# NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Founders Edition 6 GB



## W1zzard (Jan 8, 2019)

NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 2060 doesn't seem cheap at $349, but this new card has enough steam to beat AMD's RX Vega lineup at better pricing and with much better power/heat/noise. Actually, the RTX 2060 obsoletes much of NVIDIA's GeForce 10 Pascal stack, too.

*Show full review*


----------



## 0x4452 (Jan 8, 2019)

I've been refreshing tpu for this review, and definitely worth it, thanks!

For completeness, perhaps Adaptive Sync support could be mentioned.


----------



## M2B (Jan 8, 2019)

Fantastic design, relatively cool, quiet and potentially the cheapest one.
Seems like founders edition is the way to go for this one.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jan 8, 2019)

finally, thanks a lot W1zz



M2B said:


> Fantastic design, relatively cool, quiet and potentially the cheapest one.
> Seems like founders edition is the way to go for this one.



for nvidia cards, I've always prefer founder endition since 6800 series .. really clean, neat and simple yet much elegant.

and good build quality too, no coile whine so far till my last GTX 760.

I'm eager to buy GTX1070, just waiting for the price is right for my wallet


----------



## M2B (Jan 8, 2019)

Rahmat Sofyan said:


> finally, thanks a lot W1zz
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For the likes of 2080Ti I wouldn't go for the FE version simply because there are AIB cards with significantly better cooling performance and noise levels.
But for this one it's a different story.
the cooling solution seems completely sufficient and it will be selling at MSRP unlike the other FE cards.


----------



## ianatikin (Jan 8, 2019)

It's a solid performer for sure... but performance per dollar at the level of 2016 RX 470? Really, can We call it progress? AMD, were are You? We need competition, BAD!


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 8, 2019)

ianatikin said:


> performance per dollar at the level of 2016 RX 470?


but twice as fast at same price/perf, which is unheard of?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jan 8, 2019)

Very nice, Vega 64 performance for $350, whilst being way more efficient to boot.


----------



## jabbadap (Jan 8, 2019)

Yeah it's a solid card alright. But how is frame times on higher resolutions, are they good enough for 1440p?


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 8, 2019)

I know I'm in the minority but I thought (or hoped) it would be better or cheaper.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Jan 8, 2019)

NVIDIA 'Mid-range' now faster than AMD flagship GPU. 

RIP.

Am sad. :<

AMD pls.


----------



## illli (Jan 8, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> I know I'm in the minority but I thought (or hoped) it would be better or cheaper.



you're not alone. This should be a $250 card at  most.  RTX at this level is useless (I would say for the 2070 as well) so that leaves price, which is the same as a 1070ti (today's prices, not when they launched ).  Anyone remember when performance got pushed down lower tiers with each new generation?  instead we see the 2060 at the same price as a 1070ti with more or less the same performance. This is a dark day for gamers when you apparently can no longer rely on better performance at lower tiers.  

Going by their pricing i expect the 2050 (or whatever they'll call it) to be priced $250 and have the same performance as a 1060


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 8, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> I know I'm in the minority but I thought (or hoped) it would be better or cheaper.



I think this is interesting - the card with OC is equal to a stock 1080, and it also jumps around a bit on performance, and if you look at the actual FPS, is it really such a leap forward from the about equally priced GTX 1070? With 3 years time having passed?

That said, I had actually expected the 2060 to end up a tad lower than it did. Its certainly not a bad card, but really just a baby step forward across a far too long period of time.

Either way great review once again and the number of titles being benched right now is simply incredible.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Jan 8, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> I think this is interesting - the card with OC is equal to a stock 1080, and it also jumps around a bit on performance, and if you look at the actual FPS, is it really such a leap forward from the about equally priced GTX 1070? With 3 years time having passed?
> 
> That said, I had actually expected the 2060 to end up a tad lower than it did. Its certainly not a bad card, but really just a baby step forward across a far too long period of time.
> 
> ...



I hate to say it but AMD really isn't helping. RX Vega just didn't perform how it should have. If Vega 64 was 1080 Ti (as the chip was intended to perform) then the entire situation would be different I think. the *106 part has crept up the stack into the xx70 series because AMD just simply cannot compete at the high-end. NVIDIA is just one-upping themselves at this point.

I am sad. I just hope Navi/next-gen can save it. Or maybe it will fall to Intel to keep NVIDIA in check? At this point if i get some more money in the next few months I am seriously considering getting a RTX 2060. The performance is nice and I would really like to try RTX in BF5 and Metro Exodus. Shrug.

Ryzen 5 3600 + RTX 2060 could be my next PC. Sorry Radeon


----------



## silentbogo (Jan 8, 2019)

Awesome! Didn't expect reviews to happen 'till release date. 
Thx, @W1zzard


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 8, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> I hate to say it but AMD really isn't helping. RX Vega just didn't perform how it should have. If Vega 64 was 1080 Ti (as the chip was intended to perform) then the entire situation would be different I think. the *106 part has crept up the stack into the xx70 series because AMD just simply cannot compete at the high-end. NVIDIA is just one-upping themselves at this point.
> 
> I am sad. I just hope Navi/next-gen can save it. Or maybe it will fall to Intel to keep NVIDIA in check? At this point if i get some more money in the next few months I am seriously considering getting a RTX 2060. The performance is nice and I would really like to try RTX in BF5 and Metro Exodus. Shrug.
> 
> Ryzen 5 3600 + RTX 2060 could be my next PC. Sorry Radeon


 
Absolutely true, I've been saying this ever since AMD announced they 'd focus on midrange. Its a loser's strategy.


----------



## M2B (Jan 8, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> I hate to say it but AMD really isn't helping. RX Vega just didn't perform how it should have. If Vega 64 was 1080 Ti (as the chip was intended to perform) then the entire situation would be different I think. the *106 part has crept up the stack into the xx70 series because AMD just simply cannot compete at the high-end. NVIDIA is just one-upping themselves at this point.
> 
> I am sad. I just hope Navi/next-gen can save it. Or maybe it will fall to Intel to keep NVIDIA in check? At this point if i get some more money in the next few months I am seriously considering getting a RTX 2060. The performance is nice and I would really like to try RTX in BF5 and Metro Exodus. Shrug.
> 
> Ryzen 5 3600 + RTX 2060 could be my next PC. Sorry Radeon




RTX 2070 performs closer to the 2080 than 1070 does to the 1080, memory configuration is also similar, so I don't understand why you are even caring about its chip being named "TU106". It doesn't matter.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Jan 8, 2019)

M2B said:


> RTX 2070 performs closer to the 2080 than 1070 does to the 1080, memory configuration is also similar, so I don't understand why you are even caring about its chip being named "TU106". It doesn't matter.


It does matter because xx60 is now beating RX Vega 64, AMD's flagship. AIB cards will be toe-to-toe but the 2060 is doing it at half the power use and with less resources. I mean hell, even with the bloat from the RT cores and Tensors, it's still a smaller chip. I'm honestly going to wait till Lisa Su's keynote to see if they have an answer but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## jabbadap (Jan 8, 2019)

@W1zzard 3dMark Port Royal went gold, could you run that on RTX cards?


----------



## kastriot (Jan 8, 2019)

Now look how prices will go down for vega&rx line of cards and later on 2060 going under 300$..


