# EVGA GeForce RTX 2070 Super KO



## W1zzard (Apr 27, 2020)

The EVGA GeForce RTX 2070 Super KO is a highly cost-efficient custom-design variant. This dual-slot, dual-fan card comes in at $499, so there is no price increase over NVIDIA MSRP. EVGA's cooler is solid, achieving good temperatures, and idle fan-stop is included, too.

*Show full review*


----------



## xkm1948 (Apr 27, 2020)

Oh lord I LOVE THAT frame time analysis. Awesome charts!!!!


----------



## Chrispy_ (Apr 27, 2020)

Man, I am torn over this. Clearly it is a decent, bone-stock card with no glaring faults and $0 surcharge for gimmicks. That is, essentially, great and everything I look for in a card, usually. 

So what is the problem?

Well, it's $500. For 5% more money, you can get something that is considerably nicer - with a backplate, factory overclocks, maybe dual-BIOS, better power consumption. I mean, the KO models are the runt of the litter, the lowest-binned silicon that EVGA could buy. If you're gonna spend that much money, dont' get the worst possible version of it.

There is 100% a place for this type of card in the entry-level and lower-midrange GPU markets - where ever dollar counts and even $25 premium is enough to start buying basic SKUs from the next tier up. At $500 I just don't think there's much point; Nobody buying a $500 graphics card is desperate to get the most bang per buck - we're already well beyond the point of diminishing returns on the performance/$ chart here.

@Wizzard, as a side note - is there any chance you could change the colours for the frame time analysis? Statistically, 5-8% of your readers are going to be colourblind and that orange and green are exactly the same saturation/lightness Despite red/green colourblindness being very common, it's usually not a problem because even without the hue, colourblind people can still see saturation and lightness differences between say, a red and a green colour. If you make the lightness difference between them bigger, that will solve the problem.


----------



## bug (Apr 27, 2020)

> What does the $10 account for? All that sets the KO apart from the Black is the lack of the USB type-C VirtualLink connector on the KO. That's it.


Well then, it's a good thing you never reviewed the Black version, otherwise i could have just skipped the rest 

If they lost the VirtuaLink port, they could have gone 6+6 PCIe power connectors. I mean, I'm sure the card doesn't draw more than it needs, but it just seems wasteful.

And kudos for the frame time analysis.


----------



## danbert2000 (Apr 28, 2020)

The new frametime analysis is great. It really shows how AMD has improved from the Polaris/Vega days, as the frametimes track the Nvidia line closely, with no odd jumps or inconsistencies. It does look like the 2070 Super has a somewhat narrower distribution of framerates in some circumstances, and fewer outliers, especially in Red Dead Redemption 2. The 2070 Super is still a great card, and should be more relevant than the 5700 XT in a couple years if PC ports have DXR as expected from Xbox Series X. It's also interesting that the 2070 Super can OC to just about 2080 performance, even on the most budget card like this one. The 5700 XT has practically no OC headroom whatsoever, which helps to justify the $100 jump since you're essentially able to jump up a GPU rung with an easy memory OC, OC Scanner, and bumping the power limit to maximum.

I've said this before, but the removal of the USB C port is disappointing, especially when you can get the 2070 Super Black from EVGA for nearly the same price ($20 or less difference). I have an older computer with just USB 3.0, so having that 10 Gbps port is actually pretty awesome for me, and if I ever get a monitor with USB C as a cabling option, I'll be ready. I just tested an external NVMe SSD enclosure and I'm getting full speed from the port on my 2070 Super Black, actually even faster than my sole m.2 slot in my computer, which is limited to PCIe 2.0 x 2. 

I don't have much hope for VirtuaLink as a standard nowadays since USB4 is right around the corner and has the same abilities, I believe. The difference between USB 3.2 and VirtuaLink was that VirtuaLink can send full video signal and have USB 3.0 speed over the "legacy" pins rather than just USB 2.0. With vanilla 3.2, you need to choose between the highest video profiles and USB 3.0 speed. But USB4 appears to be more flexible. Hopefully when VR headsets finally coalesce around USB4, they'll support these odd halfway ports as well.


----------



## Neotheone (Jun 22, 2020)

To TechPowerUp team,
Thank you so much for your comprehensive GPU reviews.
I've been looking for ages for clear actual GPU board dimensions and it's nowhere to be found, until I found your website.
Thanks again, so much.


