MSI GeForce RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6 GB

[Noztra]

Wizzard nice work on re-benching the graphics cards.

Are the conclusion gonna be updated to reflect the new results?

Gaming performance exceeds Vega 64 and GTX 1080 >> Gaming performance comparable with Vega 64 and GTX 1080.

 

[kurtextrem]

Thank you for all the 2060 tests so far. Really helpful for Gamers that don't have a huge budget.

Also, you are one of the only sites that bench actual eSports titles, such as Rainbow Six Siege. Hope you will do that in the future as well, great work!
Only one short thing: Would you please also list the settings you're using during the benchmark of such titles? E.g. Rainbow Six Siege detects settings automatically on startup, but some settings make a HUGE difference in fps (sometimes up to 40 and more). So giving us the settings you used helps the reader understand and helps you do correct benchmarks, because you always use the same settings (I guess you're doing that already, but just to be sure).

 

[deemon]

"We looked each card's current USD price up on Newegg and used it and all relative performance numbers to calculate the performance-per-dollar index."

Could you please stop being less vague and actually inserting actual performance metrics and actual prices you used in your formula? I have no effing idea what newegg prices were at this time you wrote the article. I would like to know the current situation, so the recalculation is needed and not knowing any of the initial numbers, it's kind of impossible.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Could you please stop being less vague and actually inserting actual performance metrics and actual prices you used in your formula?

If you actually read his review, he said exactly how he arrived at $385 price. It’s on Page 1.

 

[John Naylor]

so, an extra $30 something premium over FE for a marginal gain at 1080p but starts gaining more ground on 1440p... this TU106 core really loves high resolution... so, we crown it as the new 1440p GPU king for under $400? XD

Depends on your comparison ... you looking at just performance summary ? out of the box or overclocked ? Other features ? Do they add up to a 10% price increase ?

MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z went to 2055 MH ... 2060 FE went to 2010 MH (+2.2%)
The FE went to 121.1 fps in OC Test ... FE went to 118.1 (+2.5%)

Other differences ...

Quieter at full load - 31 vs 32 dbA
Quieter at Idel - 0 vs 26 dbA ( H U G E)
Lower temps - 68 versus 72 at full load + OC
Performance Advantage - 3 - 4% across test suite
Slots - 3 vs 2 but a non factor as not SI capable
Display Ports - 3 vs 2 but again not a real concern
Memory - I wanna say the Micron memory is a downside, but do we care if memory is slower but card delivers more fps.

So is it the best choice ? Well of those tested by TPU so farm the Zotac and Palit are out because no passive cooling at idle. That just leaves EVGA and given EVGA's PCB cooling fiascos with 9xx and 10xx series ... along with no backplate, wouldn't go there. So far, from what I've seen here on TPU, I favor the MSI. The passive cooling feature alone is worth the $30. I would like to see more detail tho on how this works ... the 970 controlled each fan separately (one GPU sensor / one some combinatio of GPU / PCB temps as i recall)

Could you please stop being less vague and actually inserting actual performance metrics and actual prices you used in your formula? I have no effing idea what newegg prices were at this time you wrote the article. I would like to know the current situation, so the recalculation is needed and not knowing any of the initial numbers, it's kind of impossible.

"According to MSI, their GeForce RTX 2060 Gaming Z will retail between $379 and $389, so we used $385 throughout this review for our calculations. "

What's the mystery at this point in time ? Until it hits the retail channel, nothing else to go by . After that, prices change sometimes more than once a week, and it seems like asking to much to go back and edit every article to show current pricing. Card is not in retail channel yet so what else can one expext other than the source given ?

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#m=27&c=436

I would suggest, if feasible or no other reasons regarding implication of endorsing specific sites, that a link to pcpartpicker or newegg site be included such as:

At time of release, price is expected to be $385, but you can check current pricing here....

As for the price per dollar figures, I find the entire concept invalid.

The MSI 2060 Gaming Z is 0.857 times as fast as the 2070 Reference
The MSI 2070 Gaming Z is 1.042 times as fast as the 2070 Reference

Ignoring manual OC ability for the time being ... that makes the $569 MSI 2070 1.22 times as fast as the anticipated $385 MSI 2060. The price ratio is 1.48 so is the argument true that the 2070 is not worth the price increase of 1.48 when the performance ration is only 1.22 ? This logic is flawed. It's not your GPU that goes faster, it's your whole system... your total investment includes everything on your desktop,

But for the sake of argument, let's just use "the box" and assume a conservative build cost of $1200, with the MSI 2060. Is a 22% performance increase worth a 15% increase in system cost ($184) from $1200 to $1384 by grabbing the 2070 instead ? While others may feel differently, I'd call that change a proverbial "no brainer", unless budgetary limitations mean you have to choose which kid doesn't eat for the next 2 weeks.

Let's say it was a generational thing with same numbers.... If the new card was the same $569 and you could sell your old card for say $300 ... your upgrade cost brings your total investment to date to $1469 ... You now have a system that is 22% faster for a 22% increase in cost.... basically a break even.

Of course, the performance increase is on paper and the relative impact / enjoyment on your end is the more relevant criteria ... but as this varies by individual, it's metric that can't be universally applied.

 

[Tazzify]

How big are the fans in mm?

 

[webdigo]

What thermal pad thickness does this card use?