----------



## M2B (Jan 8, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> It does matter because xx60 is now beating RX Vega 64, AMD's flagship. AIB cards will be toe-to-toe but the 2060 is doing it at half the power use and with less resources. I mean hell, even with the bloat from the RT cores and Tensors, it's still a smaller chip. I'm honestly going to wait till Lisa Su's keynote to see if they have an answer but I'm not holding my breath.



Even if AMD is going to be competetive on 7nm VS. Nvidia's 12nm offerings, it's nothing.
If AMD really wants to compete and put a serious pressure on nvidia they need to make a GPU that is at least 30% faster than Titan RTX for high-end offering.


----------



## GoldenX (Jan 8, 2019)

Really solid normal performance, bad RT performance, as expected. If we can get the mentioned price, it's a nice card.

W1zzard, I know it's a bit soon, but can we expect a review of the 4GB GDDR5 variant? As the cheapest one, it will probably be the most sold one around here.


----------



## bug (Jan 8, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Really solid normal performance, bad RT performance, as expected. If we can get the mentioned price, it's a nice card.
> 
> W1zzard, I know it's a bit soon, but can we expect a review of the 4GB GDDR5 variant? As the cheapest one, it will probably be the most sold one around here.


Looking at the list of announced cards, nobody has announced anything but 6GB GDDR6 models so far. Even Gigabyte who leaked that long list of models has nothing but 6GB GDDR6 models on their site.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 8, 2019)

M2B said:


> Even if AMD is going to be competetive on 7nm VS. Nvidia's 12nm offerings, it's nothing.
> 
> If AMD really wants to compete and put a serious pressure on nvidia they need to make a GPU that is at least 30% faster than Titan RTX for high-end offering.


AMD only needs to have comparable performance at a good price to become relevant again. Pushing beyond Nvidia would be great, but that looks like a fantasy at this point.

Look at the performance per watt and you'll see how bad it looks:


Spoiler










Turing is nearly twice as efficient per watt. Vega 64 (4096 core, 10.2-12.7 Tflop) is beaten by RTX 2060 (1920 core, 5.2-6.5 Tflop). It should be obvious to anyone how inefficient GCN really is at this point. Even the advantage of 7nm will not make up for this.


----------



## M2B (Jan 8, 2019)

efikkan said:


> AMD only needs to have comparable performance at a good price to become relevant again. Pushing beyond Nvidia would be great, but that looks like a fantasy at this point.
> 
> Look at the performance per watt and you'll see how bad it looks:
> 
> ...




I know all of those things, my point is that even if AMD is competetive on 7nm against turing, they are not gonna win anything.
I'm pretty sure nvidia likes to move to 7nm as soon as possible, rumors say they will use Samsung's EUV solution which should reduce manufacturing costs.


----------



## bug (Jan 8, 2019)

efikkan said:


> Turing is nearly twice as efficient per watt. Vega 64 (4096 core, 10.2-12.7 Tflop) is beaten by RTX 2060 (1920 core, 5.2-6.5 Tflop). It should be obvious to anyone how inefficient GCN really is at this point. Even the advantage of 7nm will not make up for this.



Fwiw, Vega is still ahead in compute. But still, these aren't compute cards, at least not primarily. And, of course, even there Turing wins when it can flex its tensor muscles.



M2B said:


> I know all of those things, my point is that even if AMD is competetive on 7nm against turing, they are not gonna win anything.
> I'm pretty sure nvidia likes to move to 7nm as soon as possible, rumors say they will use Samsung's EUV solution which should reduce manufacturing costs.


AMD wouldn't need to win in one round. Matching Nvidia will allow them to reap some cash that can go towards a future better iteration of their architecture. At the same time it will prevent Nvidia from charging inflated prices that will go towards their war chest, to be used against AMD in the future.
Theory is easy.


----------



## Kissamies (Jan 8, 2019)

Awesome price/performance ratio. Damn!


----------



## M2B (Jan 8, 2019)

bug said:


> Fwiw, Vega is still ahead in compute. But still, these aren't compute cards, at least not primarily. And, of course, even there Turing wins when it can flex its tensor muscles.



what do you mean by "compute"?
Gamers Nexus has a very good review related to professional workloads and even there nvidia is ahead most of the time:

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/...2018-for-adobe-premiere-autocad-vray-and-more


----------



## GoldenX (Jan 8, 2019)

GCN is like the Core arch now, old and repetitive. The only thing saving it is the lack of good low and mid end offerings from Nvidia.
Remember people, when real prices launch, the price/performance charts is going to be different.


----------



## Mistral (Jan 8, 2019)

So, in practice this is a 1070Ti @ $349?


----------



## bug (Jan 8, 2019)

M2B said:


> what do you mean by "compute"?
> Gamers Nexus has a very good review related to professional workloads and even there nvidia is ahead most of the time:
> 
> https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/...2018-for-adobe-premiere-autocad-vray-and-more


I meant, in compute Vega is still ahead of this 2060, that's all. See: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13762/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-founders-edition-6gb-review/13



Mistral said:


> So, in practice this is a 1070Ti @ $349?


A 1070Ti which can do DXR, DLSS and has a bunch of tensor cores to go with it. Yes.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 8, 2019)

AMD needs to come to the realization that they can't be a jack of all trades and master of none in the GPU space anymore.  Leave GCN for compute and design a gaming arch from the ground up.  If the product is as good or better than NV's and it is not bought, then return the mid range and compute segments and don't return to high end.  Give consumers one last chance.

Edited for better words.


----------



## bug (Jan 8, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> AMD needs to come to the realization that they can't be a jack of all trades and master of none in the GPU space anymore.  Leave GCN for compute and design a gaming arch from the ground up.  If the product is as good or better than NV's and it is not bought, then return the mid range and compute segments and don't return to high end.  Give consumers one last chance.
> 
> Edited for better words.


I think they know very well what they have to do. It's just that they didn't have the money to actually do it. Their graphics division held its own for a while and they used that time to revive their CPU business. Now that that's covered, they'll probably have resources to throw the way of their graphics division. I'm not sure what to make of the late high profile figures abandoning that boat though.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 8, 2019)

Solid performing card. Definitely not for any demanding RTRT applications but good 1440p card nonetheless.


Navi better be good. xx60 matching previous gen flagship this is just sad for RTG. Not to mention the perf per watt.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 8, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Give consumers one last chance.



They did, multiple times actually. It's what brought them to where they are today.

If there is one thing AMD can learn, and it's something that has nothing to do with technology, it's the fact that no matter how much you cater to the consumer in the most popular segments, someone will always steal the show with halo products ,sweet talk and _unorthodox _practices . Admittedly , they were hamstrung by many things in the past that were mostly out of their control but they did had their shots and they failed.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 8, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> They did, multiple times actually. It's what brought them to where they are today.
> 
> If there is one thing AMD can learn, and it's something that has nothing to do with technology, it's the fact that no matter how much you cater to the consumer in the most popular segments, someone will always steal the show with halo products ,sweet talk and _unorthodox _practices . Admittedly , they were hamstrung by many things in the past that were mostly out of their control but they did had their shots and they failed.



AMD had some questionable management at that time. The new team seems to be pretty on top, at least CPU wise.

I am no longer hoping too much for RTG to improve. They are really far behind. I have more faith in Raja’s effort at Intel


----------



## bug (Jan 8, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Solid performing card. Definitely not for any demanding RTRT applications but good 1440p card nonetheless.



