Nvidia GeForce RTX 2070 Super and RTX 2060 Super Review

[Shadowboxer]

I think this is great. Newer, faster cards, mild price bump on one and price reduction on 2 (several sites now claiming the 2080 Super is cheaper than the 2080). However I do feel that Nvidia would have given us more if Navi was better. They are clearly holding back. We won’t find out until the NDA releases but this to me is a big indication of what to expect from AMD - not much!

What is this nonsense? The 1080ti is absolutely a DX12 card. Even the GTX 900 series was DX12 ready.

Sorry, no your 1080ti can't not do asynchronous compute. It chokes on dx12 code...

Meta, the 1080ti performs mostly within margin of error and sometimes better than your beloved AMDs Radeon 7 at DX12 games - check out the links below. Not sure what you’ve been smoking mate but your claims about the 1080ti are simply wrong. Even AOTS the 2017 1080ti is faster than AMDs 4 month old flagship that costs the same.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1791-amd-radeon-vii-mega-benchmark/

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13923/the-amd-radeon-vii-review/8

 

[parowOOz]

I'm still on 1080p so could give a damn about Nvidia's price gouging. I bought a 1070 a year ago at $369 and now it's almost $200 more. Nvidia can go take a hike.

1. A year ago the 1070 was entering EOL status.
2. 2070S FE has a 499$ price tag so that would make it 130$ more. If FE cards command a premium like they did with original RTX cards, we can expect AIB variants of 2070S to be cheaper than 499$. Regardless, calling 130 almost 200 is a bit disingenuous.
3. To get 2070S level of performance from AMD currently you would have to buy RVII. Those cost 699$. If NVIDIA are price gouging, what are AMD doing ?

 

[treetops]

It's to bad they didn't do anything that you could actually call super. As the article states the 2060 to the 2060 super, is probably on par with the 50$ increase. The 2070 super is a real improvement, however the 2070 should have never been priced that high to begin with.

It looks like they just aimed to match AMD Navi. Nvidia cards have never gone below MSRP beyond temp deals. AMD on the other hand.

The whole mining price hike has jaded me towards Nvidia. I feel less contempt towards AMD with their new CPUs leap frogging intel and GPUs forcing Nvidia to match up.

 

[treetops]

Notice how these benchmarks aren't using frametimes..? It is because RTX2070 can't compete with 5700x... which means superturd.

You have any benchmarks to support your claims?

From what I can find, 5700 XT ain't anything special.

https://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/132248-geforce-rtx-2070-super-beats-radeon-rx-5700-xt-ffxv/

Heck even the non "super duper pooper scooper" beat the 5700 XT...

Nice link... shows the radeon vii below the 1070 ti....

 

[LogiGaming]

With the Benchmarks finally out Navi is DOA if they don't reduce price. The RTX 2070 Super is basically a GTX 1080TI with built in Ray Tracing for $499.. AMD your move.

GTX1080ti is for DX11 games. It doesn't have anything new or exciting and is basically wasted money for gamers today. Insignificant.

Notice how these benchmarks aren't using frametimes..? It is because RTX2070 can't compete with 5700x... which means superturd.

What´s 5700x performance? You have any links? Imo RTX 2070 Super is a very good product for the money. Performance basically similar to Vega VII and 1080ti, with way better power consumption and a good price of 500€ here in Europe. That´s a good deal compared to the current market state.

 

[treetops]

Looking at some used prices you can get a 1080 ti for under 500$ atm, 2080 550$, yet the radeon vii has kinda gone up. Looks like it's a mining champion?

 

[GrantOss]

With the Benchmarks finally out Navi is DOA if they don't reduce price. The RTX 2070 Super is basically a GTX 1080TI with built in Ray Tracing for $499.. AMD your move.

GTX1080ti is for DX11 games. It doesn't have anything new or exciting and is basically wasted money for gamers today. Insignificant.

Notice how these benchmarks aren't using frametimes..? It is because RTX2070 can't compete with 5700x... which means superturd.

Nope. 1080Ti is DX12.

 

[picka]

Hurray for another high-end card pretending to be midrange for $400.