----------



## bug (Jun 22, 2020)

Neotheone said:


> To TechPowerUp team,
> Thank you so much for your comprehensive GPU reviews.
> *I've been looking for ages for clear actual GPU board dimensions *and it's nowhere to be found, until I found your website.
> Thanks again, so much.


Try the manufacturer's web sites, there's all sorts of goodies to be found there


----------



## Neotheone (Jun 22, 2020)

bug said:


> Try the manufacturer's web sites, there's all sorts of goodies to be found there


Not even a single manufacturer publish their GPU against a ruler, listing length in specs does Not help.
TechPowerUp's actual GPU photo/board on a ruler helps a lot, to see the length of the plastic fan shroud, beyond the heatsink.
TechPowerUp is awesome. You cannot find this anywhere.


----------



## bug (Jun 22, 2020)

Neotheone said:


> Not even a single manufacturer publish their GPU against a ruler, listing length in specs does Not help.


I'm sorry, what?


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jun 22, 2020)

bug said:


> I'm sorry, what?


It's not hard, man.






What manufacturers will tell you is the length in mm but it's often ambiguous from where to where that measurement is taken. Is it from the slot cover, or back of the screw tab, and if the cooler sticks out over the PCB a bit, is the measurement of the card or the cooler.

When you're down to just a few mm of clearance, knowing with absolute certainty what the dimensions are is really important, and that's the the above review photo is super-useful.


----------



## bug (Jun 22, 2020)

Chrispy_ said:


> It's not hard, man.
> 
> View attachment 159823
> 
> ...


Picture: almost 27 cm long, a little over 11 cm high.
Manufacturer website: 269.83 mm long, 111.15 mm high (https://www.evga.com/products/product.aspx?pn=08G-P4-2072-KR)

I fail to see the confusion here, dimensions are always end to end.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jun 22, 2020)

Not every manufacturer measures their card the same way, so seeing it in an image against a ruler is useful - in this case, it's allowed you to confirm that the manufacturer measurement is from the bottom of the PCIe fingers to the top of the PCB, and from the vertical of the slot cover (not the tab on top) to the end of the cooler tha overhangs the PCB slightly.

The photo has removed the ambiguity and served its purpose, as well as providing additional information that the PCB itself is a little shorter than the plastic cooler shroud, meaning there is a potential 4-5mm of extra clearance that are only a dremel tool away.


----------



## bug (Jun 22, 2020)

Chrispy_ said:


> Not every manufacturer measures their card the same way, so seeing it in an image against a ruler is useful - in this case, it's allowed you to confirm that the manufacturer measurement is from the bottom of the PCIe fingers to the top of the PCB, and from the vertical of the slot cover (not the tab on top) to the end of the cooler tha overhangs the PCB slightly.
> 
> The photo has removed the ambiguity and served its purpose, as well as providing additional information that the PCB itself is a little shorter than the plastic cooler shroud, meaning there is a potential 4-5mm of extra clearance that are only a dremel tool away.


I wasn't saying the picture was useless. I was only replying to the guy who said he was lost until he saw the card next to a ruler.
And yes, all manufacturers measure their cards (or mobos or whatever) from one end to the other, if only one set of dimensions is provided.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jun 22, 2020)

bug said:


> I wasn't saying the picture was useless. I was only replying to the guy who said he was lost until he saw the card next to a ruler.
> And yes, all manufacturers measure their cards (or mobos or whatever) from one end to the other, if only one set of dimensions is provided.


Not ambiguously though. I've personally run afoul with with a bunch of Silverstone SG05 Lite cases before which support 10.5" cards and 10.5" was the reference board length of a GTX980. Zotac and Asus both failed to include accurate measurements of the card length which (likely lazy website/specification writers copy+pasting the reference board specs) was closer to 10.8".

Having been burned once I now always check and it's remarkable how inaccurate/ambiguous some manufacturer dimensions are. I guess getting it wrong on their website has very limited impact on their business so there's no incentive to check it or improve.