RTRT is more or less in demo mode for this generation (the fact that the very first title to support it actually managed to get passable frame rates at 1440p is rather surprising for me, past technologies haven't been so lucky). If I were a developer trying to get a hang of how RTRT works and what it can do, this is the card I'd buy.
I never spend more than $300 on a video card and I rarely update from one generation to the next. Yet I feel compelled to get one one of these. If only to spite those talking trash about Turing whenever they can,


----------



## wolf (Jan 8, 2019)

This card is the pick of the litter of the 20 series so far! what a beast for the price! now even if AMD just cuts vega prices we might see a price/perf shift.


----------



## B-Real (Jan 8, 2019)

Fluffmeister said:


> Very nice, Vega 64 performance for $350, whilst being way more efficient to boot.



For a $100 jump in price compared to the GTX 1060, which i think will be more likely around $400-450 in real life circumstances as the 1070Ti is available around $420+ and the 2070 is too close to it (nearly halfway compared to 1060-1070). And still there are the AIB Vega 56 models cheaper for less than $350 with a $150 3 game bundle. A better choice compared to the RTX 2060.



Mistral said:


> So, in practice this is a 1070Ti @ $349?



I would be quite surprised if it would cost $350, as the 1070 Ti costs around $420. And there are 2 Gigabyte GTX 1070 that cost around $320. And a reference 1070 for $300.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 8, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> I have more faith in Raja’s effort at Intel



Intel is getting into the dedicated GPU game at the worst time possible, they have to fight a towering monopoly, they are at least 1-2 years away from delivering anything remotely competitive which also means they'll miss the initial 10/7nm boat.

Only place where they can make a dent is datacenter/AI which is where I suspect they'll focus their efforts on anyway. Best you'll see from Intel for the gaming crowd in the foreseeable future will be better iGPUs and that's about it. But we'll see.


----------



## birdie (Jan 8, 2019)

A very nice review, @W1zzard, I especially liked this part in the conclusion:



> "By all intents and purposes, the RTX 2060 belongs to a higher market segment than the GTX 1060, and this is reflected in the card's performance."



Yes, the RTX 2060 is expensive to be a truly midrange card but it's not in the same class/league as the GeForce 1060 was/is.

Still, I'm gonna skip this entire generation because it looks like a stopgap before NVIDIA releases updated Turing on 7nm and the more important reason is that I only update my GPU if the next one is at the very least 2,5 faster.

My last four GPUs have been: 7600 GT, 8800 GT, GTX 660, GTX 1060 (the current one).


----------



## hat (Jan 8, 2019)

Neat. It beats my 1070 by a healthy margin for not too much money.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jan 8, 2019)

B-Real said:


> For a $100 jump in price compared to the GTX 1060, which i think will be more likely around $400-450 in real life circumstances as the 1070Ti is available around $420+ and the 2070 is too close to it (nearly halfway compared to 1060-1070)



Well that makes sense at the end of the day, Nvidia can't go on competing with themselves forever... so focus on what competiton there is.

Vega needs a price cut.


----------



## GoldenX (Jan 8, 2019)

HBM is too expensive, Vega needs normal desktop cards with GDDR6.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 8, 2019)

B-Real said:


> For a $100 jump in price compared to the GTX 1060, which i think will be more likely around $400-450 in real life circumstances as the 1070Ti is available around $420+ and the 2070 is too close to it (nearly halfway compared to 1060-1070). And still there are the AIB Vega 56 models cheaper for less than $350 with a $150 3 game bundle. A better choice compared to the RTX 2060.


Come on, *be real* 
RTX 2060 is both cheaper and higher performing than Vega 56 in general. Discounts are exceptions, and should be evaluated when buying, but in general, you can't honestly claim Vega 56 is a better choice.


----------



## ab3e (Jan 8, 2019)

GTX1060 competed with GTX980 and yet was sold as a x60 tier card and priced accordingly. Now the RTX2060 competes with GTX1080 and it's sold with a $100 price increase. No way you can defend Nvidia, this should be seen as a anti consumer tactic, a bunch of greedy green space monkeys.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 8, 2019)

bug said:


> I'm not sure what to make of the late high profile figures abandoning that boat though.



Well, considering the state of the GPU division, is it really a loss?  A shake up is well needed.  Fresh blood. Or scapegoat...



xkm1948 said:


> Navi better be good. xx60 matching previous gen flagship this is just sad for RTG. Not to mention the perf per watt.



Considering that Pascals/Vegas are ~3 years old, I should hope so.  It would be a disappointment for them not to be.



Vya Domus said:


> someone will always steal the show with halo products ,sweet talk and _unorthodox _practices



They need a way to convince the average consumer that their product is just as good or better than Nvidia.  When they had better products (HD5000 vs GTX 400), people still flocked to Nvidia even though, ironically, the 400 series has all the problems AMD has had recently.  They can't have that this time.  Beyond cleaning house in the GPU department, I would also clean us in the PR/marketing because they aren't that good.  Poach some from Nvidia as they can convince people that corn kernels in a turd are really gold nuggets.



xkm1948 said:


> I am no longer hoping too much for RTG to improve. They are really far behind. I have more faith in Raja’s effort at Intel



That is what they all said about AMD with CPUs.  Look where we are now.  I'm not sure why you have hope for Raja at Intel.  Isn't he the one who developed Fury, Polaris, and Vega which you love so much?

EDIT:



ab3e said:


> GTX1060 competed with GTX980 and yet was sold as a x60 tier card and priced accordingly. Now the RTX2060 competes with GTX1080 and it's sold with a $100 price increase. No way you can defend Nvidia, this should be seen as a anti consumer tactic, a bunch of greedy green space monkeys.



So, why should they sell the 2060 that performs better than the Vega 64 in some cases for less than the Vega 56?

EDIT 2:

It is actually amazing that the 2050 is going to perform fairly close to the Vega 56 or maybe even the Vega 64.  That might be the largest gap I have ever seen.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jan 9, 2019)

Pascal and Vega didn't launch at the same time, Vega was the dream team red clung too. Hell with PhysX now open source, and the usual suspects picking holes Nvidia's day-0 VRR across multiple dodgy FreeSync displays support, before the driver is even available... suggests to me at least, you guys really hope AMD turn up soon.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 9, 2019)

With high HBM pricing i think the better choice is just stop production of Vega as a whole. They need Navi asap.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jan 9, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> They need a way to convince the average consumer that their product is just as good or better than Nvidia.  *When they had better products (HD5000 vs GTX 400), people still flocked to Nvidia* even though, ironically, the 400 series has all the problems AMD has had recently.  They can't have that this time.  Beyond cleaning house in the GPU department, I would also clean us in the PR/marketing because they aren't that good.  Poach some from Nvidia as they can convince people that corn kernels in a turd are really gold nuggets.


That's quite misleading. The 5000 series from AMD sold INCREDIBLY well, and it was the closest AMD ever came to achieving majority market share VS nvidia. AMD's driver support, however, was BEYOND abysmal, which is the only reason the 400s sold at all outside of the surprisingly competitive 460/465. This was absolutely the time you kept multiple different catalyst drivers on tap depending on what game you wanted to play, because every fix brought 3 new bugs in different titles, and known issues took months if not years to fix.

