2016's $400 GPU vs. 2019's $400 GPUs: GTX 1070 vs. RTX 2060 Super vs. Radeon 5700 XT

[amstech]

"Better buy even if the alternative is faster" -- huh? what?
.

That's great your AMD has less 'quirks'.
The RTX is the better buy for the same price.

I recall when the Radeon vII was slightly slower than RTX 2080 ... six months later I checked a new review and it was a fair bit faster. Same thing happened with Rx 580 (or was it 480?) vs 1060. AMD continues to improve driver support for titles in older cards ... something Nvidia doesn't do so you will upgrade more often, and spend more money over the long haul. I don't like that tactic.

I actually liked the Radeon VII, but to make up for all its shortcomings AMD needed to price it about $50-$100 cheaper, this was also stated by many reviewers who tested it , and that's why it flopped.

"Raw performance isn't the deciding point now ..." - don't be silly - that sounds like the Intel fanboi

Unfortunately , AMD's reputation for having more issues, less polish and an inferior overall package is true, and that's why you have the Steam results and discrete market GPU share you have today at every price point. It's been pretty common knowledge for the better part of 10 years. Are things different lately? Is it a much closer comparison then it used to be?
Perhaps.
I need to get back into gaming myself, look into online forums with various builds like overclock.net and see if things are starting to change. As we speak right now, its still a 75/25 discrete GPU domination, and about 80-90% of Steam users have Nvidia GPU's, at every price point.

I don't care who you are, what build you have, or what you think is correct.
If you truthfully believe AMD's GPU's have been as good, with the same amount of issues or similar, with comparable features/stability, why in the world are they getting COMPLETELY OWNED? Because [them being as good] that's not true, or at the least, it hasn't been true for a LONG TIME.
If things change, great.
But until they actually and truthfully do, you WILL NOT SEE a change in discrete GPU share or Steam results. Nothing I say or anyone else says in the comments is going to change what is, and what has been for a long time.
Not saying change is not in the air or that it won't happen, but for now, until I see otherwise, 80% market share and 90% of steam users at all pricing layers ENDS ALL ARGUMENTS, THE END.

 

[Evernessince]

I would agree. The drivers have been really great in the last few years and I find the software overall way better.

I recall my friend a few years back getting excited that he discovered MSI afterburner that could "let you tweak voltages and fan speeds!". I was a bit confused and responded "Yeah but you can change all that in the drivers anyway, can't you?" -- he looked at me dumbfounded.

Does NVidia not, or perhaps not ~five years prior, let you change all those in the drivers?

Or is the Nvidia "tools" a separate package from the drivers that maybe my friend didn't bother to install or something? Sorry its been a while since I used NVidia for gaming / tuning, I just use them for my work PCs and I can't find any HW tweaking controls, even basic OCing in those drivers at all ...

Nvidia drivers do not include any sort of OC features or monitoring which is a shame because even for regular people adjusting the fan curve and knowing temps is helpful.

 

[Mike89]

I'm still on my 1070 and it's still plenty good enough. Don't see myself doing anything for the foreseeable future.

 

[amghwk]

This seems a little biased in favor of AMD. The 2060 super is repeatedly looked down on because it is "only" 35% faster then the 1070, while the 5700xt is 48% faster and gets the authors praises.

The 5700xt is shows as a better example of 3 years of progress. This ignores that the 2060 super is built on a 1.5 year old arch, not a 6 month arch like the 5700xt. The 2060 super is evidence of how far the arch came in 2 years, not 3 and a half years. If the author had doen this comparison in june, AMD would have been in a far worse place, as all they had were Poor Vega cards (which I use in my system).

Just seems a little slanted to me.

Yes, I agree with the AMD bias thing in Techspot.

I just got a 5700XT, and it's a very nice card and the first AMD card in sometime that gave a real punch on Nvidia's arrogance.

But the way they write here is too much in favour of AMD with the choice of words, especially in damage control, which, I find not just (the choice of words).

On the other hand, I am happy AMD came out with the 5700XT, and the new Ryzen processors.

