GeForce RTX 2070 Super vs. Radeon RX 5700 XT: 37 Game Benchmark

Agree with your first point, so RTX on with High settings should be the default option that give you both the immersion and smooth FPS. Something you don't get to choose with 5700 XT.
Secondly I play at 3440x1440 120hz (Acer X34P) which is quite nice and manageable with 2080 Ti, 4K 27in monitors are too small for its resolution. Looking to buy the Asus PG35VQ next.
All in all you only pay ~70usd for the RTX tax (14% lower price/performance) which net you some nice immersion that you would never get with 5700XT. And if price/perf is your only concern then there are better options out there since 5700XT offer nothing new anyways.

This is why for most people the 5700XT is better. The 2070 Super is completely inadequate to play games at 1440p with RTX on. It is simply not fast enough to take advantage of the visual benefits of RTX. It is of course fast enough with RTX off but then loses the dollar per frame argument to the 5700XT. For some, the higher framerate will be worth the extra cost, which is fine. You always need to pay proportionately more for higher performance.

The problem is dragging RTX in as a value argument for the 2070S when it barely makes sense in the 2080Ti. For $1200, RTX works well enough where you can get 60+ FPS at 1080p. But 2 steps down with the 2070S? It's far too slow at 1080p, much less at 1440p.
 
Being the better value product simply means you are slower. We are talking about performance / high end cards here, better value is meaningless. If someone wants better value he goes for the 570, which im pretty sure wipes the floor in terms of value with both of them. In the high end 1% of performance causes a >1% increase of price

Plus we have to take into account RT, which looks amazing in control btw.
By that logic then there are only 2 cards to consider: the 570 and the 2080Ti. No need to argue the 5700XT vs. the 2070s as both are irrelevant.
 
you get to chose medium/high with rtx on. the only thing you can do is render at a lower resolution and then apply a sharpening filter.
as for your 14% tax that's just a load of bs that all benchmarks have disproven. if it was that light on recourses it wouldn't have become a meme, something ppl make fun of.

Let's be honest here, Nvidia is beta testing rtx and you get the pleasure of buying the first gen rtx just so you can sell it to buy the second gen.

I was talking about 14% lower fps/dollar of the 2070S vs 5700XT which equate to 70usd (14% x 500usd). Of course by enabling RTX, performance will tank, but in Control you have the selection of RTX Medium vs High. RTX Medium reduce fps by 20% but has the most impact to immersion anyways (but really this game is really taxing without DXR already).

https://www.pcgamesn.com/control/nv...g-performance-benchmarks#nn-graph-sheet-1440p
 
Not sure if I would call a $400 GPU something someone gets on a tight budget! :D
$400 Dollars in comparison
I've never been a fan of the 'Super' cards.
The 5700XT is possibly the better buy here but that's not saying much, the RTX 2070 Super is overpriced, Newegg has regular RTX 2070's right now for $450 (469, 450 after rebate)
https://www.newegg.com/msi-geforce-...Vhp6fCh2hbwmDEAYYASABEgJNN_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Very interesting how the Radeon falls more and more behind as the resolution increases, even though its only 5-10%. If looking at just raw performance the 5700XT is the better buy, but unfortunately you also have to factor in AMD's inferior software, features and stability.

I've never been a fan of the 'Super' cards.
The 5700XT is possibly the better buy here but that's not saying much, the RTX 2070 Super is overpriced, Newegg has regular RTX 2070's right now for $450 (469, 450 after rebate)
https://www.newegg.com/msi-geforce-...Vhp6fCh2hbwmDEAYYASABEgJNN_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Very interesting how the Radeon falls more and more behind as the resolution increases, even though its only 5-10%. If looking at just raw performance the 5700XT is the better buy, but unfortunately you also have to factor in AMD's inferior software, features and stability.
Performance is dependent on other hardware. Many other people have beat this same topic to death but in today's market, its not specifically about performance but managing the bottlenecks.