They then lost that market because AMD, deciding the 5000's were great, immediately pulled a rebrandeon and rehashed the ENTIRE lineup. Nvidia struck back with the 500s at the time and caught AMD completely off guard, they had assumed Fermi was beyond repair. They rushed production and final release of the 6900s, which were not enough to close the gap and nvidia managed to, somehow, reclaim the performance crown with the hot, power hungry fermi chips, while AMD let their smaller more efficient chips rot on the vine. After ONE GENERATION.

AMD absolutely deserves the position they are in. They dug this hole over the course of a decade. The current incompetence of RTG, getting beaten by mid range nvidia cards, is the logical conclusion of a GPU maker that simply is incapable of consistently churning out decent products and supporting them properly. Ditching the head of marketing, losing Raja, and other high profile losses are great for AMD, the old baggage was just as bad as Hector Ruiz, Dirk Meyer, and Rory Read, the unholy trinity of C suites that just about killed AMD by letting go of the mobile line instead of licensing to qualcomm, green lighting bulldozer, and wasting hundreds of million on things like SeaMicro.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 9, 2019)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> That's quite misleading.



You are correct.  I should have said better or comparable and added ', etc' to the HD5000 vs GTX 480.  Up until some point in HD 7000 series, their cards were very competitive.  And to some extent Hawaii but that is a whole different problem.


----------



## CandymanGR (Jan 9, 2019)

Very solid performance. Price is a bit high. 

P.S. I am curious to see the xx50 series of Turing.


----------



## renz496 (Jan 9, 2019)

ianatikin said:


> It's a solid performer for sure... but performance per dollar at the level of 2016 RX 470? Really, can We call it progress? AMD, were are You? We need competition, BAD!


AMD: we are here as always. But we don't think current pricing are that bad. Thanks to what nvidia have been doing we able to sell our newly RX590 for $275 despite launching the slightly slower RX480 for $250 back in 2016!


----------



## raptori (Jan 9, 2019)

$300 and I'll upgrade.


----------



## wolf (Jan 9, 2019)

ab3e said:


> GTX1060 competed with GTX980 and yet was sold as a x60 tier card and priced accordingly. Now the RTX2060 competes with GTX1080 and it's sold with a $100 price increase. No way you can defend Nvidia, this should be seen as a anti consumer tactic, a bunch of greedy green space monkeys.



Because there was competition at respective price points at the time? Nvidia has no interest in redefining the price : performance ratio unless their hand is forced, the ball is squarely in AMD's court to fight back with new competitive GPU's in the mid-range to top end segment and/or price cuts.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 9, 2019)

M2B said:


> I know all of those things, my point is that even if AMD is competetive on 7nm against turing, they are not gonna win anything.
> I'm pretty sure nvidia likes to move to 7nm as soon as possible, rumors say they will use Samsung's EUV solution which should reduce manufacturing costs.



Exactly. This is why its a loser's strategy. Every gen you miss out on a performance jump at the top end, is a gen you practically didn't progress at all. This is also why Turing is in some ways an opportunity for AMD to at least do _some _ catching up - the 2080ti isn't really a realistic competitor in the market and its easy to price royally under it with somewhat lower performance. So indeed, AMD is going to require a convincing performance win over a 1080ti / 2080, which, given the fact Vega 64 sits somewhere along the GTX 1080, is going to require serious work. They need something 40-45% faster than a 1080, with a power budget no higher than 300W. In other words, Vega needs to become ~40% more efficient. Good luck...

Another reason they need to eclipse the 1080ti is because that card has been out for awhile. Nobody cares anymore about yesterdays' performance, and those that do, already have it.


----------



## londiste (Jan 9, 2019)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> That's quite misleading. The 5000 series from AMD sold INCREDIBLY well, and it was the closest AMD ever came to achieving majority market share VS nvidia.


I am not too sure about that. 
Radeon 9700 Pro was a monster, with incremental upgrades in form of 9800/9800XT. That was probably the time it had majority market.
HD4870 - and HD4850 - was the other very notable effort where AMD carved out a large market share for it from the venerable G92. HD5870/HD5850 was just a continuation on that.
There has been a lot of back and forth. ATI/AMD have always been more focused on the midrange anyway.


----------



## bug (Jan 9, 2019)

efikkan said:


> Come on, *be real*
> RTX 2060 is both cheaper and higher performing than Vega 56 in general. Discounts are exceptions, and should be evaluated when buying, but in general, you can't honestly claim Vega 56 is a better choice.


That may be, but as long as he can _assume_ 2060 will cost $100 more and Vega can be had for less than it actually does, _then_ Vega becomes the better pick. 
It is not inconceivable 2060 might be sold at a markup, at least initially while Vega gets a price cut. But that is just not the data we have today.


----------



## londiste (Jan 9, 2019)

bug said:


> That may be, but as long as he can _assume_ 2060 will cost $100 more and Vega can be had for less than it actually does, _then_ Vega becomes the better pick.
> It is not inconceivable 2060 might be sold at a markup, at least initially while Vega gets a price cut. But that is just not the data we have today.


I don't know about US but in Europe Vega56/64 as well as GTX1070Ti sell for prices starting at about 50€ under MSRP - assuming MSRP in € is the same as $ as it has historically been. Vega56 for 350€, GTX1070Ti for 400€ and Vega64 for 450€. GTX1080 and GTX1080Ti are clearly running out of stock if not already out. On Nvidia side, 1070Ti is on its way out as well. Not sure about Vegas but the way prices behave the current situation seems to be a clearance sale on these.

RTX2070 can already be bought for under 500€. Nvidia has clearly trying to bring retailers into the fold after all the talk about high RTX2080/RTX2080Ti prices. RTX2070 was at MSRP pretty much at the point of release and RTX2060 will likely follow the same pattern.

Given all this as well as the Freesync/G-Sync Compatible thing, other than not buying an Nvidia card on principle, Vegas are really running out of reasons to buy them.
Looking at wider state of things what concerns me is RX590 at $279. This was less than two months ago.



Vayra86 said:


> This is also why Turing is in some ways an opportunity for AMD to at least do _some _ catching up - the 2080ti isn't really a realistic competitor in the market and its easy to price royally under it with somewhat lower performance.


RTX2060/2070/2080/2080Ti are spaced fairly evenly apart. Looking at the TPU performance summary charts, 13-16% at 1080p (where things are probably not GPU limited), 18-21% at 1440p and 20-21% on 2160p with RTX2080Ti being whopping 28% faster than RTX2080 as a bit of outlier. It will be difficult to find a window there, especially considering RTX2070, RTX2080 and RTX2080Ti are all separate chips with possibility to cut one down to fill any gaps 
There are things AMD can go for, primarily price but also more memory. However, it will still need a competitive GPU at the core.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 9, 2019)

You may doubt the price but 1920 turing cores equalling 2560 Pascal and 4096 vega cores is pretty great.navi has a lot to live up to and it won't be easy even on 7nm.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jan 9, 2019)

'Good price' how? I just don't see it.

Same performance as the old 1070 Ti, which can be had for the same price new here in the UK (good custom models as well) and this has less VRAM than that card. Also, 1080 performance, which this is behind, could be had for 2 years now already. A 'new gen' from Nvidia arrives slower than that and they're still charging over $300 for the privilege.


