# MSI GeForce RTX 2070 Gaming Z 8 GB



## W1zzard (Nov 1, 2018)

The MSI GeForce RTX 2070 Gaming Z comes at NVIDIA Founders Edition pricing of $600, yet beats that card in every regard. The cooler is whisper-quiet during even heavy gaming sessions, and when not loaded, the fans turn off completely because of the idle-fan-stop feature. 

*Show full review*


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Nov 1, 2018)

$600...for the runt of the litter.

Yeah, No thanks.

Go home Nvidia/MSI, you're drunk, these things aren't worth a bean over $400.


----------



## Noztra (Nov 1, 2018)

What is the point of the rewards under "Value & Conclusion" when 85% of reviewed products gets an award?


----------



## HaKN ! (Nov 1, 2018)

Noztra said:


> What is the point of the rewards under "Value & Conclusion" when 85% of reviewed products gets an award?



You mean 99,9%


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 1, 2018)

Oh joy, new graphics card review 

Minuscule 2015MHz, now I have to doubt your OC methods. Surely the card is not that bad to OC? Not really representative when "Binned" A chip loses to non-A chip. But yeah I reckon you use the same method for every card, so in that pov it's a fair comparison. Btw. have you tried that Precision X1 and auto OC scanner?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Nov 1, 2018)

The Quim Reaper said:


> $600...for the runt of the litter.
> 
> Yeah, No thanks.
> 
> Go home Nvidia/MSI, you're drunk, these things aren't worth a bean over $400.



Sounds great, but then everything slower needs to be well under $400 too.


----------



## Turmania (Nov 1, 2018)

Gtx 1070 is around 400. Rtx 2070 base starts at 500.a little die shrink around 20% performance increase with around 30% power increase along with cards now taking up 3 slots... have nvdia really gone forwards within 2 years of Gtx 1070 launch or backwards....


----------



## ppn (Nov 1, 2018)

Had it been 10nm as by initial design, this would be different. +500Mhz, 120 watt TDP and 2060 price tag whatever that may be nowadays, 400$.... not a 20% increase, unless you mean CUDA core. Delivers 42% on average, or upto 69% in WF2 thanks to memory bandwidth +75% and async.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 1, 2018)

A pre-owned 1080ti sells for less than the current UK RRP of the RTX  2070 on ebay here in the UK.


This card should honestly be cheaper maybe £400 or just over that at a stretch.


----------



## droopyRO (Nov 1, 2018)

> around 30% power increase


You want, near 1080Ti performance with a 2060 that costs 300 $ and has a 120W TDP ? Good luck finding that in the near future.
Stick to 1080p and a RX580/GTX1060 if your budget is tight, otherwise you have to pay a premium for anything higher than that like 1440, 144Hz, 4K, Ultra details etc.


----------



## bug (Nov 1, 2018)

This is essentially playing with TDP to allow for higher boost clock. I'm glad it got the thumbs down it deserves, that alone is not worth the $100 price hike.

Also, I'm only noticing now, but holy cow, what's with the multi-monitor power draw? I thought we've fixed this problem years ago.


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 1, 2018)

bug said:


> This is essentially playing with TDP to allow for higher boost clock. I'm glad it got the thumbs down it deserves, that alone is not worth the $100 price hike.
> 
> Also, I'm only noticing now, but holy cow, what's with the multi-monitor power draw? I thought we've fixed this problem years ago.



Wonder if undervolting and messing with voltage curve will work with it. Ain't that were the thing with pascal OC too.

And yeah Turings multi-monitor power consumption is mystery. Somehow I don't think the reason is tmds on turing, maybe gddr6 or imc needs higher clocks than were needed with gddr5/5x.


----------



## Turmania (Nov 1, 2018)

I guess I was naive when my expactation of new rtx 2070.was around gTX 1060 power usage and gtx 1080ti performance levels before launch of rtx series and waiting for 2 years....