Graphs and performance counters can go by a variety of different overheads, Frame rate limit and resolution of monitors, CPU Bottlenecks as well as GPU bottlenecks. Spending large amounts of money on a GPU only to run it on a 1080p entry-level monitor is a complete waste of money. but I guess when you run an LGA 1366 i7-930 and a GTX 1080 you experience all too well the bottleneck curse. ;-)
 
but I guess when you run an LGA 1366 i7-930 and a GTX 1080 you experience all too well the bottleneck curse. ;-)
You can throw barbs at my old girl all you want. :D
I've gotten 10 years and counting of top tier top level gaming performance out of it, and it still rocks the latest games at High Settings, Very High Settings, or sometimes maxed @ 1440p/144Hz. I am sure there is a bottleneck here or there but I don't feel the slightest hiccup or slowdown paired with my GSync 1MS HP Omen, its silky smooth gameplay and my Pascal is doing most the work at 2560 X 1440 anyways. DX12 games will really tax the CPU though.
When I upgrade its going to be like time traveling. :)

This is a great revisit of it:

Newer chips are a little to a lot faster but I don't care, it still does what I need it to.
I bought my 930 around the time Sandy Bridge released....its been THAT long.
Talk about bang for the buck.
 
Last edited:
You can throw barbs at my old girl all you want. :D
I've gotten 10 years and counting of top tier top level gaming performance out of it, and it still rocks the latest games at High Settings, Very High Settings, or sometimes maxed @ 1440p/144Hz. I am sure there is a bottleneck here or there but I don't feel the slightest hiccup or slowdown paired with my GSync 1MS HP Omen, its silky smooth gameplay and my Pascal is doing most the work at 2560 X 1440 anyways. DX12 games will really tax the CPU though.
When I upgrade its going to be like time traveling. :)

This is a great revisit of it:

Newer chips are a little to a lot faster but I don't care, it still does what I need it to.
I bought my 930 around the time Sandy Bridge released....its been THAT long.
Talk about bang for the buck.

What I'm saying is, whether your spending $140 on a graphics card or $400 dollars on a graphics card is irrelevant if the rest of your hardware is going to hog-tie your frames. You would be better maximize your money your spent and get something that can push what you need. You could walk in with a 1050ti and pull better frames at 1440p/144Hz. Ram Speed, Processor Thruput and PCI capability on legacy hardware IS going to limit your ability. If the "Average Joe" gamer wants to run Doom at 1080p at 60hz, sobeit, His/Her budget card would fall in the $120-$150 range. Most people don't have 2k/3k/4k 144hz monitor budgets so if you want to run top Tier hardware, running a $400 dollar graphics card would be considered a budget card.
 
What I'm saying is, whether your spending $140 on a graphics card or $400 dollars on a graphics card is irrelevant if the rest of your hardware is going to hog-tie your frames. You would be better maximize your money your spent and get something that can push what you need. You could walk in with a 1050ti and pull better frames at 1440p/144Hz. Ram Speed, Processor Thruput and PCI capability on legacy hardware IS going to limit your ability. If the "Average Joe" gamer wants to run Doom at 1080p at 60hz, sobeit, His/Her budget card would fall in the $120-$150 range. Most people don't have 2k/3k/4k 144hz monitor budgets so if you want to run top Tier hardware, running a $400 dollar graphics card would be considered a budget card.
Also...
Couple of vids to watch ...



If you are pulling over 144FPS @ 1440p on high settings on the latest games with an i7- 930, you must be running that BINNED cpu on LN2 and OC'ing the nuts off of it.
 
By that logic then there are only 2 cards to consider: the 570 and the 2080Ti. No need to argue the 5700XT vs. the 2070s as both are irrelevant.
Εxactly, problem is, it's not my logic, its' the reviewers logic. Performance / $ at performance / high end / enthusiast price points is not a bright way to compare products.

Also you have to take into account that the 5700xt can't even play on ultra settings. The new ultra is with RT on, and only one of them can do it. Does it lower fps? Sure. As do all settings that you turn on to the max. Problem is with the 5700xt you can't even do that. Btw I'll gladly play C2077 with RT on at 30 fps than with RT off and 60. I only do 144 on multiplayer competitive games (dota 2 / apex mainly), for the rest I enjoy the eye candy.