----------



## bug (Jan 9, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> 'Good price' how? I just don't see it.



Almost the same Vega 64 performance for a lot less money. More features, less power drawn. Do you see it now?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 9, 2019)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> AMD's driver support, however, was BEYOND abysmal, which is the only reason the 400s sold at all outside of the surprisingly competitive 460/465. This was absolutely the time you kept multiple different catalyst drivers on tap depending on what game you wanted to play, because every fix brought 3 new bugs in different titles, and known issues took months if not years to fix.



You just don't know what you are talking about or you've experienced a different parallel universe.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 9, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> 'Good price' how? I just don't see it.
> 
> Same performance as the old 1070 Ti, which can be had for the same price new here in the UK (good custom models as well) and this has less VRAM than that card. Also, 1080 performance, which this is behind, could be had for 2 years now already. A 'new gen' from Nvidia arrives slower than that and they're still charging over $300 for the privilege.


Typical case of fanboy cataracts.when vega brought down 1080 performance by $100 guys said it's great value,even though it guzzled power like a V16 guzzles gas.Now 2060 brings it down another $150,with good power efficiency and even some RT functionality too And somehow they complain  can we even have a more transparent case of brand bias ?


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jan 9, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> Typical case of fanboy cataracts.when vega brought down 1080 performance by $100 guys said it's great value,even though it guzzled power like a V16 guzzles gas.Now 2060 brings it down another $150,with good power efficiency and even some RT functionality too And somehow they complain  can we even have a more transparent case of brand bias ?



Ha ha 'fanboy cataracts'. How, when I'm typing this on a system with an EVGA FTW2 1070 Ti, and the card before that was a 1060. I've also owned a 950, 960, 980 and my back-up card is a passively cooled GT 710 so I can still use my computer when I sell the main cards. So you see, I'm well placed to criticise your favourite company Nvidia because I buy their products, _regularly_, but the difference is I'm not a fully paid-up member of the Nvidia marketing shill brigade like yourself.

So you say we're getting GTX 1080 performance, after *TWO AND A HALF YEARS,* has been brought down $150, and you've got your party hat out, trying to sell this card to people on these forums?! Don't you think things drop in price as time goes by you melt? Is that a concept you understand? My Galaxy S9 cost £800 at the start of the year. Now you can buy them out of contracts for £450. That's how things work.


----------



## bug (Jan 9, 2019)

^^^ the fail is strong with this one.


----------



## Xaled (Jan 9, 2019)

Gold award for "matching a pricier card" at "the same price"... lol AMD once again making nvidia look good


----------



## bug (Jan 9, 2019)

Xaled said:


> Gold award for "matching a pricier card" at "the same price"... lol AMD once again making nvidia look good


Whether a card is good or not has always been dependent on competition, hasn't it?


----------



## Xaled (Jan 9, 2019)

bug said:


> Whether a card is good or not has always been dependent on competition, hasn't it?


Sure it has, but in this case there is no competition at all. i hope we dont see an era similar to the cpus prior-to-ryzen release era


----------



## kings (Jan 9, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Absolutely true, I've been saying this ever since AMD announced they 'd focus on midrange. Its a loser's strategy.



But, AMD fans have been saying for some years now that the money is in the mid-end and with this strategy AMD will gain a lot of market share!

In reality, this strategy stalled AMD in the 20%~25% market share and a GPU business that has less and less relevance to the company's total profits.


----------



## eltano06 (Jan 9, 2019)

Who is going to pay $550 for a 2070 when you can get this one for $350.


----------



## Xaled (Jan 9, 2019)

kings said:


> But, AMD fans have been saying for some years now that the money is in the mid-end and with this strategy AMD will gain a lot of market share!
> 
> In reality, this strategy stalled AMD in the 20%~25% market share and a GPU business that has less and less relevance to the company's total profits.


 AMD do not act according fans you argue with on forums. They are in this terrible position becausr of bad decisions worst of is buying ATI and killing both ATI gpus and AMD cpus


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 9, 2019)

eltano06 said:


> Who is going to pay $550 for a 2070 when you can get this one for $350.



And get lower performance. Crazy right?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 9, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> You may doubt the price but 1920 turing cores equalling 2560 Pascal and 4096 vega cores is pretty great.navi has a lot to live up to and it won't be easy even on 7nm.



They changed up the core so the core count doesn't really say much does it  The perf/watt of a GTX 1080 is 1% better than that of the 2060. Turing is just Pascal with RT and some minor shader changes to make it fit.

So in that sense, AMD is looking at the same situation as they did with Pascal.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 9, 2019)

kings said:


> But, AMD fans have been saying for some years now that the money is in the mid-end and with this strategy AMD will gain a lot of market share!
> 
> In reality, this strategy stalled AMD in the 20%~25% market share and a GPU business that has less and less relevance to the company's total profits.


The majority of AMD's GPU sales are low-end OEM GPUs and APUs, both of which are low-margin products despite some volume. Vega doesn't even register in the Steam Hardware survey, and RX 480 & RX 580 combined is outsold by GTX 1060 by a factor of 11.7. So in reality, AMD only have a presence in the low-end GPU market. If they ever are going to make money on GPUs again, they need to compete with RTX 2060/2070/2080, that's the segment with both good margins and high volume. Even if AMD dominated the sub $200 segment, the profits would be too small to fund future development.

Many have forgot how AMD have spent their money in the last few years. AMD have tried to be best in every market, and failed in most. Not only did they try to conquer both gaming and professional compute with various GCN iterations, they also spent billions on ARM-based Opterons, then project "skybridge" - the hybrid x86-ARM platform, then K12 - the high-end ARM CPU architecture. Then combine this with constant restructuring, shifting focus and staff changes. AMD don't have enough money to spend on all this. What they should have done is having one team focusing on mainstream desktop CPUs(Zen) and one on mainstream desktop CPUs, and if they had done this for the last decade, they would have had a competitor to RTX 2060/2070/2080 (ignoring ray-tracing).


----------



## M2B (Jan 9, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> They changed up the core so the core count doesn't really say much does it  The perf/watt of a GTX 1080 is 1% better than that of the 2060. Turing is just Pascal with RT and some minor shader changes to make it fit.
> 
> So in that sense, AMD is looking at the same situation as they did with Pascal.



The main difference between turing and pascal is caching. seems like modern games do benefit more from better caching and lower latencies than older games, I think. I'm not sure about that but seeing the RTX 2080 performing better against 1080Ti in newer games (which use way more post processing effects) might be a proof.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 9, 2019)

This is pretty odd @W1zzard










And there is a trend, too. On Anandtech I see the 1080 and sometimes the Vega64 put a 10% perf gap between the 2060 FE. And that is _even with the 2060 FE doing 93.5 versus 89.1 on TPU._

One other point to make; this is why I feel TPU needs to be adding minimum FPS / 99th percentile results. The 2060 falls apart at 4K, this is where you see the lacking VRAM department at work. TPU's review completely misses out on that info.








moproblems99 said:


> The the exception that the 2080ti is a little further ahead of the 1080ti.



I honestly can't consider a 1200 dollar MSRP card a relevant part of the product stack. Its priced well out of the comfort zone.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 9, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> So in that sense, AMD is looking at the same situation as they did with Pascal.



The the exception that the 2080ti is a little further ahead of the 1080ti.