----------



## bug (Nov 1, 2018)

Turmania said:


> I guess I was naive when my expactation of new rtx 2070.was around gTX 1060 power usage and gtx 1080ti performance levels before launch of rtx series and waiting for 2 years....


You were naive indeed. Never has a new video card matched the performance of an old video card 2 tiers above it while also matching the power draw of an old card one tier below it.


----------



## xkm1948 (Nov 1, 2018)

I want a GPU that costs $100 with equal or higher than 1080Ti performance and quiet as night breeze with <100Watt power draw please!

Oh and it better be able to overclock twice its original stock clock.



Spoiler



And still gonna bitch about evil NVIDIA, cause they are EVIL!


----------



## bug (Nov 1, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> I want a GPU that costs $100 with equal or higher than 1080Ti performance and quiet as night breeze with <100Watt power draw please!
> 
> Oh and it better be able to overclock twice its original stock clock.
> 
> ...


The guy is probably just new to video cards, let's not scare him away


----------



## trog100 (Nov 1, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> I want a GPU that costs $100 with equal or higher than 1080Ti performance and quiet as night breeze with <100Watt power draw please!
> 
> Oh and it better be able to overclock twice its original stock clock.
> 
> ...



your sarcasm is justified.. 

trog


----------



## Fluffmeister (Nov 1, 2018)

Yeah power consumption straddling the mighty RX 580 whilst offering 85 to 100% more performance. Let's see what the 590 does after two years.


----------



## Turmania (Nov 1, 2018)

Perhaps you should look at reviews from gtx 1070 when first launched not venture far away, right here in techpowerup. You will see gtx 1070 less power then gtx 980 but higher performance then gtx 980ti.


----------



## bug (Nov 1, 2018)

Turmania said:


> Perhaps you should look at reviews from gtx 1070 when first launched not venture far away, right here in techpowerup. You will see gtx 1070 less power then gtx 980 but higher performance then gtx 980ti.


You were asking for performance of the 980Ti and the power draw of the 960 though.


----------



## Turmania (Nov 1, 2018)

bug said:


> You were asking for performance of the 980Ti and the power draw of the 960 though.



Yes, compared to 960, 1070 was consuming more power but still less then 970, and performance wise better way better then 980ti. I never said below I said around, key word being here is around, and more importantly less then. we can have this conversation going for days. important point is that 1070, was better performing to not only 980 but as well 980 ti. which you claim was not possible. at the end of the day, I was expecting the new RTX to consume less power then their previous generation and better performance with one tier above from previous generation. Perhaps Nvidia was so smooth and efficient they spoilt us past couple of years with their launches...


----------



## bug (Nov 1, 2018)

Turmania said:


> Yes, compared to 960, 1070 was consuming more power but still less then 970, and performance wise better way better then 980ti.* I never said below I said around,* key word being here is around, *and more importantly less then.*


Dafuq?


Turmania said:


> we can have this conversation going for days. important point is that 1070, was better performing to not only 980 but as well 980 ti. which you claim was not possible. at the end of the day, I was expecting the new RTX to consume less power then their previous generation and better performance with one tier above from previous generation. Perhaps Nvidia was so smooth and efficient they spoilt us past couple of years with their launches...



You were expecting a card having 33% more transistors and manufactured using virtually the same fabrication node (12nm is not that different) to draw less power? Really?


----------



## dj-electric (Nov 1, 2018)

Screw the 499$ EVGA Black RTX 2070. This card is totally worth the extra 100$ over it.

/s


----------



## Turmania (Nov 1, 2018)

yes i was expecting lesser power draw then the previous generation and more performance from a tier above from last generation. this is what Nvdia has been doing prior to RTX for the last half decade and been pretty good at it. perhaps we are spoilt. but after 2 years of preparing and die shrink I would have expected more, the world did. perhaps you have not. your choice.