 

[Fuzzy Dunalap]

Ummmm, up too soon? Usually the video releases before the written review.
Anyway, still not what I was hoping for. The prices are higher/the same, and they killed the lower SKUs. Where's the $250 killer? You can buy an entire ecosystem (Xbox/PS4) for the price of the card alone...

That's what I'm saying to. The 1660TI is nice but damn. Do they release stuff for those of us with bills/kids?

 

[slamscaper]

Will keep my 1080Ti.
https://scontent.fhou1-2.fna.fbcdn....=43a431da1419fde049db3487f8a4ad13&oe=5DB27707

I also have an EVGA 1080Ti that I bought about 4 months after the launch and I have to say, I've never felt like I've gotten my money's worth more out of a flagship card than I have out of this one. I mean, it still matches the 2080 and has more VRAM (even if it's a bit slower VRAM, who cares when you have 3GB more?). I really thought the new refresh, which I can't believe they actually called "super," didn't knock the 1080Ti down further than they have. From everything I heard, I really thought the 1080ti was going to lose nearly all of it's value, but it's still hanging with the best of em.

I do feel bad for the people that just bought a new RTX. I hope you can still return it...

 

[Adhmuz]

Nice link... shows the radeon vii below the 1070 ti....

It was never meant to be taken seriously.

Although, the 2070S is %12 faster than the 2070, and the 5700XT is claimed to be 6% faster than the 2070, thus the 2070S theoretically should be 6% faster than the 5700XT?

Really need a proper benching across multiple titles and scenarios. One benchmark, one that heavily favors Nvidia none the less, can't be used to prove anything.

 

[Prrredictable]

You can buy an entire ecosystem (Xbox/PS4) for the price of the card alone...

That is an absolute silly comparison. You can't compare a console to a PC. They might be made of similar parts these days, but they're in completely different leagues of performance.

I disagree to an extent. The ability to purchase "an entire ecosystem" for the cost of a single PC component is indeed a major factor for most gaming consumers. I have about a dozen close friends who game as much as I do, and the fact that I've spent nearly $2,000 on building and upgrading my PC in the past three years alone is a side-splitting joke to them. They would never spend more than the $400-$500 it costs for a PS4 or Xbox One, even when I soapbox about the performance gains. Frankly, I think PC component prices continue to rise, in part, because PC enthusiasts will continue to pay for the performance difference in comparison to consoles, not vice versa. Prices will continue to rise, too, for the foreseeable future, because we love FPS and low temps.

 

[Prrredictable]

Ummmm, up too soon? Usually the video releases before the written review.
Anyway, still not what I was hoping for. The prices are higher/the same, and they killed the lower SKUs. Where's the $250 killer? You can buy an entire ecosystem (Xbox/PS4) for the price of the card alone...

That's what I'm saying to. The 1660TI is nice but damn. Do they release stuff for those of us with bills/kids?

The 1660TI was a huge leap for me in terms of spending, but it has been a great reward.

 

[m3tavision]

NVIDIA GPUs as far back as Maxwell (900 series) were Direct3D feature level 12_1 compliant, so a 1080Ti is most definitely a DX12 card. At least going by DX12 specification. Not sure what you are using to determine which GPU is DX12 compliant.



The 5700XT hasn't launched yet so how do you know ? Going by AMD slides the 5700XT is on average 6% faster than a standard 2070. Let's be generous and say AMD have not used best-case results in their marketing and that 6% is exactly what we can expect with retail cards. That would still make the 5700XT slower than 2070S.

Not exactly on a roll with your comments

You are going the long way to say that you know the 1080ti can't do async compute. Again, everyone already knows this, that the Pascal chokes on real DX12 games. Hence why they still like to use dx11.

No matter, RTX/Turing are out & they support Async…


Navi is faster at games, because game companies will be writing their games for RDNA. Just take Battlefield franchise and use that as a barometer for things to come. Wait until 7/7/2019 and you will see.

Oh... do you think that the 5700 and the 5700x are the only cards AMD is releasing this year..?