----------



## jabbadap (Jan 9, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> They changed up the core so the core count doesn't really say much does it  The perf/watt of a GTX 1080 is 1% better than that of the 2060. Turing is just Pascal with RT and some minor shader changes to make it fit.
> 
> So in that sense, AMD is looking at the same situation as they did with Pascal.



Well in sense of fp32 shader performance improvements one could use perf/Tflops metrics. I.E.
RTX 2060: 100%/(2*1920*1.865) ~ 0.01396 -> 100%
GTX 1080: 102%/(2*2560*1.783) ~ 0.01117 -> 100% * 0.01117/0.01396 = 80%

Of course it not all from shader, but between gtx 1080 and RTX 2060 impact of different memory configurations are quite minor.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 9, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> I honestly can't consider a 1200 dollar MSRP card a relevant part of the product stack. Its priced well out of the comfort zone.



I don't disagree with you but for some, if you aren't the best your not relevant.


----------



## jabbadap (Jan 9, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> This is pretty odd @W1zzard
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would say anandtech has some odd numbers there on RTX 2060 at shadow of war. Gap between RTX 2060 and RTX 2070 is really huge. On Pcper's review is quite in line with tpu, but obviously fps differs a lot between review to review.


----------



## bug (Jan 9, 2019)

Xaled said:


> Sure it has, but in this case there is no competition at all. i hope we dont see an era similar to the cpus prior-to-ryzen release era


Sure there is. It's not in the same league, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to compare against


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 9, 2019)

jabbadap said:


> I would say anandtech has some odd numbers there on RTX 2060 at shadow of war. Gap between RTX 2060 and RTX 2070 is really huge. On Pcper's review is quite in line with tpu, but obviously fps differs a lot between review to review.



Yes, the numbers are different across the whole thing (slightly higher FPS across the board @ Anandtech), but the % gaps are not. The 2060 is very close to TPU's results (only 4 FPS more), while Vega 64 scores 13 FPS over the TPU result. And the 1080 is also higher up the tree than it is on TPUs results - consistently - across all games tested. I mostly looked at the cards the 2060 competes against - because the whole argument for this card is that it pushes the price of that performance level down. But Anandtech's review actually shows a very different picture, with a notable performance gap that doesn't favor the 2060. Additionally, going off the TPU 4K numbers you might think the card is very consistent at pushing 4K compared to 1440p and 1080p, but the polar opposite is true - its min FPS can only compete with a 6GB 980ti and a GDDR5 driven 1070 - and that is when considering the slightly higher numbers in the Anandtech review.

The 2070 then - compare it to Vega 64. On TPU: 91.6 > 104 (12,4 FPS) On Anandtech: 104 > 116.9 (12.9 FPS). Seems legit in terms of relative performance. As does the gap between 2070 and 2080.

_Something_ is wrong with those 2060 numbers and I am inclined to believe Anandtech for accuracy here. And only because of its consistency.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 9, 2019)

I will probably upgrade from the gtx970 SC next Spring to this card. Although I don't like paying more than $300 for a GPU. Afterall most of the time I am playing games like Rimworld, Prison Architect, Astroneer, etc.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 9, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> On Anandtech


Do they start their benches with cold cards (causing some to boost high for 30 seconds and then drop clocks) ? Or maybe using a non-reference Vega?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 9, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Yes, the numbers are different across the whole thing (slightly higher FPS across the board @ Anandtech), but the % gaps are not. The 2060 is very close to TPU's results (only 4 FPS more), while Vega 64 scores 13 FPS over the TPU result. And the 1080 is also higher up the tree than it is on TPUs results - consistently - across all games tested. I mostly looked at the cards the 2060 competes against - because the whole argument for this card is that it pushes the price of that performance level down. But Anandtech's review actually shows a very different picture, with a notable performance gap that doesn't favor the 2060. Additionally, going off the TPU 4K numbers you might think the card is very consistent at pushing 4K compared to 1440p and 1080p, but the polar opposite is true - its min FPS can only compete with a 6GB 980ti and a GDDR5 driven 1070 - and that is when considering the slightly higher numbers in the Anandtech review.
> 
> The 2070 then - compare it to Vega 64. On TPU: 91.6 > 104 (12,4 FPS) On Anandtech: 104 > 116.9 (12.9 FPS). Seems legit in terms of relative performance. As does the gap between 2070 and 2080.
> 
> _Something_ is wrong with those 2060 numbers and I am inclined to believe Anandtech for accuracy here. And only because of its consistency.


it may be about other cards. what vega are they using ? and what fan profile ?

here's a ppc.pl review,they're a trustworthy source

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_geforce_rtx_2060_nastepca_gtx_1060_dogania_gtx_1080

@1440p 2060 beats 1080 narrowly in 6 games,matches in 1 and in 4 1080 beats it narrowly. 2060 is a faster card,though only by a whisker.
This is not something we just imagined, the smallest rtx card kicks ass.





Easy Rhino said:


> I will probably upgrade from the gtx970 SC next Spring to this card. Although I don't like paying more than $300 for a GPU. Afterall most of the time I am playing games like Rimworld, Prison Architect, Astroneer, etc.


maybe there's 1160 coming,who knows.


----------



## eltano06 (Jan 9, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> And get lower performance. Crazy right?



18% faster, 50+% more expensive.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 9, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Do they start their benches with cold cards (causing some to boost high for 30 seconds and then drop clocks) ? Or maybe using a non-reference Vega?



I don't know, honestly, but we do know you have older results in your data. You also have a faster (CPU side) test setup with a whopping 500mhz gap and marginally faster RAM - while your results are generally lower FPS (and these were 1080p results). The combination of things doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to explain this difference. Pascal being warm versus cold also wouldn't really explain this amount of a difference - you're talking about three to five boost bins and only briefly in that sense. Driver wise the situation is near identical, at least on the Nvidia side. And I really doubt quad channel RAM has this impact.

Don't get me wrong, not questioning your being faithful about the results, just curious what could cause such a gap.


----------



## N3M3515 (Jan 9, 2019)

The legend says there was a time you could buy an new gen x60 card at $200 -$250 and get previous gen x80 performance...


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jan 9, 2019)

N3M3515 said:


> The legend says there was a time you could buy an new gen x60 card at $200 -$250 and get previous gen x80 performance...



The legend also said AMD were once competitive too. Mythical times of horses and knights, King Vega was going to rule, but he died a horrible painful death.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 9, 2019)

Fluffmeister said:


> The legend also said AMD were once competitive too. Mythical times of horses and knights, King Vega was going to rule, but he died a horrible painful death.



Why can't your posts always be like this?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jan 9, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Why can't your posts always be like this?



I'm drinking tonight (long story), so I always get more whimsical.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 9, 2019)

Fluffmeister said:


> I'm drinking tonight (long story), so I always get more whimsical.



Hopefully your drinking for positive reasons - and not alone!


----------



## bug (Jan 9, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> I don't know, honestly, but we do know you have older results in your data. You also have a faster (CPU side) test setup with a whopping 500mhz gap and marginally faster RAM - while your results are generally lower FPS (and these were 1080p results). The combination of things doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to explain this difference. Pascal being warm versus cold also wouldn't really explain this amount of a difference - you're talking about three to five boost bins and only briefly in that sense. Driver wise the situation is near identical, at least on the Nvidia side. And I really doubt quad channel RAM has this impact.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, not questioning your being faithful about the results, just curious what could cause such a gap.