----------



## bug (Nov 1, 2018)

Turmania said:


> yes i was expecting lesser power draw then the previous generation and more performance from a tier above from last generation. this is what Nvdia has been doing prior to RTX for the last half decade and been pretty good at it. perhaps we are spoilt. but after 2 years of preparing and die shrink I would have expected more, the world did. perhaps you have not. your choice.


Fair enough.


----------



## xkm1948 (Nov 1, 2018)

Turmania said:


> yes i was expecting lesser power draw then the previous generation and more performance from a tier above from last generation. this is what Nvdia has been doing prior to RTX for the last half decade and been pretty good at it. perhaps we are spoilt. but after 2 years of preparing and die shrink I would have expected more, the world did. perhaps you have not. your choice.




Lots if people seems to have completely forgotten the fact that GPU was stuck on 28nm for a long time prior to the huge efficiency jump from Maxwell to Pascal. 28nm to 16nm was significant. 16nm to 12nm is NOT significant. That is why you probably won’t see another big leap if efficiency any time soon.


Also this applies to Nvidia. RTG GPU somehow didn’t benefit too much from the 28nm—->14nm jump.


----------



## Turmania (Nov 1, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Lots if people seems to have completely forgotten the fact that GPU was stuck on 28nm for a long time prior to the huge efficiency jump from Maxwell to Pascal. 28nm to 16nm was significant. 16nm to 12nm is NOT significant. That is why you probably won’t see another big leap if efficiency any time soon.
> 
> 
> Also this applies to Nvidia. RTG GPU somehow didn’t benefit too much from the 28nm—->14nm jump.





xkm1948 said:


> Lots if people seems to have completely forgotten the fact that GPU was stuck on 28nm for a long time prior to the huge efficiency jump from Maxwell to Pascal. 28nm to 16nm was significant. 16nm to 12nm is NOT significant. That is why you probably won’t see another big leap if efficiency any time soon.
> 
> 
> Also this applies to Nvidia. RTG GPU somehow didn’t benefit too much from the 28nm—->14nm jump.



yes you are right there was a big die shrink and probably did contribute the most. but this does not explaing the current generation performance gain in relation to power draw increase. power draw is more, then gain and considering a small die shrink and 2 years of improving the card itself, one would have expected at least performance gain even at same power consumption. now these are maybe small matters who dont give a beep about 50 -60 watts but for small form factors like me, it is our worst nightmare...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 1, 2018)

Turmania said:


> but higher performance then gtx 980ti.


That was an abnormality.  Nearly always it takes a next gen xx80 to beat a xx80Ti from the previous gen.  The 1070 was a very good card, but not representative of the general trend.


----------



## ppn (Nov 1, 2018)

Just wait and see 3070 faster than 1080Ti. At 1/2 power 7/8nm.


----------



## unikin (Nov 1, 2018)

GTX 1070 was *faster* than GTX 980TI for *42 % lower price* ($379 Vs $649 MSRP).
RTX 2070 is *slower* than GTX 1080TI for *14 % less money* ($599 Vs $699 FE MSRP)

Nuff said, consumer should know when he or she is being robbed by greedy monopolistic corporation. I'll keep my old GTX 1070 and wait for better value from 7 nm Navi 10 next year. Probably similar performance for 400 $ price tag and lower power consumption. I don't like being ripped off, so no more Green for me till they stop with consumer milking act. As for reviewers, shame on them. Nothing from RTX line should get more than 2 out of 5 stars until Nvidia start charging less.


----------



## Valent117 (Nov 1, 2018)

so now we have 95% of 1080Ti with rtx for 600$? seems fine to me


----------



## unikin (Nov 1, 2018)

Valent117 said:


> so now we have 95% of 1080Ti with rtx for 600$? seems fine to me



I can't help you If paying the same price for the same performance after 2 years of waiting is OK with you. This happens when there is no market competition. We would pay the same for more or less for the same performance in normal market conditions.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Nov 1, 2018)

Valent117 said:


> so now we have 95% of 1080Ti with rtx for 600$? seems fine to me



$499 even , no need to pay more than that for a 2070:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...4932091&cm_re=rtx_2070-_-14-932-091-_-Product