ANd before you call me biased, I don't have an RT card yet, im running a 1080ti
 
If you are pulling over 144FPS @ 1440p on high settings on the latest games with an i7- 930, you must be running that BINNED cpu on LN2 and OC'ing the nuts off of it.
Who said I was getting 144FPS?
I am playing at 1440p/144Hz.
While my old 930 can struggle, a few graphic setting tweaks combined with Gsync always make for a smooth experience, even with newer titles, whether im getting 55fps or 90fps. Thats why I said, High, to Very High, to Maxed.
Doesn't sound like you read that, also your video is mush btw, that shows a 920 running at stock clocks. A 920 @ 4.0GHz like mine keeps pace with a stock 2600K.
Overall, you sound new to PC gaming, hardware and performance from reading your comments. And stop talking about my rig or situation like you know whats best, I've had it for a decade, its seen plenty of changes over the years, the GTX 1080 being the last one before I upgrade.

You would be better maximize your money your spent and get something that can push what you need
This is a generic comment that doesn't apply to my setup or what I care to do.
I know exactly what my rig is capable of, exactly where the bottlenecks are and exactly the jump in performance I will get when I upgrade to a new chipset.

You could walk in with a 1050ti and pull better frames at 1440p/144Hz.
Another generic comment about my old tired rig?
I don't want to do a new build yet, I am happy with my rigs performance, it pushes my GTX 1080 just fine...for now. Within a year or so I'll upgrade my mainboard, CPU and RAM...I barely PC game anymore.

Ram Speed, Processor Thruput and PCI capability on legacy hardware IS going to limit your ability.
You do know your speaking to someone who knows a lot more about what your talking about then you do, right? I mean no ill intent by this comment.


Most people don't have 2k/3k/4k 144hz monitor budgets so if you want to run top Tier hardware, running a $400 dollar graphics card would be considered a budget card.
No it wouldn't.
In no example EVER is buying a $400 GPU considered a budget card, even on a top tier build.
 
Last edited:
Εxactly, problem is, it's not my logic, its' the reviewers logic. Performance / $ at performance / high end / enthusiast price points is not a bright way to compare products.

There are a lot of people out there who still appreciate value wherever they see it, even in enthusiast parts. I'm an enthusiast, I can afford a 2080Ti, but it's a waste of money IMO. I have a single game I can't run at 3440x1440 @60fps because it's horribly optimized. I'm not going to buy a 2080Ti for that purpose as my 1080 is up to everything else, so I crank down the scaling in that one.

If I was in the market today for a similar card, I'd consider the 5700XT and probably not get the 2070S. Mostly because while I do want RTX, I want it at least at 1080p 60FPS so I'd rather wait a gen or two for the hardware to catch up. I'm pretty sure I'd be disappointed with the 2070S' performance with RTX on. That's just me of course.

Also you have to take into account that the 5700xt can't even play on ultra settings. The new ultra is with RT on, and only one of them can do it. Does it lower fps? Sure. As do all settings that you turn on to the max. Problem is with the 5700xt you can't even do that. Btw I'll gladly play C2077 with RT on at 30 fps than with RT off and 60. I only do 144 on multiplayer competitive games (dota 2 / apex mainly), for the rest I enjoy the eye candy.

Huh, that's a pretty nuanced way of approaching it. I'm more of a stickler for 60fps (my monitor is only 60Hz) so 30 fps really bugs me in any game.

Coming at the same subject from another angle, HUB does game optimization videos to squeeze the best FPS out while reducing visual quality the least. The point of those videos is that just setting to Ultra/High/etc. is not the best use of your video card's power and performance budget. You can turn down a number of settings and get an overall 30-40% boost to FPS with minimal if any noticeable change to the visuals. They've mentioned that in the few RTX-capable games they've tested so far that when applying the RTX feature, the benefits are not great compared to the FPS cost. Much like a number of other visuals, turning that down or off is one more way to increase FPS if you need to. But that's down to a game by game bases like all other visuals.

Of course as you said above, some will happily choose the visuals over the FPS as they appreciate those more.

ANd before you call me biased, I don't have an RT card yet, im running a 1080ti
No RTX for me yet but surely some day.
 