Are we talking standard benchmarks here? Because if each/one site benchmarks their own game play session, that would explain a lot.


----------



## Palladium (Jan 10, 2019)

Man, I can't remember the last time I was _this_ bored with PC hardware. The CPU core wars are nice and all but both camps are now already deep in the overkill territory for games, and this new 2060 is barely better than my 2.5 year old 1070 with the only real perk that it costs $100 less than the inflated launch price I paid for my 1070 at.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 10, 2019)

Palladium said:


> this new 2060 is barely better than my 2.5 year old 1070 with the only real perk that it costs $100 less than the inflated launch price I paid for my 1070



Luckily, the 2070 is the natural successor and not the 2060.


----------



## chr0nos (Jan 10, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> This is pretty odd @W1zzard
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Drivers on AMD side: Catalyst 18.8.2 WHQL are just plain OLD and it was brought up some time ago but dismissed as nonsense, Anand uses latest it seems.


----------



## bajs11 (Jan 10, 2019)

it seems a lot of people have bad memory and totally forgot that the GTX 1060 with its 250 usd msrp outperformed the GTX 980:
we are talking about a new generation of cards released two and a half years later and costs 40% more than its predecessor


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jan 10, 2019)

M2B said:


> The main difference between turing and pascal is caching. seems like modern games do benefit more from better caching and lower latencies than older games, I think. I'm not sure about that but seeing the RTX 2080 performing better against 1080Ti in newer games (which use way more post processing effects) might be a proof.



I don't think that has anything to do with it. Simply, Nvidia is prioritising game optimisations for their latest gen of cards like they have always done. Same thing happened between Maxwell and Pascal (I recall the gap between the 1070 and 980 Ti  was minimal with older games but got larger as newer games were released and were more optimised for Pascal).


----------



## londiste (Jan 10, 2019)

bajs11 said:


> it seems a lot of people have bad memory and totally forgot that the GTX 1060 with its 250 usd msrp outperformed the GTX 980:
> we are talking about a new generation of cards released two and a half years later and costs 40% more than its predecessor
> 
> View attachment 114296


You are quibbling about a couple %? RTX2060 is 1-2% slower than GTX1080.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/33.html



Shatun_Bear said:


> I don't think that has anything to do with it. Simply, Nvidia is prioritising game optimisations for their latest gen of cards like they have always done. Same thing happened between Maxwell and Pascal (I recall the gap between the 1070 and 980 Ti  was minimal with older games but got larger as newer games were released and were more optimised for Pascal).


Not so much Nvidia but games themselves are increasingly optimized for newer features as time passes.


----------



## bajs11 (Jan 10, 2019)

londiste said:


> You are quibbling about a couple %? RTX2060 is 1-2% slower than GTX1080.
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/33.html
> 
> Not su much Nvidia but games themselves are icreasingly optimized for newer features as time passes.



doesn't matter if it's x% faster or slower than the GTX 1080
but the xx60 series have been a sub 300 usd mid-range consumer card for average gamers

praising it being:


> NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 2060 doesn't seem cheap at $349, but this new card has enough steam to beat AMD's RX Vega lineup at better pricing and with much better power/heat/noise. Actually, the RTX 2060 obsoletes much of NVIDIA's GeForce 10 Pascal stack, too.



is almost as irresponsible as Toms "just buy it" article
I am sure any rational person would expect no less from a successor to a card that was released two and a half years ago but the 40% increase in msrp is a huge deal or more like a deal breaker for the gamers who don't usually spend more than 250-300 bucks on a GPU


----------



## londiste (Jan 10, 2019)

Are you buying price and/or performance or the name on the card?

Prices have definitely been going up but up until yesterday RTX2060 was competing with the *best *that competition had to offer. And this is the 4th fastest card in RTX series. These are the only things faster then it plus a couple Nvidia cards from previous generation.

With all that, RTX2060 is still at the same performance level and 70% cheaper than GTX1080 was at launch less than two years ago.


----------



## M2B (Jan 10, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> I don't think that has anything to do with it. Simply, Nvidia is prioritising game optimisations for their latest gen of cards like they have always done. Same thing happened between Maxwell and Pascal (I recall the gap between the 1070 and 980 Ti  was minimal with older games but got larger as newer games were released and were more optimised for Pascal).



By newer games I didn't necessarily mean latest games, I meant post 2015~ titles which favour the RTX series more compared with some older titles such as Crysis 3 and GTA V (GTA V is technically a 2013 game)


----------



## bug (Jan 10, 2019)

bajs11 said:


> is almost as irresponsible as Toms "just buy it" article
> I am sure any rational person would expect no less from a successor to a card that was released two and a half years ago but the 40% increase in msrp is a huge deal or more like a deal breaker for the gamers who don't usually spend more than 250-300 bucks on a GPU


I'm in that category and I'm seriously thinking about getting one of these. Because till now there was no $350 card that could max out games at 1440p and play at 4k with some tweaking.


----------



## Eric3988 (Jan 10, 2019)

Knock off $100 and get rid of the RTX and I would be interested in this card to replace my 970 in my secondary rig.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jan 11, 2019)

those who are still comparing the RTX2060 against "affordable", older GPUs don't get the message that those older gen cards are selling at a discount before the 2060 was unveiled. Now, those Pascal cards are selling north of $400+ for the "cheapest" aftermarket GTX1070Ti & that card still didn't have ANY of the premium features like Tensor Cores & RT cores baked into the silicon. $350 for the 2060FE is pretty competitive considering that the entire Pascal lineup & AMD's entire GPU lineup does not have those features in them.


----------



## heky (Jan 11, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> *premium features* like Tensor Cores & RT cores



For f-sake...these are just compute cores with a fancy name...


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 12, 2019)

heky said:


> For f-sake...these are just compute cores with a fancy name...


Nvidia says that you can use all three independently, at the same time, without one affecting the other's performance. The die shots support that these are independent units?


----------



## heky (Jan 12, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Nvidia says that you can use all three independently, at the same time, without one affecting the other's performance. The die shots support that these are independent units?


Sure, but they are still compute units, programmable to do certain tasks better than the other cores. Dont get me wrong, i am not biased to one company (i use a 1080 ti atm), but the whole Tensor Cores & RT cores is just a fancy name for Nvidia to use and milk us more. I still think the whole RTX series is over-hyped and way overpriced.


----------



## londiste (Jan 12, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Nvidia says that you can use all three independently, at the same time, without one affecting the other's performance. The die shots support that these are independent units?


That sounds bullshit. Die shots seem to support tensor cores are (at least somewhat) separate but RT cores seem to be attached to the SM. Beyond that, at least RT cores apparently use the same caches, which would make them definitely affect SM core performance.


----------



## bug (Jan 12, 2019)

heky said:


> Sure, but they are still compute units, programmable to do certain tasks better than the other cores. Dont get me wrong, i am not biased to one company (i use a 1080 ti atm), but the whole Tensor Cores & RT cores is just a fancy name for Nvidia to use and milk us more. I still think the whole RTX series is over-hyped and way overpriced.


Yes, because you can totally do everything a tensor core does on GCN with the proper software support, right?
I mean, sure, they're a new class of hardware never before seen. But they are a specialization of compute units no one else has. Yet.