Good techspot users (@Evernessince especially) pointed me in this 5700XT direction when I was shopping for a graphics card. And this card is enough to go head-to-head even with 2080, when seeing 2080 only leads by a few frames, for that price point, which is not noticeable. Especially the minimum fps which is more important is quite close to each other. (I was about to get the 2080 but the overpriced scheme is too much for me to bear, even though I could have got it. And 2080Ti was a price bomb and totally not worth it at that absurd price.) (Previously, I was a Nvidia flagship purchaser upto 980Ti.)

Back to replying to your post, yes, it's obvious that the choice of words they use here is slanted.

 

[veLa]

What can I say? I'm really excited for the two PowerColor Red Devil Radeon RX 5700 XTs sitting on my desk.

 

[Gezzer]

My take? If you're looking for massive increases in older titles don't hold your breath.

This testing seems to illustrate how current GPUs that have full DX12 support will kill running current titles designed with DX12 in mind. Especially when compared to older GPUs with less robust DX12 support. But on DX11 or older API titles you'll only see modest gains. Pretty much what I'd expect.

 

[PEnnn]

Moral of the story is that PC gaming is expensive.

Quit bitching and play

Not really, only if you blindly accept what they tell you.

I am still using a GTX960, you read that right, a GTX 960 that plays Battlefield V, any COD game, any Far Cry, all releases of Metro and Fallout, etc that I throw at it without a hiccup.

Yep, that's a 4 MB VRAM card that was released in 2015, and each time I think I should bite the bullet and buy a $300 and up replacement, I see no compelling reason beyond bragging rights.

No Ray-tracing? Yeah, screw that gimmick!!

 

[Jeffrey2009]

An excellent article by Steven as always.

It's a pitty that there was no $400 GPU card at that level for AMD in 2016 until they released Vega56 one and a half years later.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Heh, I got back into PC gaming using Intel Iris and Iris Plus graphics so even a 1050 or a 270 is a powerhouse compared to that. All the rest is just icing, though it's nice that AMD is finally good at $400 with the 5700XT where previously they had only been competitive at ~$200.

And yeah, there's some positive AMD sentiment here but let's pay attention to *why* this is the case. Because 3 years ago we had crap! Nvidia and Intel could dictate terms and prices as they saw fit and AMD didn't have much of anything to offer in response. Now you can build a similar or superior all-AMD system for the same money you'd spend on Intel+Nvidia. It's a damn nice breath of fresh air to have actual *choices*.

Hopefully AMD can push into 5800 or 5900 type cards and in a year's time new Nvidia and Intel generations should make the playing field even more interesting.

 

[pinscher]

Why is techspot comparing a new entry level gpu vs last gen mid level gpu which "cuz" the prices are the same.

That is the exact reason gamers are pissed. Entry level is now BEYOND the price point of a mid level GPU from last generation. It's complete bs, just like this article.

Thank God we all can think for our selves and techspot process once again that it is bought and paid for propagandist website.

 

[Evernessince]

Why is techspot comparing a new entry level gpu vs last gen mid level gpu which "cuz" the prices are the same.

That is the exact reason gamers are pissed. Entry level is now BEYOND the price point of a mid level GPU from last generation. It's complete bs, just like this article.

Thank God we all can think for our selves and techspot process once again that it is bought and paid for propagandist website.

1. The 2060 super was launched after the 5700 XT. It is not last get, it even has the same family name. Next gen is 30xx series for Nvdia

2. AMD launched the 300 series and the 500 series, which were both refreshes for AMD. Techspot reviewed them regardless and used them in articles similar to this one. I don't see why Nvidia would get a pass.

3. No one here is accusing TechSpot of being bought and paid for. Some people have voiced concerned with the way information has been presented but that's a far cry from calling them a "paid for propagandist website". Of which they are certainly not.

 

[krizby]

Lol Steam Hardware Survey indicates that 2060 Super and 2070 Super far outselling 5700XT, 5700 is not even on the list (probably too many of 5700 owners flashing their cards to 5700 XT)

 

[Giody]

Very nice would to see a cpu one

 

[picka]

Would be very interesting to see the same comparison around the $200 price point.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Shows us all that 4 years of Nvidia doesn't give us much, for the same price.