Its refreshing to see a very solid and honest review comparing these 2 gpu's.
This AMD 5700xt is a nice priced gpu and a pretty darn good alternative.
However it has become clear that both contenders not really are competing anymore.
I see a constant fixed price on these products amd releases a product which is a bit slower at a a matching price. So we have to get used to the inflated prices in the current pc markets.
Don't get me wrong I see the exact same between amd and intel both do the same game.
intel is constant just a tiny bit faster at a higher price and amd follows with a cpu which is a bit slower and guess what the price matches exact to the performance..
So for me I already see that these price agreements are being common goods these days.
Its in supermarkets, large electronic shops, phone shops and providers to be honest I see it actually in every market all prices are not really competing at all.
This is the worst time to buy anything you want or need they all match their prices and we are the ones loosing. In my country I see everywhere that the same 3 or 4 companies constant match each others prices and hardly do any real nice price stunts to beat each other. Even worse is that we think we have much choice, the reality is that you actually do not have much choice at all. When I went at a witch hunt who was the real owner of my insurances I found that the 4 biggest firms in our country own all brands in the market in my country. All 4 actually are more or less multi nationals with hundreds of brands. And when you actually try to compare which is best for you at a certain level you end up allways at the same price with all of these brands.
Ofcourse they make it very hard to compare to prevent for instance the EU to have a chance to give them a fine. But I promise you we all are at the mercy of those large multi-nationals setting the prices.
In the paste we saw enormous stunts from amd beating intel and nvidia with insane large numbers but nowadays it all matches exactly at performance / quality / price point.
They do not even decline that they meet at regular times at the same places, so for me its clear they are matching prices at a super large scale

It has made me decide that I do not favor any company ever even if it looks to be a good one.
So I decided to stop buying a new pc just because its just 2 fps faster as the previous, my old 6700k runs every thing I do darn well. So when this thing dies I might consider buying a replacement but I promise you price fixers I am not going to buy anything new but will buy second hand and I sure as hell will not pay a inflated price these companies give them.
If it stays esecond hand expenssive I will refuse to buy it as well.

So dear price matching multi nationals you can forget me as a future customer for the time I am alive !!!
 
Last edited:
By that logic then there are only 2 cards to consider: the 570 and the 2080Ti. No need to argue the 5700XT vs. the 2070s as both are irrelevant.
What about budget high end gamers? (gamers with about 1k-2k$ looking to spend the least amount of money in high end hardware, in order to have enough money for a new microphone or a new gaming mouse/keyboard and save the rest for future upgrades)
 
All biased opinions aside, If I were building a PC for one of my clients at this moment, I would do everything in my power to convince him/her to go with the 5700 XT or any Vega/Navi GPU right now for the simple fact that its gonna be greatly improving in performance over time, at least much much more than any Nvidia GPU for the simple fact that developers are solely creating their games/game engines to the fullest efficiency possible on AMD GPUs. Why do I say such a thing? Simple, the most recent Games coming out from 1 year ago to right now are now, finally, being optimized for AMD GPUs inside the current PS4Pro/Xbox-X consoles, it took a while but finally we are seeing Game Engines especially tailored/geared towards AMD GPUs. This is why we keep seeing Polaris/Vega, and now Navi GPUs improve as time goes on...Just take a few minutes and do the research, search youtube or articles for "Updated" AMD Polaris/Vega Prior Vs. Current game benchmarks...there is a whole slew of these updated YT videos and Articles coming out showing very impressive performance growth with Polaris, Vega, and now Navi gpus. Although, what is far more important is that the new PS5/XboxNext coming out in 1 year are both equipped with AMD Navi GPUs inside those upcoming next gen consoles. So once again, we are gonna see more AMD GPUs improving for the foreseeable future. A big part of this is how much better AMD is with DirectX 12 hardware features inside its GPUs. To this day, since the Introduction of the DX12 API has given AMD a much better efficiency over these years, and a big part of the reason why is that both DX12 and Vulkan APIs were/are greatly inspired by AMD's Mantle API...so this is why AMD GPUs are really good with "true" DX12 games. I say, "true" because for the last few years..we've seen many games advertising its a DX12 game wjith a DX12 mode with-in the game but honestly..most of those games/games engines were and some still are, really DX11 games/engines with some DX12 features sprinkled on top. Its only been with this last year that we are finally seeing some genuine Game Engines that are truly DirectX 12 from the ground up..and that trend will continue for many years..keep in mind 99% of PC games are ports from consoles. AMD has its Processors inside those consoles, and again, for the upcoming next generation of consoles.