----------



## bug (Jun 22, 2020)

Chrispy_ said:


> Not ambiguously though. I've personally run afoul with with a bunch of Silverstone SG05 Lite cases before which support 10.5" cards and 10.5" was the reference board length of a GTX980. Zotac and Asus both failed to include accurate measurements of the card length which (likely lazy website/specification writers copy+pasting the reference board specs) was closer to 10.8".
> 
> Having been burned once I now always check and it's remarkable how inaccurate/ambiguous some manufacturer dimensions are. I guess getting it wrong on their website has very limited impact on their business so there's no incentive to check it or improve.


Or, you could, you know, not buy cards within a few mm allowance? Just spitballing here


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 23, 2020)

Neotheone said:


> I've been looking for ages for clear actual GPU board dimensions and it's nowhere to be found, until I found your website.


Thanks! That's exactly why I added this photo


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jun 23, 2020)

bug said:


> Or, you could, you know, not buy cards within a few mm allowance? Just spitballing here


Clearly the appeal of power density is lost on you. There's something cool to a lot of us about cramming the most power possible into a tiny form factor.

Either way, I'm just validating my explanation to you. It doesn't change the fact that having unambiguous dimensions is really useful and manufacturer website dimensions cannot be relied upon. They're _probably_ correct, and they're _probably_ ambiguous which isn't good enough for everyone.


----------



## bug (Jun 23, 2020)

Chrispy_ said:


> Clearly the appeal of power density is lost on you. There's something cool to a lot of us about cramming the most power possible into a tiny form factor.
> 
> Either way, I'm just validating my explanation to you. It doesn't change the fact that having unambiguous dimensions is really useful and manufacturer website dimensions cannot be relied upon. They're _probably_ correct, and they're _probably_ ambiguous which isn't good enough for everyone.


I doubt there's an appeal to power density. That's more like an undesirable effect of lack of space.

I say manufacturer website _can_ be relied upon (I have yet to be let down by that). I can understand, in principle, that for some builds having more detailed info can be useful. But I still question the validity of a build having clearances of a few millimeters.

In short, whatever the manufacturer provides is all 90%+ of the users will need. Anything on top of that is still useful, if only for a minority of users. (Hell, even what's on the manufacturer's website is not useful for those buying pre-built  )


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jun 23, 2020)

bug said:


> I doubt there's an appeal to power density. That's more like an undesirable effect of lack of space.


I expected you to reply like that; Your attitude is that the entire SFF and mITX market is pointless? I understand now.
Have a great day, I'm out.


----------



## bug (Jun 23, 2020)

Chrispy_ said:


> I expected you to reply like that; Your attitude is that the entire SFF and mITX market is pointless? I understand now.
> Have a great day, I'm out.


I built a miniPC for my wife when she needed one. But only because she needed a decent CPU and not much else. So I don't think I have a problem with the SFF. If you care to look, my current case, while full ATX is still very, very compact (again, because that's what I needed).
But trying to run a Threadripper or 2080Ti on  a mITX/ATX board, yes, that defeats the purpose.


----------



## Neotheone (Jun 23, 2020)

bug said:


> I'm sorry, what?


Bug,
I have no idea why did you pretend you did not understand my last recent reply to you above.
I have no idea why you keep defending the numerous vendors that fail to either measure properly GPU size but above that,
You keep denying there is a need for more information, instead of supporting this website that should be praised for providing the extra details that ALL companies worldwide fail to provide, and when you see that image of the device you need against a ruler, you can clearly understand all its components and how they interfere or be restricted or not, in your case, if you have limited space, such as mATX cases or iTX cases.
Like said, I have no idea why you keep defending the companies that fail to provide the REAL measurements as clear as possible.
If you have a case  that is limited to 27cm GPU length and you really wish to get the best of the best of Nvidia and purchse an eVGA GPU, you have zero idea if that GPU will fit EXACTLY in your case, OR will the heatsink fins or fan shroud edges will prevent you from installing it in your case, by even 5mm.   When you own an ATX case, surely it does not matter but you don't seem to care about this topic.

Anyways, like I initially noted, KUDOS to THIS single website, that finally provides a clear image of GPUs and other devices, against a ruller.
, to help understand without any doubt, that you can spend $xxx amount of your money to get the right size GPU or other device, to fit exactly in your case.

AND NO, you are NOT 90% of the time right, just by seeing your replies on this thread.
Take care.