And that AMD give you more. Much more, if you consider Developer's are now working with RDNA and almost all games are getting optimized for it...

We all know that Nvidia doesn't make gaming chips, so Developer's are shunning away from Jensen's proprietary marketing crap. Seems some people here are still fooled by it.

You're right, AMD is a component company, yet they lose every year to a software company....

A market share loss of 5% in Q3 was it?
Of course devs will optimize for RDNA. It's their job! But will they go harder for AMD over Nvidia? No! Why would they when 70% if gamers aren't using AMD?!

Your whole comment was just wrong. You had no numbers, details, general statements or source links.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Moral of the story is that PC gaming is expensive.

Quit bitching and play

Expensive? Um, let's revisit the conclusion shall we?

"In mid-2016 you could pair a $400 GTX 1070 with a $240 quad-core Core i5-6600K. Today you can pair the almost 50% faster 5700 XT with a significantly faster $200 6-core/12-thread Ryzen 5 3600."

But we knew this already because we are daily readers right? Weekly in your case? Monthly maybe? Yearly?!

 

[QuantumPhysics]

The market is so flooded with GPU that I think we should have a sub $200, sub $500 and then sub $1000 category traunch.

Fortunately, I just went for the 2080Ti right away. I didn't trust the capabilities of the 2060, 2070 or even 2080 when they started comparing them to the 1080Ti.

2080Ti is the only clear winner and future proof for at least 2 years.

 

[ZackL04]

Expensive? Um, let's revisit the conclusion shall we?

"In mid-2016 you could pair a $400 GTX 1070 with a $240 quad-core Core i5-6600K. Today you can pair the almost 50% faster 5700 XT with a significantly faster $200 6-core/12-thread Ryzen 5 3600."

But we knew this already because we are daily readers right? Weekly in your case? Monthly maybe? Yearly?!

what is your arguemrnt here? Looks to me a system with these base components and the remaining needed would total just under $1k

is that not “expensive”? You can get an all digital xbox one right nowfor $150 and play almost all the same games

PC gaming is expensive, its a choice we have made, but its by far the most expensive way to play the exact same game

 

[hahahanoobs]

what is your arguemrnt here? Looks to me a system with these base components and the remaining needed would total just under $1k

is that not “expensive”? You can get an all digital xbox one right nowfor $150 and play almost all the same games

PC gaming is expensive, its a choice we have made, but its by far the most expensive way to play the exact same game

I think we all strongly disagree.

 

[Lew Zealand]

I think we all strongly disagree.

Yup! Why would I want to buy a console that plays games at medium settings @1080p 30fps? A damn RX570 is better than that. Never mind the ergonomics of craning your neck to wherever the TV is placed (over the fireplace, WTFF?). Want to upgrade your console's GPU/CPU? Good luck with that.

Consoles are fine, they serve a purpose. But not mine.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Yup! Why would I want to buy a console that plays games at medium settings @1080p 30fps? A damn RX570 is better than that. Never mind the ergonomics of craning your neck to wherever the TV is placed (over the fireplace, WTFF?). Want to upgrade your console's GPU/CPU? Good luck with that.

Consoles are fine, they serve a purpose. But not mine.

I was never talking about consoles...

 

[Kp500]

Have you considered that perhaps the difference between the gpu are not really hardware based and that the 1070 may be getting nerfed by drivers?

 

[Kp500]

Your comment isn't slanted at all

 

[brucek]

I really dug this article, thank you. I'm also amazed at the diversity of analysis of that same article as expressed in the comments. We live in interesting times.

The only downside is I had not realized how far my three year old equipment had fallen behind and now I'm suddenly less satisfied with my rig.

 

[Kimballslice1890]

Coming from an XFX RX 480 (pre-mining craze), I couldn't be happier with my PowerColor AXRX 5700 XT.

Right card, right time.

Got my xfx rx 480 8GB in 2016 on black Friday $200 after rebate. Card still crushes my games @ 1080p 144hz. Gonna wait until RDNA 2 to consider upgrading and ryzen 4xxx to upgrade my r5 1600