----------



## trog100 (Nov 1, 2018)

high end gaming has suddenly got more expensive.. we are looking at $2000 for the latest top end gpu and cpu..

i dont see much sense in waiting for the next generation ether its gonna cost just as much or maybe more..

luckily top end isnt needed no one has to buy it.. 

trog


----------



## unikin (Nov 1, 2018)

trog100 said:


> high end gaming has suddenly got more expensive.. we are looking at $2000 for the latest top end gpu and cpu..
> 
> i dont see much sense in waiting for the next generation ether its gonna cost just as much or maybe more..
> 
> ...



That's what monopolies do. Incremental or no innovation for the same or higher price. The same story with pre Ryzen era Intel. I hope AMDs Navi 10 reaches RTX 2070 performance level for 350-400 $ (quite achievable price wise with cheaper 7nm dies and DDR6 instead of expensive HBM2 graphics memory). That's when we'll see Nvidia's mid performance GPUs price drops. As it is RTX 2070 is mid range card demanding high end price.


----------



## droopyRO (Nov 1, 2018)

Hope ? "hope is the first step to disappointment"
Bought a Freesync monitor back in 2016, i waited for the RX 480 to be as good as GTX1070 in DirectX12, even almost 3 years later it dose not come even close to it in DX11 or DX12.
I lost hope a long time ago.


----------



## unikin (Nov 1, 2018)

droopyRO said:


> Hope ? "hope is the first step to disappointment"
> I waited for the RX 480 to be as good as GTX1070, even 3 years later it dose not come even close to it.



RX 480 was never meant to compete with 1070 but was very good card for the money, trading blows with 1060. Navi 10 will target 2070/1080 performance from lower price point. It will probably just be Vega 56/64 on 7 nm die with DDR6 and 300-500 Mhz higher frequency. Navi 20 will be their high end, probably on pair with 2080 surpassing 1080TI but staying behind 2080TI. Nvidia will have 7nm die by then so no expectation AMD can compete with highest end Green team offer. They lagging two steps behind and Nvidia will try to keep them there.


----------



## bug (Nov 1, 2018)

unikin said:


> That's what monopolies do. Incremental or no innovation for the same or higher price. The same story with pre Ryzen era Intel. I hope AMDs Navi 10 reaches RTX 2070 performance level for 350-400 $ (quite achievable price wise with cheaper 7nm dies and DDR6 instead of expensive HBM2 graphics memory). That's when we'll see Nvidia's mid performance GPUs price drops. As it is RTX 2070 is mid range card demanding high end price.


You're probably too young to remember Sergey Bubka and how he set new world records 1cm at a time.

Consumers' sense of entitlement make them feel like top companies are robbing them when they have no real competition. Yet if you take a step back at look at the bigger picture, you see what they're doing is just good business. Sure, the consumer isn't the first to gain when this happens and that's why healthy economies encourage competition. But competition is not a given and you cannot mandate it.


----------



## ppn (Nov 1, 2018)

Looking at the last remaining 1080Ti at newegg $759, and thinking the 2070 is 499, kind of ok. Nvidia can't possibly plan 7nm shrink before march 2020.


----------



## unikin (Nov 1, 2018)

bug said:


> You're probably too young to remember Sergey Bubka and how he set new world records 1cm at a time.
> 
> Consumers' sense of entitlement make them feel like top companies are robbing them when they have no real competition. Yet if you take a step back at look at the bigger picture, you see what they're doing is just good business. Sure, the consumers isn't the first to gain when this happens and that's why healthy economies encourage competition. But competition is not a given and you cannot mandate it.



Market monopolies/ duopolies/oligopolies are never good nor for business nor for R&D. There is solution for that, it's called mandatory splitting up of a company by antitrust legislation. Monopolies should be crushed like Standard Oil, International Harvester and American Tobacco were back in 1850s.