I would bet a 1000 dollars right now that with in a year from now... This Navi 5700 XT will be ahead of Nvidia's 2070 Super GPUs.... mark it down, watch and see what happens just like we did with Polaris vs its counterparts and Vega vs its counterparts. Some of those AMD GPUs are now rivaling Nvidia GPUs that were a Tier above them when released but now they go neck and neck..example.. Vega 56 when released was head to head with 1070 but now most new DX12 games show Vega 56 beating 1080 or trading blows with it.


Honestly, even though I love some Nvidia GPUs, got a 1070 in my home theater PC right now because I favor Nvidia GPUs with Movie performance, Yet now matter what Nvidia GPU outside of the super super high end tier, there is no way I would buy a Nvidia GPU right now, nor for the foreseeable future. When it comes to best bang for buck and best longevity...AMD GPUs are the only way to go, at least for the working man class.. :)
 
Last edited:
You know whats most baffling? Why reviews and game benchmark comparisons never mention whats the best GPU for the future. I believe that this is, by far, thee most important aspect of any GPU. Its not about what its doing now but what the trend of projection see's for the future of a GPU. AMD, and we all know this, has the upper hand in this aspect. Again, read my previous reply... AMD GPUs are in current PS4 Pro/Xbox-X, but even more important, and is worthy of mention in ANY DANG REVIEW, is the fact that these upcoming next generation of consoles (PS5/Xbox Next) are sporting AMD Navi GPUs under the hood for both upcoming consoles. 99% of next generation of "Game Engines" currently in development are being built from the ground up to take full advantage of the specs inside these two upcoming next generation of consoles. And we all know what this means, once again, is that AMD's PC GPUs are gonna flourish once again for the foreseeable future.

Its always a bit bizarre to see and read reviews on these GPUs, going head-to-head with eachother in these reviews yet not a peep is mentioned about which GPU is gonna fair better in the long run, I mean we already know the answer, those of us in this hobby we all love and cherish but the "average joe", which is, by far the biggest segment of GPU purchasers, haven't got a clue to which will give the best longevity, yet this most important aspect is, bizarrely always pushed aside, as if its taboo to mention.
 
The reviews here of the 5700XT and 2060 Super show that they OC by 10% and 11% respectively, so no, the 2060s will not catch up to the 5700XT. And the 2070 Super only OC'd by 5%, so that argues that the 5700XT will catch up to the 2070s a bit.

The 5700XT is simply the better value product while the 2070 Super is higher performing, and you've always needed to pay a noticeable chunk of extra cash for that performance improvement.
Being the better value product simply means you are slower. We are talking about performance / high end cards here, better value is meaningless. If someone wants better value he goes for the 570, which im pretty sure wipes the floor in terms of value with both of them. In the high end 1% of performance causes a >1% increase of price

Plus we have to take into account RT, which looks amazing in control btw.

That sounds so silly. No room for cards between an RX 570 and 2070 super? Silly.
 
That's just crazy talk! My several year old entry level R7 240 provides a wonderful gaming experience in many titles. You spoiled kids and your crazy perspectives...sheesh.
Imagine editing a 4k video with that card lol
 
One thing we need to standardize is things like % faster and slower. Along with price. I know Steve does fps per dollar which is awesome and FPS average per card. He is amazing, but I think the wording can be refined for all reviewers.

For example at $500 the 2070 Super is 25% more expensive then the $400 5700 XT. The 5700 XT costs 20% less then the 2070 Super. I think I'm failing basic math here lol. It would be less confusing to say the $500 2070 Super VS $400 5700 XT, has a 22.5% price difference? Does that make sense?

Example with frames, say you average 500 frames with the 2070 super and 400 with the 5700 xt, the super is 25% faster then the XT. (Just an example not actual fps) Or it could be worded the XT has 20% less frames then the Super.