----------



## bug (Jun 23, 2020)

Neotheone said:


> Bug,
> I have no idea why did you pretend you did not understand my last recent reply to you above.
> I have no idea why you keep defending the numerous vendors that fail to either measure properly GPU size but above that,
> You keep denying there is a need for more information, instead of supporting this website that should be praised for providing the extra details that ALL companies worldwide fail to provide, and when you see that image of the device you need against a ruler, you can clearly understand all its components and how they interfere or be restricted or not, in your case, if you have limited space, such as mATX cases or iTX cases.
> ...


I just provided you a link showing the manufacturer provided you exactly the info you needed. But if you can't follow that, I can see why you needed a picture to figure things out.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2020)

Chrispy_ said:


> I expected you to reply like that; Your attitude is that the entire SFF and mITX market is pointless? I understand now.
> Have a great day, I'm out.


Size matters for fitment, sure, not an arbitrary value of 'power density'. I just want the card to fit, ya know? And specs take care of that.


Neotheone said:


> I have no idea why you keep defending the numerous vendors that fail to either measure properly GPU size but above that,


I haven't had an issue with measurements... I'm sure something is wrong at some point, but it's not like this is a problem.

I also feel that the specifications pages on the websites are right 99% of the time. If things were that incorrect (even one of one hundred) we'd see sooooooooooooooooo many people bitching about fitment and that the specs are wrong, but the fact is we don't see that. So we'll agree to disagree.

Neat, TPU, for adding that picture. This may help some as we've seen.

Take care.


----------



## Neotheone (Jun 23, 2020)

bug said:


> I just provided you a link showing the manufacturer provided you exactly the info you needed. But if you can't follow that, I can see why you needed a picture to figure things out.


Bug,
I saw your link and your latest reply above proves your ongoing issue in this thread , maybe even outside this thread too.
You don't read through, you assume you know everything, but you don't, and you have no patience to read through.
If you did, if you simply read my original message or even better, if you had bothered to read my detailed recent message, it would have been very clear why your link is useless.

Still, I praise this website for posting the actual product against a ruler, it's a savior, that zero vendors provide.

Take care.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2020)

Guys... this isn't rocket science. The measurement includes how long, wide, and tall it is. If the shroud sticks over the edge of the PCB, you're damn right they are measuring the longest/widest/tallest part. This is how it works and always has.

@ Neo - what are specifications missing that an image has again? Your first post mentions "clear actual GPU dimensions" and they aren't found. I just went to ASRock, MSI, Asus, Evga, and Giga and there are 'clear actual GPU dimensions' at all of those sites. the second 'detailed' post doesn't go into more _relevant_ detail...I don't care if it is mATX or ITX, the card's dimensions are the card's dimensions (same with the chassis). About the only reason I want to see the card is to know where and what orientation the power leads are as those stick out further than the card. 

It benefits these companies to be as accurate as they can (and they are!) to prevent this exact issue. I've never run into a website reporting the wrong dimensions. Again, I'm sure an error has happened before, but if this such a big problem as it seems you and chrispy seem to purport, I feel we would see threads everywhere......but (again) we don't.

Should case reviews shove a ruler inside to confirm max GPU/PSU/CPU Cooler length/height? Come on now...... 

So, last time, cool beans that TPU added an image, but I see little value over looking up the specs. There shouldn't be a question on how these are measured.


----------



## bug (Jun 23, 2020)

Neotheone said:


> Still, I praise this website for posting the actual product against a ruler, it's a savior, that zero vendors provide.


There you go again. Product against a ruler is somehow more insightful than actual dimensions in your head


----------



## Neotheone (Jun 23, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Guys... this isn't rocket science. The measurement includes how long, wide, and tall it is. If the shroud sticks over the edge of the PCB, you're damn right they are measuring the longest/widest/tallest part. This is how it works and always has.
> 
> @ Neo - what are specifications missing that an image has again? Your first post mentions "clear actual GPU dimensions" and they aren't found. I just went to ASRock, MSI, Asus, Evga, and Giga and there are 'clear actual GPU dimensions' at all of those sites. the second 'detailed' post doesn't go into more _relevant_ detail...I don't care if it is mATX or ITX, the card's dimensions are the card's dimensions (same with the chassis). About the only reason I want to see the card is to know where and what orientation the power leads are as those stick out further than the card.
> 
> ...


