a very bad deal.

The 2070 Super however, is doing for the 1080ti what the 2060 (non S) did for the 1080. Bring price down considerably - albeit with a small performance deficit.


----------