 

[retsxel]

I disagree to an extent. The ability to purchase "an entire ecosystem" for the cost of a single PC component is indeed a major factor for most gaming consumers. I have about a dozen close friends who game as much as I do, and the fact that I've spent nearly $2,000 on building and upgrading my PC in the past three years alone is a side-splitting joke to them. They would never spend more than the $400-$500 it costs for a PS4 or Xbox One, even when I soapbox about the performance gains. Frankly, I think PC component prices continue to rise, in part, because PC enthusiasts will continue to pay for the performance difference in comparison to consoles, not vice versa. Prices will continue to rise, too, for the foreseeable future, because we love FPS and low temps.

While those are good points, you left out a few things. Keyboard & mouse and versatility. I absolutely refuse to play certain kinds of games with a controller. For some games, a controller is the perfect type of interface device. Yet there are a great many where it is completely clunky and cumbersome. FPS and RTS types come to mind. I WILL NOT play those kinds of games with a controller. Ever. Consoles are great for some games. PC's are great for all games because of the versatility of input types.

 

[retsxel]

Sorry, no your 1080ti can't not do asynchronous compute. It chokes on dx12 code...

You need to lay off the drugs. ALL NVidia GPU's have been able to do "asynchronous compute" since the GTX4xx series cards.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I disagree to an extent. The ability to purchase "an entire ecosystem" for the cost of a single PC component is indeed a major factor for most gaming consumers.

Do console games still cost more on average than PC games? If so I hope that is also included in the comparison.

I really have to deeply desire a game, before I spend over $15 for a PC title. Ohh and I use my machine for more than gaming, so for me it is not a straight up comparison in price. For me the console price would totally be additional.

 

[Notmare]

I really like the way you guys present your data and the insights that you offer. Do you have plans to compare Ray Tracing performance between the supers and existing RTX?

I have seen it from others, but would love to see your tests and hear your opinions on it.

 

[parowOOz]

You are going the long way to say that you know the 1080ti can't do async compute. Again, everyone already knows this, that the Pascal chokes on real DX12 games. Hence why they still like to use dx11.

No matter, RTX/Turing are out & they support Async…


Navi is faster at games, because game companies will be writing their games for RDNA. Just take Battlefield franchise and use that as a barometer for things to come. Wait until 7/7/2019 and you will see.

Oh... do you think that the 5700 and the 5700x are the only cards AMD is releasing this year..?

Please point to a specific place/line in the DirectX 12 specification where Microsoft say that your nebulous "async compute" is required for a specific GPU to be DX12 compliant.

Better yet, please define what you mean by async compute since you believe that the only NVIDIA cards capable of it are the RTX line of cards.

What are "real" DX12 games ? What does a game has to do/have to be considered a "real" DX12 game ?

First of all, we don't really know how Navi performs in anything since it hasn't launched yet. You seem to miss that "little" detail. And then, faster than what ? Pascal ? Turing ? Polaris ? Vega ?

Developers have been writing their games for GCN (X1, X1X, PS4, PS4PRO) for years now and yet being present in consoles for so long did not help GCN to outperform NVIDIA's offerings. Explain why you think it's going to be different with Navi ? I'm not saying it won't but the same arguments were flying around back when AMD won both X1 and PS4 deals a few years back. Historical evidence doesn't agree with your assumption.

Barometer of what ? Marketing failure ?

 

[Eflow]

Is anyone else tired of nvidia releasing new cards of the same architecture every 4-6 months? I have a 2070.....but I feel a little robbed with these new cards being released. what's next? the 2080ti super duper pooper scooper?

Someone is butthurt for no reason. Why do you care? It's called binning and maximizing production. They're taking dies that otherwise don't meet the specs required for one product line and they make a new product line out of them. Example, the 2070 Super is just a 2080 that didn't make the cut because of a defect in one cluster, has that cluster disabled and now you have a marketable GPU and you don't have to waste a bunch of GPU dies. This is not a new business model. AMD, Ati(BITD), Intel, Qualcomm and everyone else does this and it saves on A LOT of waste.

Looking back at the last 6-9 months, early adopters of RTX cards have gotten pretty screwed over by Nvidia. People trusted Nvidia and purchased cards that were objectively no faster than their previous generation's counterparts (some of which were 30 months old), primarily due to the promise of ray tracing being a game changer within the industry. They have faced extensive QA issues with early versions of cards that never should have been shipped in the first place. They have paid $350 (minimum) for an "enthusiast" RTX 2060 which inexplicably only had 6GB of VRAM.

