NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Super Founders Edition

[B-Real]

Nice performance gains though and thanks for the review.

LOL, 6-7%.

Editor's choice - for what?

I'm being honest here, a 5% performance improvement at the same price all of a sudden deserves an Editor's choice award? This is the most disappointing out of all the three Super cards BY FAR.

Yeah, it's confusing to call at least. Guru also gave "Recommended" rewards for all RTX cards and even the 9700K or 9900K, and "Best Value" rewards for RX cards and Zen 2 CPUs. Really....

TPU didn't gave any reward for an RX card... at least the Zen 2 CPUs got their ones. The 3600 even got Value and Editor's choice ones.

Nice to see a fully enabled die. I'd like to try and build the next PC with no wasted silicon.

With that said I do not like the 2070 Super being called "Super" while using a gimped die when the original 2070 used a fully enabled die.

And what do you get with a "fully enabled die"? 14% more performance that costs 40% more. Except for the RTX 2060 Super, the whole RTX lineup is a big meh, especially in price-performance. But the performance jump from the previous gen is also pathetic. Combine it with a massive price increase and you get a -50% GPU sale in NV's report.

 

[HD64G]

I can see nVidia doing an Intel there. Laziness and greediness are over the top atm there. +5% on average cannot become a new product that deserves any credit. RX590 is such a product and was bashed from all tech reviewers. So, I expected a harsh conclusion for this bad product also. It even lost in efficiency as the RX590 just to get a few % more performance in order not to lower their price points. A very bad product for the customers imho.

 

[Wavetrex]

Are we heading into the age of 5% Year-to-Year improvements for GPUs ?

Didn't the 10 years of intel 5% Y2Y suck enough ?

I really hope not and this generation is just a "glitch", and we return to proper competition from next year.

 

[nemesis.ie]

Is <10% overall gain even noticeable in a blind test?

 

[64K]

Are we heading into the age of 5% Year-to-Year improvements for GPUs ?

Didn't the 10 years of intel 5% Y2Y suck enough ?

I really hope not and this generation is just a "glitch", and we return to proper competition from next year.

But Nvidia doesn't release a new generation every year. They release them around every 2 years. These Supers should be judged for what they are. Turing refreshes. The next generation from Nvidia should come next year and offer a large bump in performance over the present Turings. You can expect a good bit more than a 5% bump or if you won't to multiply that by 2 to represent two years in between generations then you can expect a lot more than 10% as well.

These are the gains from Turing over Pascal using the average performance summary from the charts on this site:

2080 Ti over 1080 Ti 43% faster
2080 1st release over 1080 37% faster
2070 1st release over 1070 39% faster
2060 1st release over 1060 56% faster

Now the performance bump was not as great as Pascal over Maxwell because Nvidia tied up space on the GPUs for Tensor and RT cores that otherwise could have gone to increased CUDA cores but the next generation will be on 7nm and I suspect we will be back to the kind of increases in performance we were used to.

Now we have the Turing refreshes with some more performance for the same price. That's not a bad thing.

If you want to talk about the increases in price over Pascal then you have a valid case imo but we are certainly getting a nice bump in overall performance with the Turings in spite of the introduction of RTX cores.

Look back on the 7970s. When AMD released their refresh the 7970 GHz did anyone expect a 50% to 60% increase in performance over the 7970? Refreshes never work like that.

 

[nemesis.ie]

Those performance improvements are all very well, but (as you note) the prices went up by more than the performance - by quite a bit.

If you compare performance/price, what do the percentages look like? How much value is there for folks still playing on 60Hz monitors at e.g. 1440p?

If they lowered the refresh prices, it would be more palatable.

 

[ShurikN]

2080 Ti over 1080 Ti 43% faster
2080 1st release over 1080 37% faster
2070 1st release over 1070 39% faster
2060 1st release over 1060 56% faster

Ugh mate, where do I start...
With Turing Nvidia moved the entire product stack one level higher, die sizes confirm that. And about pricing. Well...
2080 launch price was $800, 1080 was $600. 33% higher
2070 launch price was $500, 1070 was $380. 31% higher
At launch RTX 2080 was $100 more expensive than 1080Ti for barely any performance gains.
2080Ti is also 42% more expensive than 1080Ti to go along with the performance increase.

