NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Founders Edition 6 GB

[moproblems99]

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]

Very solid performance. Price is a bit high.

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

 

[renz496]

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!

 

[Raptor_i]

$300 and I'll upgrade.

 

[wolf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

'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]

'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]

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]

'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]

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]

^^^ the fail is strong with this one.

 

[Xaled]

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

 

[bug]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Xaled]

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]

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

And get lower performance. Crazy right?

 

[Vayra86]

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]

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).