Despite the lousy RTX launch, I am glad to see Nvidia making these changes. AMD has finally started to threaten Nvidia's dominance in the high-end card market, and consumers should ultimately benefit from it.

 

[parowOOz]

I disagree to an extent. The ability to purchase "an entire ecosystem" for the cost of a single PC component is indeed a major factor for most gaming consumers. I have about a dozen close friends who game as much as I do, and the fact that I've spent nearly $2,000 on building and upgrading my PC in the past three years alone is a side-splitting joke to them. They would never spend more than the $400-$500 it costs for a PS4 or Xbox One, even when I soapbox about the performance gains. Frankly, I think PC component prices continue to rise, in part, because PC enthusiasts will continue to pay for the performance difference in comparison to consoles, not vice versa. Prices will continue to rise, too, for the foreseeable future, because we love FPS and low temps.

But it's just a fallacy that you need to spend 2000$ or even 1000$ to have a "console-like" experience (performance, visual fidelity) on PC so please, stop spreading this silly myth. You can build a gaming PC capable of that for a price similar to a console. Educate your friends because it's evident they are misinformed on the subject.

Now, you absolutely can spend as much as you wish on a PC. Isn't it awesome that you have the option to do so ? For example, you can upgrade your rig at any time without having to buy a completely new system every 3-5years. With a decent foundation - CPU+MOBO+RAM - you can get through 2-3 console gens only having to upgrade your GPU to keep your rig relevant.

Games are cheaper on PC, there's more places to buy them which means more competition and that means more sales/deals etc. PC games are also more flexible - mods - making them last a lot longer. PC gamers are also very adept and fast at fixing bugs/glitches which dev's are too inept to do themselves etc. Let's also not forget that you don't have to pay to play online.

You get to choose which controller you want, not the console manufacturer. And on...

So in the long term, I'd wager you'll spend less on a gaming PC, if you're smart about it. And if prices of computer components keep rising, so will the cost of consoles. That or they will fall even farther behind PCs.

Consoles do have one thing going for them - exclusives, at least some of them. The amount of sacrifices you have to make to have the option to play them though is just too much. Performance alone is reason enough to not consider consoles at all. If you can live with it then that's fine I guess. It's weird though. You have the option to create a gaming machine exactly as you want - size, price, performance, controllers etc. - in case of PCs. You lose all of that freedom, upgrade potential and you put so many restrictions on yourself just for a bit more convenience and a few solid exclusive titles. It's a very, very steep price to pay.

 

[retsxel]

Looking back at the last 6-9 months, early adopters of RTX cards have gotten pretty screwed over by Nvidia.

No. I'm a 2080 owner who upgraded from a 1080. Quite happy with it.

People trusted Nvidia and purchased cards that were objectively no faster than their previous generation's counterparts (some of which were 30 months old)

Total and complete rubbish. Again, I'm a 2080 owner who upgraded from a 1080. The 2080 is MUCH faster than the 1080 in every game and on every level.

primarily due to the promise of ray tracing being a game changer within the industry.

It is. The uptake is slow because it's a new technology that devs need time to learn but that doesn't change it from being groundbreaking or a game-changer. Considering that most devs are including RTX support in their games, that seems like an industry changer to me.

They have faced a few minor QA issues with early versions of cards

Fixed that glaring mistake for you.

that never should have been shipped in the first place.

Every manufacturer has defectives on new product launches. It's par for the course.

They have paid $350 (minimum) for an "enthusiast" RTX 2060 which inexplicably only had 6GB of VRAM.

That is an entitled attitude. You do not get to decide the prices of NVidia GPUs, NVidia does. If you don't want one, buy a Radeon in that price range.

Despite the lousy RTX launch, I am glad to see Nvidia making these changes. AMD has finally started to threaten Nvidia's dominance in the high-end card market, and consumers should ultimately benefit from it.

 

[parowOOz]

To add to the above:

The whole "I feel for RTX owners" act - yeah, not buying that.