Yet another member in your thread that does NOT read through.
You briefly glanced, saw iTX, mATX and decided that that's what I care about, no, you are lazy or impatient much like Bug -> to READ through!.
I'm done. If you guys have internal politics and conflicts inside your website team to trash your own website, I'm not taking part of it.
I'm about to unsub this website altogether with your hate and ignorant comments.


----------



## bug (Jun 23, 2020)

Neotheone said:


> Yet another member in your thread that does NOT read through.
> You briefly glanced, saw iTX, mATX and decided that that's what I care about, no, you are lazy or impatient much like Bug -> to READ through!.
> I'm done. If you guys have internal politics and conflicts inside your website team to trash your own website, I'm not taking part of it.
> I'm about to unsub this website altogether with your hate and ignorant comments.


You seem to have accusing others covered pretty well. But you still haven't told us what you got from that picture that wasn't readily available on the manufacturer's web site.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 24, 2020)

Neotheone said:


> Yet another member in your thread that does NOT read through.
> You briefly glanced, saw iTX, mATX and decided that that's what I care about, no, you are lazy or impatient much like Bug -> to READ through!.
> I'm done. If you guys have internal politics and conflicts inside your website team to trash your own website, I'm not taking part of it.
> I'm about to unsub this website altogether with your hate and ignorant comments.


I've read it through...let's do this 1 by one to make sure I didn't miss anything. 



> I have no idea why you keep defending the numerous vendors that fail to either measure properly GPU size but above that


Because we haven't seen vendors make egregious mistakes on their specifications as you are implying. May I ask why do you feel numerous vendors fail to measure properly? Have you seen this before?



> You keep denying there is a need for more information, instead of supporting this website that should be praised for providing the extra details that ALL companies worldwide fail to provide, and when you see that image of the device you need against a ruler, you can clearly understand all its components and how they interfere or be restricted or not, in your case, if you have limited space, such as mATX cases or iTX cases.


You keep insisting there is a need for more information........but seem to be dismissive of the information already provided as not only not being enough, but failing to be accurate as well. All we are saying is we don't see that. 

We are supportive of this website and the extra image that is taken here. Perhaps some just don't find it quite as useful as others. Perhaps some understanding of both sides of the discussion was warranted here. 



> Like said, I have no idea why you keep defending the companies that fail to provide the REAL measurements as clear as possible.
> If you have a case that is limited to 27cm GPU length and you really wish to get the best of the best of Nvidia and purchse an eVGA GPU, you have zero idea if that GPU will fit EXACTLY in your case, OR will the heatsink fins or fan shroud edges will prevent you from installing it in your case, by even 5mm. When you own an ATX case, surely it does not matter but you don't seem to care about this topic.


I have no idea why you keep insisting these companies fail to provide "real" measurements as clear as possible. The specifications are clear. They are the maximum dimensions in a card from their widest/longest/tallest points. This includes shrouds hanging over PCBs.

I hope you can understand where I was coming from in my post(s) here. Again, I just don't find it as useful as you considering the specifications that all companies worldwide provide that have served me well and the dozens of personal builds I've done over the decades relying on such values. Some people learn/absorb data better in a visual manner... there is that too! THis is a cool thing TPU did, without a doubt. We aren't trying to take that away so much as saying the information provided is way way way more often than not perfectly good, clear, and accurate. I didn't have chipsy's experience when doing system builds for a living/helping friends, etc. I believe errors are made, but just not rampant. 

Enjoy your images. 

You are now free to move about the cabin...... apologies for the threadjack.


----------



## Sir Alex Ice (Aug 30, 2020)

My conclusion after this very detailed review is that 2070 Super should be at least 2x more powerful in 4K gaming than my current GTX 970. Maybe even close to 2.5x more powerful, all this while drawing less than 50% more power. Which is why I ordered one from Amazon DE. 

I think 2070 Super cards are the best buy now that their price have decreased to clear the stock and that the 3000 series are not suitable for older systems. If I'd bought a 3000 series that would mean basically a complete new PC: CPU, motherboard, memory, power supply and almost certainly new case and new CPU cooler. 

My overclocked 4690K might not bring the best of the 2070 Super, so against a 3000 series would I think it would be quite inadequate. Got SSDs, 32Gb of ram, 650W PSU and I'm not making money on twitch gaming. So even though this 2070 Super might be too much, it is not an excessive and useless splurge or money pit that a new 3000 series would be.


----------