----------



## Artas1984 (Jan 12, 2019)

I was wondering how on earth this GTX 2060 is so much faster than GTX 1070 having the same cuda cores and clock speed - due to GDDR6 it has a memory bandwidth larger than GTX 1080! While not a 4K card, it performs at 4K very well with it's 6 GB VRAM.

However, as we know, the first reference impressions might be misleading a bit. The real truth will come once this GTX 2060 at it's max overclock will be compared to other overclocked cards, not against reference versions of older cards, which is only half the true.


----------



## bug (Jan 12, 2019)

Artas1984 said:


> I was wondering how on earth this GTX 2060 is so much faster than GTX 1070 having the same cuda cores and clock speed - due to GDDR6 it has a memory bandwidth larger than GTX 1080! While not a 4K card, it performs at 4K very well with it's 6 GB VRAM.
> 
> However, as we know, the first reference impressions might be misleading a bit. The real truth will come once this GTX 2060 at it's max overclock will be compared to other overclocked cards, not against reference versions of older cards, which is only half the true.


Currently this is anywhere from 33-50% faster than my GTX 1060 6GB. Even if you dial that back 10%, it's still an above average generational leap.
The real unknown (to me) is the street price. $350 is right on the fence. Anything above prices this right into traditional high-end territory which doesn't jive well with those 6GB VRAM. Anything less makes this an amazing value/$$$.


----------



## Xenom (Jan 14, 2019)

I feel it's wrong to call this a "Review" not saying techpowerup is the only one doing it, but to be fair to readers/consumers it really should be titled 'Preview' not "Review".

We all know chip and board manufacturers have sent out "golden samples" and even cards with different bioses to "Reviewers" compared to what later has been released to the public and general consumers.

Sure we can call it a "Review" of the pre-release, or media-release, and the ultimate responsibility lay with the consumer/reader. Not all consumers are super aware of all details of "our" world. We the "enthusiasts" or "geeks" know about these things, the trickery and the deceptions by manufacturers. Need I say 3.5GB ? We, the geeks, know to take any "Review" of a product, especially one that hasn't been released yet, with a HUGE grain of salt!
But many "general consumers" will fall victims to hype, and spend many times hard earned cash on a product that will simply melt in price and value as trickery some times uncrumble right before their eyes.

I think we should stick to 'Preview' rather than "Review" in case of these products.

Peace!


----------



## scotty99 (Jan 19, 2019)

Has anyone else purchased the 2060 founders?

I am getting temps higher than i expected, and was curious if you guys think i should exchange it.

My room ambient is 20.5c and i have two 140mm intake fans running at 1250 rpm, and two 120mm exhaust fans at 1000. Case is a nzxt s340 elite. After an hour of gaming at 1440p/165hz (gsync) i see temps creeping close to 80c, and the fans on the 2060 hit about 2100 rpm. Its still staying under the 80c point and clockspeeds arent throttling, but there is no room for overclocking whatsoever. I love everything else about the founders but the temps have me bummed, every review i saw on it had temps ranging from 68c-73c, apparently in real world environment that changes quite a bit.


----------



## bajs11 (Jan 22, 2019)

heky said:


> Sure, but they are still compute units, programmable to do certain tasks better than the other cores. Dont get me wrong, i am not biased to one company (i use a 1080 ti atm), but the whole Tensor Cores & RT cores is just a fancy name for Nvidia to use and milk us more. I still think the whole RTX series is over-hyped and way overpriced.


considering how big and popular Mac has become I would dare to claim that most consumers don't think logically and rationally
all a manufacturer has to do is over-hype a product then they would be able to overcharge it by quite a bit and people would still buy it

It will soon be a half year since the release of the RTX cards how many RT games have been released so far?
People are also forgetting that Pascal cards have been around since May 2016
any rational human being would find it strange or even outrageous that gpus released two and half years later don't have the same performance gains as the previous generation had over the Maxwell cards and yet cost so much more


----------



## londiste (Jan 22, 2019)

scotty99 said:


> My room ambient is 20.5c and i have two 140mm intake fans running at 1250 rpm, and two 120mm exhaust fans at 1000. Case is a nzxt s340 elite.


Try taking the front panel off just for a test. S340 is not a very good case when it comes to airflow.


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

bajs11 said:


> considering how big and popular Mac has become I would dare to claim that most consumers don't think logically and rationally
> all a manufacturer has to do is over-hype a product then they would be able to overcharge it by quite a bit and people would still buy it
> 
> It will soon be a half year since the release of the RTX cards how many RT games have been released so far?
> ...


For such liberal use of "rational", you manage to come out pretty irrational at the end.
Maxwell was a refinement or a refinemnent on 28nm (because TSMC failed at their 20/22nm node). Pascal that followed benefited from a 2 node jump at once. How rational is to expect the jump that came with that to be the norm?
And the price, don't worry about that. Overpriced stuff won't sell. it will collect dust on the shelves till the manufacturer will be forced to lower prices.


----------



## bajs11 (Jan 22, 2019)

bug said:


> For such liberal use of "rational", you manage to come out pretty irrational at the end.
> Maxwell was a refinement or a refinemnent on 28nm (because TSMC failed at their 20/22nm node). Pascal that followed benefited from a 2 node jump at once. How rational is to expect the jump that came with that to be the norm?
> And the price, don't worry about that. Overpriced stuff won't sell. it will collect dust on the shelves till the manufacturer will be forced to lower prices.



tell that to Apple and their fanboys
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook


*1.3GHz dual-core* *7th*-generation Intel Core i5 processor
Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz
8GB 1866MHz LPDDR3 memory
512GB SSD storage1
Intel HD Graphics 615
Keyboard with second-generation butterfly mechanism
 
      $1,599.00


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

bajs11 said:


> tell that to Apple and their fanboys
> https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook
> 
> 
> ...


My point stands. Overpriced isn't when you and I are unwilling to pay that price. Overpriced is when almost everybody else isn't willing to pay.
That macbook is priced in line with what the target audience is willing to pay.


----------



## bajs11 (Jan 22, 2019)

uh well then my claim that most consumers are irrational is kind of true


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

bajs11 said:


> uh well then my claim that most consumers are irrational is kind of true


Only if irrational == have a different opinion than you do.


----------



## bajs11 (Jan 23, 2019)

hmm now you are getting into psychology, anthropology and even political science
but yes whats normal vary depending on who you ask and when
for example when my parents bought my first computer it cost roughly 3000 usd which by todays standard is way too much possibly even for an average Mac
but back in the 90s it was quite normal. So if the vast majority of Mac users believe that spending ~1500-2000 usd on a laptop is normal and well worth the price set by the manufacturer then the opinion by non-Mac users who consider it is totally inferior and overpriced isn't relevant.
So basically it has to do with on how much the manufacturers dare to charge which the targeted consumers are willing to accept and pay. If the consumers are willing to cough up then that said product is not overpriced and the consumers are not irrational beings. Which is also why neither the 1300 USD RTX 2080Ti nor the 350 USD RTX 2060 are overpriced because, at least we assume, people are buying them like hotcakes.


----------



## Trom (May 6, 2019)

Anyone got any idea if all these cards, the founders use Samsung memory or could I get stuck with Micron memory buying one new, unopened but still second hand.


----------