Secondly, as lexster has proven himself, you have no clue what current RTX owners think or feel about their cards so don't patronize them.

Learn what objective means. That would be good.

AMD pushed low-level APIs to the mainstream with Mantle. It didn't look pretty at the start but they got the ball rolling. We are thankfull they have done that. Why are people shitting all over NVIDIA for pushing RT into the market ?

 

[urbanman2004]

Thanks AMD for making NVIDIA great again . Based on the benchmarks, the 2070 seems like the sweet spot for most potential buyers. Also, hopefully NVIDIA has gotten their **** together regarding the stories of exploding RTX cards.

 

[m3tavision]

Please point to a specific place/line in the DirectX 12 specification where Microsoft say that your nebulous "async compute" is required for a specific GPU to be DX12 compliant.

Better yet, please define what you mean by async compute since you believe that the only NVIDIA cards capable of it are the RTX line of cards.

What are "real" DX12 games ? What does a game has to do/have to be considered a "real" DX12 game ?

First of all, we don't really know how Navi performs in anything since it hasn't launched yet. You seem to miss that "little" detail. And then, faster than what ? Pascal ? Turing ? Polaris ? Vega ?

Developers have been writing their games for GCN (X1, X1X, PS4, PS4PRO) for years now and yet being present in consoles for so long did not help GCN to outperform NVIDIA's offerings. Explain why you think it's going to be different with Navi ? I'm not saying it won't but the same arguments were flying around back when AMD won both X1 and PS4 deals a few years back. Historical evidence doesn't agree with your assumption.

Barometer of what ? Marketing failure ?

Dude, stop tryharding and learn to read. Never did I say that Pascal wasn't DX12 complaint. READ...

I said that Pascal chokes on real dx12 code that has async compute and/or DirectX RayTracing, etc. It is not the same as Turing, even if the 1080ti is as powerful at a RTX2080... the RTX is still superior, because Turing can do those things.

Secondly, Navi is not GCN, it is RDNA(1) and is a competely new archetecture. RDNA can simultaneously use GCN and RDNA... it is a hybrid design, until Developers transition into full RDNA. Even then, RDNA can inherently do GCN regardless, because is has a highly updated front end. Beyond what Turing is capable.

RDNA is 100% Gamer stuff.

 

[Eflow]

Looking back at the last 6-9 months, early adopters of RTX cards have gotten pretty screwed over by Nvidia.

No. I'm a 2080 owner who upgraded from a 1080. Quite happy with it.

People trusted Nvidia and purchased cards that were objectively no faster than their previous generation's counterparts (some of which were 30 months old)

Total and complete rubbish. Again, I'm a 2080 owner who upgraded from a 1080. The 2080 is MUCH faster than the 1080 in every game and on every level.

primarily due to the promise of ray tracing being a game changer within the industry.

It is. The uptake is slow because it's a new technology that devs need time to learn but that doesn't change it from being groundbreaking or a game-changer. Considering that most devs are including RTX support in their games, that seems like an industry changer to me.

They have faced a few minor QA issues with early versions of cards

Fixed that glaring mistake for you.

that never should have been shipped in the first place.

Every manufacturer have defectives on new product launches. It's par for the course.

They have paid $350 (minimum) for an "enthusiast" RTX 2060 which inexplicably only had 6GB of VRAM.

That is an entitled attitude. You do not get to decide the prices of NVidia GPUs, NVidia does. If you don't want one, buy a Radeon in that price range.

Despite the lousy RTX launch, I am glad to see Nvidia making these changes. AMD has finally started to threaten Nvidia's dominance in the high-end card market, and consumers should ultimately benefit from it.

I would certainly hope that your 2080 is a lot faster than the 1080. It cost $200 more and came out 2.5 years later.

The RTX launch was not "par for the course". It had more issues than normal, and after such a long gap between the 10 and 20 series, defects should not have been that significant.

I'm not sure why you mentioned anything about me setting prices for Nvidia. It is crazy to think that their cheapest RTX card with 8GB was $499 when they offered an 8GB 10-series card for $379 3 years ago.

