NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Founders Edition 6 GB

[W1zzard]

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]

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

For completeness, perhaps Adaptive Sync support could be mentioned.

 

[M2B]

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

 

[Rahmat Sofyan]

finally, thanks a lot W1zz

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]

finally, thanks a lot W1zz



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

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]

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]

performance per dollar at the level of 2016 RX 470?

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

 

[Fluffmeister]

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

 

[jabbadap]

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

 

[dirtyferret]

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

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

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

RIP.

Am sad. :<

AMD pls.

 

[illli]

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]

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]

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.

View attachment 114210

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]

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

 

[Vayra86]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[kastriot]

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

 

[M2B]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.