And on the topic of 7970, it and it's GHZ edition were the exact same chip just binned a bit better. Whereas Super cards are not to their respective vanilla versions.

 

[Noztra]

Ugh mate, where do I start...
With Turing Nvidia moved the entire product stack one level higher, die sizes confirm that. And about pricing. Well...
2080 launch price was $800, 1080 was $600. 33% higher
2070 launch price was $500, 1070 was $380. 31% higher
At launch RTX 2080 was $100 more expensive than 1080Ti for barely any performance gains.
2080Ti is also 42% more expensive than 1080Ti to go along with the performance increase.

Completely agree.

RTX Titan should have been 2080 Ti.
2080 Ti should have been 2080.
2080 should have been 2070.
2070 should have been 2060.
2060 should have been 2050.

But with RTX 20xx you are now paying xx70 price for a xx60 card. xx80 price for a xx70 card, etc.

So they moved the GPU's a tier down, and the prices a tier up.

 

[64K]

Ugh mate, where do I start...
With Turing Nvidia moved the entire product stack one level higher, die sizes confirm that. And about pricing. Well...
2080 launch price was $800, 1080 was $600. 33% higher
2070 launch price was $500, 1070 was $380. 31% higher
At launch RTX 2080 was $100 more expensive than 1080Ti for barely any performance gains.
2080Ti is also 42% more expensive than 1080Ti to go along with the performance increase.

And on the topic of 7970, it and it's GHZ edition were the exact same chip just binned a bit better. Whereas Super cards are not to their respective vanilla versions.

The 2080 and 2080 Super are the same chip. The TU104. Same die size. Same amount of transistors. Same Memory Bus and the 2080 Super is the topic of this thread. The Super just has a few more CUDA cores unlocked. Similar to the Fermi GTX 580 which was a refresh of the GTX 480.

I said in my post that the prices over the Pascals were a valid issue. If you choose to ignore the GPU space being taken up by Tensor cores and RT cores then you won't be able to understand why there aren't a good bit more CUDA cores instead to boost performance further in almost all games. We could of had the same performance bump with Turing over Pascal that we got with Pascal over Maxwell if Nvidia hadn't chosen to put Tensor cores and RT cores on the GPU.

 

[jabbadap]

Completely agree.

RTX Titan should have been 2080 Ti.
2080 Ti should have been 2080.
2080 should have been 2070.
2070 should have been 2060.
2060 should have been 2050.

But with RTX 20xx you are now paying xx70 price for a xx60 card. xx80 price for a xx70 card, etc.

So they moved the GPU's a tier down, and the prices a tier up.

You obviously mean pricing, not the card themselves. Every tier has their right name now with super out(Albeit rtx 2070 should have been rtx2060 in the first place). Pricing is just too damn high, not much competition before navi and using 12nm with huge chips.
RTX Titan (Full tu102) $2300- Titan Xp (Full gp102) $1200
RTX 2080 ti (crippled tu102) $999- gtx1080ti (crippled gp102) $699
RTX2080S (Full tu104) $699 - gtx1080 (Full gp104) $599
RTX2070S (Crippled tu104) $499 - gtx 1070 (crippled gp104) $379
RTX2060S(crippled tu106) $399 - gtx 1060 (full/crippled gp106) $249
+ tu11x sans RT. - gtx1060-gtx1050/ti.

 

[NDown]

if a 5800XT with 64cu launches I think I'll just press buy now without reading reviews.
nvidia on 10 or 7nm can't come soon enough either...

5700 series have been the most important and exciting gpu launch since GTX10 series concluded.

Yeah man, i just HAD TO login after 3 years of inactivity in the forum just to put a comment on how terribad this one is

Pascal and Maxwell especially the 970 (3,5 meme aside, it was pretty good) and 980Ti were good, i sincerely hope the bigger Navi would trample all over the RTX lineup, that is of course if AMD able to do so. So we didnt have to see another joke tier stuff like this.