Example on frames among 36 games the XT averages 400 frames at 4k, the Super averages 500 frames. Making a 22.5% performance gap. (Just an example not actual fps)
Ex 2 The XT averages 400 frames at 4k, the Super averages 500 frames on Shadow of The Tomb Raider. Making a 22.5% performance gap. (Just an example not actual fps)

I think the wording adds to peoples confusion when quoting different reviewers. That and of course they usually don't all use the same games, but that's an obvious thing.

Use this calculator if you would like to look at perf decr vs incr
https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/percentage-increase

Then you have the difference, but it says 22.222222, not 22.5, now I know I fail lol
https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/percentage-difference
 
I'm sending back my 5700 Xt. It's super cheap in the UK but the drivers are horrible. Super buggy and it's crazy how it's keep freezing after weeks of tweaking. I'm going to spend that extra 100£ to get a stable gpu for my system.
 
I think the performance / $ graphs are completely misleading. You are trying to paint the 5700xt as the better card by putting too much emphasis on performance / $$, a thing you didn't' do in other reviews.

I mean, is it a surprise that there isn't a 1 to 1 ratio between performance and price? Isn't that the normal? As far as I remember, the RX 470 was a better value than the RX480, the 570 better than the 580, the V56 was a better value than the V64 etc. The same applies to the CPU's as well, with lower end models being better value than higher end ones. If I remember correctly your own review back in the day showed the 1400 as the best R5 cpu when it comes to price / performance. So freaking what? It's completely normal, lower performing parts have better value.

I think the 2070S's price is perfectly fine. I could even argue, based on the 5700xt's price, it's actually cheap. It is what, 20% more expensive? Look at it this way, if 2070S was actually an AMD card named 5800xt, and with the current 5700xt pricing, how much would AMD actually charge for that card, considering it also has RT and DLSS? Im sure no less than 20% over the 5700xt.

Also, you have to consider that the 2070S has way more OC headroom, so the performance difference actually grows when both are oced and it is around 12-15%. Add to that , as far as im aware, it's easier and simpler to OC it thnx to OC scanner, I actually think it's a no brainer at this point. Also, from other reviews, due to that OC headroom, the 2060S is actually closer to the 5700xt. Can you bench all 3 of them OCed and shed some light to the matter?

What..?
There isn't a 1:1 ratio when cross-comparing competitors cards. That is only true for comparing tiers of cards within the same company, like you said. Polaris, Vega Navi, etc..

Because it is not a comparison between two cards using the same architecture, but comparing competing architectures. And in this case, the lower priced card is not always slower, but faster than the higher priced card. See Radeon XT 5700xt in Battlefield.


Logic dictates that the 5700 & 5700xt are clear winners of Gamer's wallets. Only the people stuck on g-sync are going to buy 2060 Super or 2070 Super. That is why they are just sitting on the shelves at Fry's & Microcenter's.

Honestly, who is stooped enough to go over there and pick it up and look at it. Everyone at the store will be laughing at you as the sales assistant walks you to the register.
 
Last edited:
Agree with your first point, so RTX on with High settings should be the default option that give you both the immersion and smooth FPS. Something you don't get to choose with 5700 XT.
Secondly I play at 3440x1440 120hz (Acer X34P) which is quite nice and manageable with 2080 Ti, 4K 27in monitors are too small for its resolution. Looking to buy the Asus PG35VQ next.
All in all you only pay ~70usd for the RTX tax (14% lower price/performance) which net you some nice immersion that you would never get with 5700XT. And if price/perf is your only concern then there are better options out there since 5700XT offer nothing new anyways.

Krizby, you do not get those option with the RTX2060 either.

Everyone agree with you on that: "High settings should be the default option that give you both the immersion and smooth FPS."

But you are just not going to get that level of smoothness and immersion at less than $1,200+ bucks @ 2060 resolutions. The problem is, even that $1,200 does offer that level of smooth gameplay in every title. So the logic in your statements are ever so drafted.
 
Krizby, you do not get those option with the RTX2060 either.

Everyone agree with you on that: "High settings should be the default option that give you both the immersion and smooth FPS."

But you are just not going to get that level of smoothness and immersion at less than $1,200+ bucks @ 2060 resolutions. The problem is, even that $1,200 does offer that level of smooth gameplay in every title. So the logic in your statements are ever so drafted.