----------



## bug (Nov 1, 2018)

unikin said:


> Market monopolies/ duopolies/oligopolies are never good nor for business nor for R&D. There is solution for that, it's called mandatory splitting up of a company by antitrust legislation. Monopolies should be crushed like Standard Oil, International Harvester and American Tobacco were back in 1850s.


While true, that is a blanket statement that doesn't apply here and you know it.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 1, 2018)

unikin said:


> Market monopolies/ duopolies/oligopolies are never good nor for business nor for R&D. There is solution for that, it's called mandatory splitting up of a company by antitrust legislation. Monopolies should be crushed like Standard Oil, International Harvester and American Tobacco were back in 1850s.



Which would accomplish nothing .... all they would do is split it up into Gaming Cards / Professional cards / AI subsidiaries.

There's few  entities you can blame for current pricing:

1.  Corporations are required by law to provide the maximum return to their shareholders.  And while this does not allow for skirting laws, breaking laws or other nefarious activities, corporate managing boards can be charged with fiscal malfeasance if they don't maximize shareholder value.  No corporation in the world worries about whether you can afford their product, the only thing they care about is if units are moving off the shelves as fast as they can make them.  To think that there's any corporation on the planet who behaves otherwise is naive. So no basis for blame here.

2.  Companies failure to predict rise and fall of crypto market.  NVidia found themselves unable to meet demand with the rise of crypto and then rushed significant units into production only to have the market collapse leaving them with excess inventory.  Until that is gone or reduced to a level where it can be written off, the price of 2xxx cards will be artificially bumped up to make the 1xxx cards look like attarctive alternatives.  Until we stop seeing 2xx seeries cards "sold out" on web sites nothing will change here.  So who can we blame here ?  With the consumers who are shelling out more money than is wise.  As long as the are leaving the shelves faster than they can make them, nothing will change here.

3.  AMD fans were dancing in the streets when AMD "stole" the console market and when they did the folks in the nVidia boardroom were smiling and rubbing their hands together.   They had been down that road and regretted it.  Deciding not to aggressively compete for this market was likely the most significant decision they ever made.  I'm sure they made a show if it, if for nothing else than to make sure AMD rtaised their bid.  After having "been there" they started losing ground to AMD as nVidia was spending too much money for too little return and their discreet card business started losing ground.  By winning, AMD lost as meeting console obligations leeched too much talent and focus from the discrete card division and AMD started tanking in that arena.   With each successive generation, AMD lost control of another market tier.

While everyone talks about the 970 as what a card should cost, I look at it as a predatory pricing move against AMD to cripple their most profitable  market niche.   I think someone stood up in the board room and said "Yes, we are taking a bold risk here, if we sell the typical number of x70s at this price we will never cover R&D and tooling costs, but if we can take the 3rd tier market from AMD and steal those sales we will cover those costs w/ the extra sales and drive a financial stake into AMD.   Yes,pure supposition on my part but not illogical at all given the 20/20 hindsight we now have.  We all know what happened next, the 970 sold 2+ times more units than all AMD 2xx and 3xx cards combined.   Now it's extremely hard to make a case for AMD in the top 4 tiers (1060 thru 1080 Ti) when considering all factors; the 2xxx series is just serving as a cash cow with exorbitant prices going to folks with money to burn just so they can have the latest and greatest.  Once the excess inventory is sold, we can expect prices to drop, tho if they can be sustained for any significant periods, not as much as one might expect. Two groups get blame / credit here ... the guys in the boardroom who decided that the console market really wasn't worth pursuing aggressively and the guys in the boardroom who decided it was.

4.  Whether real or imagined, there's a mindset at least here in the US that cost increases are due in part to tariffs.  Washing machines / dryers, TV sets and such are up 15-20% in stores.  Im sure most have seen these numbers with regard to current 10% tariffs impact ...

RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X Trio: $1231 to $1310
RTX 2080 Ti DUKE 11G OC: $1212 to $1290
RTX 2080 Ti VENTUS 11G OC: $1203 to $1280
RTX 2080 Gaming X Trio: $849 to $900
RTX 2080 DUKE 8G OC: $840 to $890
RTX 2080 VENTUS 8G OC: $830 to $880
It would appear some is being passed on to customer and some is being absorbed, at least for the time being .... what happens when the tariffs jump to 30% again after the holidays is unknown.

With the cost of the top nVidia (x80) card having hovered around $700 on average since the year 2000 In 2017 dollars..... So with current inflation, $700 in 2017 should be $730.   Given the RTX add on and lack of anything comparable as competition, I expected + $75 to $100 which gives a reasonable MSRP of $805 to $830 which lines up with the above pretty well  ... $855 to $880 w/ tariiffs.  Now normally, we wouldn't see a Ti  available till say May or so.  In recent generations, when AMD introduced the competition to nVidias top card, they would drop the Ti a week later.   So if you are willing to pay an extra $400, and obviously many are, you can have next year's Ti card now.   My guess is, nVidia's betting that there will be no match to the 2080 so thay don't need to keep the Ti on the shelf ready to "steal the buzz".

What we have here is a marketplace that is in control of pricing but they just don't wanna wait.   Don't like the price, gather up a modicum of patience, make an adult decision and chill.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 1, 2018)

ether way the 2070 is not a bad value card..  its not quite on a par with 1080ti but its not far off and compared with the alternatives the price isnt bad.. 

its the one that people will buy and Nvidia no doubt intended it to be this way.. 

trog


----------



## unikin (Nov 1, 2018)

I really hope Intel and AMD get their act together and start playing more important role in GPU market in the short run. Maybe Chinese IT companies can also enter GPU market in medium to long term perspective. Their quantum computer R&D is top notch and they have started investing billions in VR R&D now.  High end GPUs are kind of mandatory for proper VR implementation. Hopefully they can also rival US GPU dominance some day as US alone will never pass antitrust laws needed to intervene on the market. We saw how it went with Microsoft fragmentation attempt and things got only worse aka more corrupted since then.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 2, 2018)

unikin said:


> GTX 1070 was *faster* than GTX 980TI for *42 % lower price* ($379 Vs $649 MSRP).
> RTX 2070 is *slower* than GTX 1080TI for *14 % less money* ($599 Vs $699 FE MSRP)


Well, to begin with, I don’t believe I ever saw a 980Ti go for that low $379 msrp.  Then also factor in we are two gens and over 3 years past 980Ti launch. 

I don’t know the answer, but since it is your assertion, you should find out what most 980Ti’s went for in reality, and then find out if there is an inflation factor to bring it to current prices. This way you compare apples to apples.


----------



## ppn (Nov 2, 2018)

1070 remained $449 in 2016-17, so 650/450 is more accurate, now 80Ti to 2070 700/500, add 100$ for whisper quiet low temp as a luxury. The only thing that slowed 2070 below the 80Ti is 10nm being canceled in favor of 12nm to meet the dead line.

Now which one is more efficient 2070 or 2080. 12 SM per GPC or 8 SM/GPC. It seems that 2080 leads 1080 by 45% for +15% Cuda/40% bandwidth while 1070 to 2070 shows only 42% improvement despite +20% Cuda 75% bandwidth. Could it be that if 2070 was carved out of 2080 as usually it would be 10% faster than current 2070 in 4K.


----------



## Valent117 (Nov 2, 2018)

unikin said:


> the same price for the same performance after 2 years .


1080 ti msi gaming was 750$ on release. that's 20% less for 5% less performance. already worth it other 1080Ti. adding new technologies coming later (we hope)...


----------



## headik (Nov 3, 2018)

Valent117 said:


> so now we have 95% of 1080Ti with rtx for 600$? seems fine to me


Only here.You should look at other reviews.There the 2070 is 5-9% faster than reference 1080 and 1080TI wipes the floor with 2070 and even more after market 1080TI.
This is the only review with crazy fast 2070 numbers i have seen on whole internet.