 

[ShurikN]

The 2080 and 2080 Super are the same chip. The TU104. Same die size. Same amount of transistors. Same Memory Bus and the 2080 Super is the topic of this thread. The Super just has a few more CUDA cores unlocked. Similar to the Fermi GTX 580 which was a refresh of the GTX 480.

2080 and 2080 Super are cut from the same silicon, that's true, but do not have the same specs (cuda cores). So while they have the same chip, it's not the same chip... if you catch my drift. Otherwise, they would perform the same at the same clocks.

 

[trog100]

money must be getting tighter for the average tpu user.. i see no other reason for the constant price whinging..

things cost what they cost people ether buy them or they dont.. not everyone can afford what they would like to buy but there is always a lower tier down..

trog

 

[64K]

money must be getting tighter for the average tpu user.. i see no other reason for the constant price whinging..

things cost what they cost people ether buy them or they dont.. not everyone can afford what they would like to buy but there is always a lower tier down..

trog

Just speaking for myself I have more money now than I have ever had. For me it's not a question of whether I can afford a Turing or not. It's whether or not I think they are worth the price.

The way a free market works is that it's Nvidia's job as the seller to charge as much as they can while still managing to sell their product in reasonable quantities (whatever the market will bear). It's the customer's job as the buyer to pay as little as possible for the product. Complaining on forums about prices doesn't do much but refusing to buy the product at Nvidia's price does and discouraging others from getting ripped off buying at these prices helps.

An interesting note. Mr Huang said in one of the recent Financial Statements that Turings had not sold as well as expected. Now we have the Supers for the same price but a little more performance and if they don't sell well then we could see price cuts.

 

[NDown]

money must be getting tighter for the average tpu user.. i see no other reason for the constant price whinging..

things cost what they cost people ether buy them or they dont.. not everyone can afford what they would like to buy but there is always a lower tier down..

trog

Ahh, the good old "you don't have to buy it if you cant/doesnt want to" argument.

No, i'm pretty sure most of us here can afford one, but refuse to do so because it'll only get worse if the trend of "shit gpu at shit price" continues.

 

[kings]

So, why you have a $700 Radeon VII? There were cheaper RTX 2080 out there.

It´s only a shit GPU at shit price, when a card is from Nvidia? If it's from AMD, is the price justified?

If you complain about Nvidia prices and then buy an also overpriced AMD card, you are endorsing these practices.

 

[NDown]

So, why you have a $700 Radeon VII? There were cheaper RTX 2080 out there.

It´s only a shit GPU at shit price, when a card is from Nvidia? If it's from AMD, is the price justified?

If you complain about Nvidia prices and then buy an also overpriced AMD card, you are endorsing these practices.

1. I upgraded from an R9 290X and i have the XL2730Z monitor which is a FreeSync unit, the performance difference is massive, and the VII was the only top of the line card from AMD at the time, the 5700XT isnt even out yet.
2. The 2080 cost $200 more in my place (Indonesia), and no there arent any cheaper 2080 in my place nor the 1080Ti any better.
3. "If you complain about Nvidia prices and then buy an also overpriced AMD card, you are endorsing these practices." i was talking about the gpu market in general especially after the RTX lineup were announced, yes the Radeon VII release was kind of bad/underwhelming too but not even as atrocious as the 2080S ayy lmao.

 

[trog100]

graphics cards go from $150 to $1250 somewhere in this quite large range should be card to suit everybody..

i have 2080ti i done mind admitting its more than i need to play my games on.. a 1070tI would probably do me fine just a like a 9600 cpu would do me fine..

i dont lust after anything better because there isnt much better i also dont whinge about prices because i am fully aware i could have spent less if i wanted to..

i recon an over exaggerated sense of entitlement is what we are seeing at work here..

trog

 

[nemesis.ie]

An over exaggerated sense of entitlement to people's $$$ from a certain JHH and Co perhaps?

 

[geforce789]

So, why you have a $700 Radeon VII? There were cheaper RTX 2080 out there.

It´s only a shit GPU at shit price, when a card is from Nvidia? If it's from AMD, is the price justified?