Now that RTX 2070 is defunct I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia replace it with 350usd non-RTX Turing. That or Nvidia is going to release full non-RTX Turing lineups next year when 2nd gen RTX-Ampere is ready. Pascal and non-RTX Turing are Ray Tracing capable so Jensen Huang is not contradicting his words.

Talking about Price/Perf there are a lot of custom 2060 Super selling at 400usd/390eur while there are price gouging going on with 5700XT due to low stocks.

Asrock 5700XT selling at 500usd WTFLol
https://www.newegg.com/asrock-radeo...on=5700XT&cm_re=5700XT-_-14-930-020-_-Product

 
Last edited:
Krizby, you do not get those option with the RTX2060 either.
Everyone agree with you on that: "High settings should be the default option that give you both the immersion and smooth FPS."
But you are just not going to get that level of smoothness and immersion at less than $1,200+ bucks @ 2060 resolutions. The problem is, even that $1,200 does offer that level of smooth gameplay in every title. So the logic in your statements are ever so drafted.
Now that RTX 2070 is defunct I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia replace it with 350usd non-RTX Turing. That or Nvidia is going to release full non-RTX Turing lineups next year when 2nd gen RTX-Ampere is ready. Pascal and non-RTX Turing are Ray Tracing capable so Jensen Huang is not contradicting his words.
Talking about Price/Perf there are a lot of custom 2060 Super selling at 400usd/390eur while there are price gouging going on with 5700XT due to low stocks.
Asrock 5700XT selling at 500usd WTFLol
https://www.newegg.com/asrock-radeo...on=5700XT&cm_re=5700XT-_-14-930-020-_-Product

Are you just talking? Or are you trying to lay out Nvidia's business plan according to how st0ned you are?

Turing (in a technical sense) is a flop for gamers. The cost does not line up with price and Nvidia can't lower their prices because they are at rock bottom. AMD's RDNA architecture surprised Nvidia and the world... being really efficient at games and coming in at only 252mm^2.

That means mad profits for AMD on each 5700 they sell. And able to go much lower than Nvidia can afford to go. As such, Nvidia is STUCK at $499 for the 2070 Super and can not go any lower.

If the choice isn't obvious, then when the 5800 Series comes (November?), expect the 57 series to get a $49 price drop. That new CEO isn't afraid of competition is seems and like to throw it in Her Competitor's face..!
 
Last edited:
Are you just talking? Or are you trying to lay out Nvidia's business plan according to how st0ned you are?

Turing (in a technical sense) is a flop for gamers. The cost does not line up with price and Nvidia can't lower their prices because they are at rock bottom. AMD's RDNA architecture surprised Nvidia and the world... being really efficient at games and coming in at only 252mm^2.

That means mad profits for AMD on each 5700 they sell. And able to go much lower than Nvidia can afford to go. As such, Nvidia is STUCK at $499 for the 2070 Super and can not go any lower.

If the choice isn't obvious, then when the 5800 Series comes (November?), expect the 57 series to get a $49 price drop. That new CEO isn't afraid of competition is seems and like to throw it in Her Competitor's face..!

lol yeah sure with AMD Q2 2019 net income of 35M vs Nvidia net income of 552M I don't know who are pricing the other out of market muahhahah
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14745/nvidia-q2-fy-2020-earnings-report-continuing-crypto-disruption
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14691/amd-quarterly-earnings-report-q2-fy-2019
Nvidia Gross Margin 60% vs AMD 40%.
After 2.5 years 1080Ti still remain unchallenged by AMD, this is the longest in the history of Nvidia vs ATI, yeah I guess Nvidia is in a tough spot here.

I don't know if you know this but 7nm cost almost twice as much as 14nm per mm2
amd-iedm-2017-23-768x434.png

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...both-solution-and-symptom-to-a-larger-problem

Even Intel is evaluating their cost effective strategy when moving to 10nm node. AMD has nowhere to go but TSMC 7nm to compensate for the deficit in efficiency but that doesn't mean AMD can produce chips any cheaper than Nvidia or Intel lol (Intel also maintaining gross margin of 60%).

And this is how close 5700XT and 2060 Super are when they are both overclocked, Techspot just doesn't have the gut to do it (probably afraid of triggering AMD fans)
 
Last edited:
Back