I'm also not sure why you laugh when I say that the Super cards are a win for consumers. It's difficult to think that these cards were anything but a response to Navi given the timing of the release, and considering that Nvidia didn't have a comparable lineup change to high performance cards 6-9 months after the 10-series was released.

The original RTX launch was lackluster at best. It will eventually look a lot better if raytracing takes off within the industry. In the meantime, I think I'll be happy with my 1080 ti for the foreseeable future.

 

[dogofwars]

I'm still on 1080p so could give a damn about Nvidia's price gouging. I bought a 1070 a year ago at $369 and now it's almost $200 more. Nvidia can go take a hike.

1. A year ago the 1070 was entering EOL status.
2. 2070S FE has a 499$ price tag so that would make it 130$ more. If FE cards command a premium like they did with original RTX cards, we can expect AIB variants of 2070S to be cheaper than 499$. Regardless, calling 130 almost 200 is a bit disingenuous.
3. To get 2070S level of performance from AMD currently you would have to buy RVII. Those cost 699$. If NVIDIA are price gouging, what are AMD doing ?

16 GB HBM2 cost a lot of money, 300~ just for the 16GB of memory.

 

[retsxel]

I would certainly hope that your 2080 is a lot faster than the 1080. It cost $200 more and came out 2.5 years later.

Right? 50% faster in some cases.

The RTX launch was not "par for the course".

That statement is not supported by sales numbers.

It had more issues than normal, and after such a long gap between the 10 and 20 series, defects should not have been that significant.

You call 3% significant? I call that normal.

I'm not sure why you mentioned anything about me setting prices for Nvidia. It is crazy to think that their cheapest RTX card with 8GB was $499 when they offered an 8GB 10-series card for $379 3 years ago

Two points, R&D costs have always driven up prices and it's not crazy, it's business.

I'm also not sure why you laugh when I say that the Super cards are a win for consumers. It's difficult to think that these cards were anything but a response to Navi given the timing of the release, and considering that Nvidia didn't have a comparable lineup change to high performance cards 6-9 months after the 10-series was released.

The timing was on par with production numbers for binned GPU dies.

The original RTX launch was lackluster at best. It will eventually look a lot better if raytracing takes off within the industry. In the meantime, I think I'll be happy with my 1080 ti for the foreseeable future.

Compared to what? The launch of the RTX line was a great one for a brand new technology. Look back at every other GPU launch where something new and expensive was introduced and it took time for the product to build momentum. RTX was not like that. It was out the gate like a shot, compared to other similar launches. It's all about perspective and history. Just because it didn't live up to your(and others) expectations doesn't mean it wasn't a wild success.

 

[loki1944]

I would certainly hope that your 2080 is a lot faster than the 1080. It cost $200 more and came out 2.5 years later.

Right? 50% faster in some cases.

The RTX launch was not "par for the course".

That statement is not supported by sales numbers.

It had more issues than normal, and after such a long gap between the 10 and 20 series, defects should not have been that significant.

You call 3% significant? I call that normal.

I'm not sure why you mentioned anything about me setting prices for Nvidia. It is crazy to think that their cheapest RTX card with 8GB was $499 when they offered an 8GB 10-series card for $379 3 years ago

Two points, R&D costs have always driven up prices and it's not crazy, it's business.

I'm also not sure why you laugh when I say that the Super cards are a win for consumers. It's difficult to think that these cards were anything but a response to Navi given the timing of the release, and considering that Nvidia didn't have a comparable lineup change to high performance cards 6-9 months after the 10-series was released.

The timing was on par with production numbers for binned GPU dies.

The original RTX launch was lackluster at best. It will eventually look a lot better if raytracing takes off within the industry. In the meantime, I think I'll be happy with my 1080 ti for the foreseeable future.

Compared to what? The launch of the RTX line was a great one for a brand new technology. Look back at every other GPU launch where something new and expensive was introduced and it took time for the product to build momentum. RTX was not like that. It was out the gate like a shot, compared to other similar launches. It's all about perspective and history. Just because it didn't live up to your(and others) expectations doesn't mean it wasn't a wild success.

How was it a wild success?
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/63878/nvidia-stock-drop-worst-10-years-rtx-issues-rampant/index.html
Compared to what? The Delorean?