If you complain about Nvidia prices and then buy an also overpriced AMD card, you are endorsing these practices.

Yep if these cards are such a scam where's the much much cheaper AMD equivalents to the 2000 series ? If Nvidia is charging 40-60% more what this card should cost then why isn't AMD smoking them price wise ??

They don't exist and AMD is just gonna do the same garbage they've done the last 2 or 3 gens (release a same priced Nvidia equivalent 6-12 months late while running hotter and not having third party coolers at launch).

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Ugh mate, where do I start...
With Turing Nvidia moved the entire product stack one level higher, die sizes confirm that. And about pricing. Well...
2080 launch price was $800, 1080 was $600. 33% higher
2070 launch price was $500, 1070 was $380. 31% higher
At launch RTX 2080 was $100 more expensive than 1080Ti for barely any performance gains.
2080Ti is also 42% more expensive than 1080Ti to go along with the performance increase.

And on the topic of 7970, it and it's GHZ edition were the exact same chip just binned a bit better. Whereas Super cards are not to their respective vanilla versions.

Exactly. I also wince at the Gtx 1080 Ti vs 2080 ti comparison...the standard 1080 clocks were quite low to start and OC'd variants had significantly higher performance and you still could OC them even more...the 2080ti is much closer to being at it's OC limit even at the stock/founder's edition whatever the fuck you want to call them speeds. So I realize you have to have a starting point and it is technically true that the 2080 ti is significantly faster than the 1080 ti at "stock speeds" for both, but that is very deceiving at best as well as for all practical purposes for anyone who OC's at all with their GPU (like most of us) is pretty pointless.

There's a reason I checked and not only is the 1080 ti and all of the 10 series not included in any of these 2080 "super" test results, there is only an app or two or game or two that is even the same in the 2080 vs 1080 reviews...I don't think either is a coincidence. It's not because in a relatively short time every benchmark and every game has changed and/or the 1000 series is irrelevant to put in charts, it's more because this new series whether regular or "super" are an embarrassment in price/performance/power use in comparison to Gpu's that were made their debut OVER 2 years ago.

 

[Shou Miko]

I guess this is a just RTX 20 Super series review to see how good the super series really r for the cards they replace/fit in the class.

But I really wish @W1zzard kept GTX 1080 Ti in here I would still love to see how it stacks up to the RTX 2080 Super.

Nice review even it's nothing that much new I still think only way I will feel much improvement in my system will be with a RTX 2080 Ti which is such a shame.

 

[W1zzard]

But I really wish @W1zzard kept GTX 1080 Ti in here I would still love to see how it stacks up to the RTX 2080 Super.

Bah, I forgot to include it. New charts uploaded with more cards for comparison

 

[nemesis.ie]

@geforce789 If I were in AMD's position and had a competitive card at a given price point, I would just undercut the price the competition set a small amount and benefit from higher margin/ASP.

If NV's sales stall due to high prices, they need to drop them, then AMD will also drop theirs.

At least with Navi there is probably very good margin so they can drop prices if needed, Vega's margins were likely very much slimmer and they still sold a much more expensive, lower margin card at a price point matching the competitor.

It's performance/dollar that counts (once a given card can keep up with your display).

I'd be fine with current tiers if we were seeing 50% higher performance. A V56 is pretty much maxing out my 1440p/60 screen, so no need to get anything now. I'll only look at something faster if it either brings better visuals (e.g. RT or other enhancements) at the same or better performance or is needed when UHD/120 screens finally appear. That's what I'm waiting for, a big leap.

"Future proofing" is largely gone in the GPU market. Any mid level card will likely last 2 years if you don't upgrade your monitor to a higher spec, or maybe longer. "budget" cards may possibly need to be updated yearly or settings lowered a little as time goes by I would think - depending on what the person's expectations are.

TL;DR: NV set the pricing higher, people paid it so we get higher prices. If we want that to change, we need to take a break from buying *any* new card until the price comes down. Or conversely we get much better gains for the current prices.

 

[Shou Miko]

@W1zzard u r the God of TPU