----------



## ppn (Nov 4, 2018)

Not the only review with fast 2070. In new titles 2070 is closer to Ti, others nonTi 5-9%. You are taking worse case scenario.


----------



## bug (Nov 4, 2018)

headik said:


> Only here.You should look at other reviews.There the 2070 is 5-9% faster than reference 1080 and 1080TI wipes the floor with 2070 and even more after market 1080TI.
> This is the only review with crazy fast 2070 numbers i have seen on whole internet.


What "other" reviews? Both TPU and Anandtech place 2070 between 1080 and 1080Ti (all FE at that). HardOCP doesn't have a direct comparison (base 1080 is missing from their mix), but they still came to the same conclusion: "This puts the new MSI GeForce RTX 2070 at about the middle-way between a factory overclocked GeForce GTX 1080 and GeForce GTX 1080 Ti."


----------



## headik (Nov 4, 2018)

bug said:


> What "other" reviews? Both TPU and Anandtech place 2070 between 1080 and 1080Ti (all FE at that). HardOCP doesn't have a direct comparison (base 1080 is missing from their mix), but they still came to the same conclusion: "This puts the new MSI GeForce RTX 2070 at about the middle-way between a factory overclocked GeForce GTX 1080 and GeForce GTX 1080 Ti."


techspot-2070 is 7% faster than 1080 and 1080TI wipes the floor with 2070
https://www.techspot.com/review/1727-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070/
On cb.de the 1080TI is 20% faster than 2070 and 2070 is 8% faster than 1080
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070-test/3/
Even on guru3d with same card 2070 gaming Z the 1080TI is average 13% faster in 1440p.And yes guru3d uses also crap 1080TI Fe at 1700Mhz.AIB 1080TI is 10% faster so 23% faster than 2070 gaming Z.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_rtx_2070_gaming_z_review,1.html

Only here 2070 gamingz=1080TI


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 4, 2018)

headik said:


> techspot-2070 is 7% faster than 1080 and 1080TI wipes the floor with 2070
> https://www.techspot.com/review/1727-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070/
> On cb.de the 1080TI is 20% faster than 2070 and 2070 is 8% faster than 1080
> https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070-test/3/
> ...



So do the math, take the same six games from this review and compare them to guru3d. Do realize W1zzard uses variety of games that differs from other reviews. Some of them works better on Turing arch than Pascal and some of them don't.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 4, 2018)

headik said:


> Only here 2070 gamingz=1080TI



Exaggeration seems to be your strong suit.    I surely don’t see it equaling it.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 4, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Exaggeration seems to be your strong suit.    I surely don’t see it equaling it.



i think the 1080ti stocks will soon run out so this argument will be somewhat academic.. 

the 2070 card will be the high-ish end card to buy for those that want value for money without the slightest doubt.. 

trog


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 4, 2018)

trog100 said:


> the 2070 card will be the high-ish end card to buy for those that want value for money without the slightest doubt..


No doubt. I can’t argue with that assessment.

It will still be a tested card versus new cards for awhile, so someone completely making up facts on W1z reviews isn’t gonna cut it.


----------



## bug (Nov 4, 2018)

headik said:


> techspot-2070 is 7% faster than 1080 and 1080TI wipes the floor with 2070
> https://www.techspot.com/review/1727-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070/
> On cb.de the 1080TI is 20% faster than 2070 and 2070 is 8% faster than 1080
> https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070-test/3/
> ...


So... they all place 2070 between 1080 and 1080Ti?


----------



## trog100 (Nov 5, 2018)

bug said:


> So... they all place 2070 between 1080 and 1080Ti?



thats about where it sits by my thinking.. as for value for money its way out in front.. tis a shame they gimped the sli option..

trog


----------



## ppn (Nov 5, 2018)

2070 NonFE is 2% slower than FE, in case of Asus turbo is 8% and Asus strix is 17% faster than 1080FE.


----------

