News EVGA GeForce RTX 2080, 2070 Super KO Gaming Cards Arrive With Budget Prices

Considering a 2080 SUPER is typically not a whole lot faster than the 1080 Ti that launched for the same price over three years ago, any 2080 SUPER is arguably not priced particularly well, even at MSRP. So I would not exactly consider these to be "budget priced" cards.

Between the upcoming next-generation consoles offering a similar level of performance at what will probably be a lower price, and Intel likely increasing competition in the graphics card market, we might see this level of performance available at half the price a year from now.
 
Reactions: Kridian
Apr 1, 2020
78
32
60
0
Prices aren't even that great against existing cards. I got an EVGA 2070 Super XC Ultra Gaming at Best Buy, of all places, for $519.99, only $20 more than the KO, and it's quiet as a church mouse under anything but the heaviest of gaming, it's a low frequency whoosh of air, literally the quietest post DirectX 10 GPU I've ever owned, and it runs at 2085/1900 GPU/VRAM.

Still, if Ampere lives up to expectations, these prices will likely plummet if and only if AMD's RDNA2 lives up to expectations, but I can't see myself moving from this card for a long, long time.
 
Apr 10, 2020
2
0
10
0
I bought a 2080 for £430 off Ebay months ago (seen them go for £390) so these cards aren't exactly budget prices. Note, the 2080 was only a little bit faster than my 1080ti (which actually sold for £455) but it's definitely quieter and Metro Exodus does look stunning (looks great without RTX to be fair as well). No way would I put up the money for release retail price or these cards especially when there's a good chance of new cards coming from Team Red & Green later this year.
 

Zizo007

Respectable
I am staying with my Asus OC RTX 2080Ti for a long time. It now costs 2200$CA with tax here and I got it used for 1500$CA 6 months ago.

I am skipping nextgen because the 3080Ti will probably cost 3000+$CA here with taxes and this corona lack of stock.
 
Apr 1, 2020
78
32
60
0
Yep, we've seen this numerous times in the past where AMD provides zero competition in either performance and/or price, so nVidia prices as they will. AMD's worse though, their 5700XT replaced the RX 580 in the product stack, yet it costs twice as much.
 
No way would I put up the money for release retail price or these cards especially when there's a good chance of new cards coming from Team Red & Green later this year.
Don't forget about Team Blue. Intel should have dedicated graphics cards coming out as well, though it's still a bit unclear what performance ranges they will be competing in initially. I'm not sure if I would actually pick up a first-gen Intel card, especially since they have a history of questionable long-term support for their integrated chipsets, but they could still increase competition in this space.

Yep, we've seen this numerous times in the past where AMD provides zero competition in either performance and/or price, so nVidia prices as they will. AMD's worse though, their 5700XT replaced the RX 580 in the product stack, yet it costs twice as much.
The 5700 XT could arguably be considered more of a Vega 64 successor, even if the graphics chip is smaller and power draw is more like that of the RX 580. In general, I agree that the RX 5000 series hasn't exactly been as competitive as it could have been though. Nvidia only offered minimal price to performance gains with their 20-series cards, and AMD just sort of followed along. Perhaps that's due to limited 7nm production though, which AMD would rather put toward their CPUs, which are probably more profitable on a per-wafer basis, along with their next-gen console APUs, which they are obligated to fulfill.

I wouldn't exactly say there's been "zero" competition though. The 5700 XT outperformed the RTX 2070 that launched less than a year prior for $100+ more, and it doesn't perform too far behind the 2070 SUPER either, albeit without any sort of dedicated raytracing hardware. Neither Nvidia or AMD really provided the kind of performance gains one might expect after such a long hardware generation though.
 
Reactions: Kridian

IceQueen0607

Prominent
Nov 27, 2019
99
13
535
0
Considering a 2080 SUPER is typically not a whole lot faster than the 1080 Ti that launched for the same price over three years ago, any 2080 SUPER is arguably not priced particularly well, even at MSRP. So I would not exactly consider these to be "budget priced" cards.
Indeed! The 2080 Super in AUD is20%-30% more than the GTX 1080 Ti. So in terms of performance per dollar its actually a backwards step. No budget pricing here!

And it has 3GB less GDDR RAM than the GTX 1080 Ti.
 

watzupken

Notable
Mar 16, 2020
334
117
870
1
While there is quite a steep price cut here, the fact is that the cards were originally priced too high. So what we see here should have been the norm since Turing GPU has been around for some time.

One thing I am concern of is how much of a cost cut did these EVGA cards undergo. Reduce cooling and lower end components may seriously impact the longevity and also performance impact to some extent, since a RTX 2080 Super for example draws quite a lot of power and certainly is not something easy to keep cool.
 
Reactions: Kridian

watzupken

Notable
Mar 16, 2020
334
117
870
1
Indeed! The 2080 Super in AUD is20%-30% more than the GTX 1080 Ti. So in terms of performance per dollar its actually a backwards step. No budget pricing here!

And it has 3GB less GDDR RAM than the GTX 1080 Ti.
The price to performance ratio seems to be in favor of the older GTX 1080 Ti. However Nvidia will be quick to point out key features like Ray Tracing, DLSS and variable shader. Somehow I feel Turing's performance advantage could be driven by the variable shader since the GPU don't have to work that hard to render each screen, unlike the old Pascal GPUs without this feature.
 

IceQueen0607

Prominent
Nov 27, 2019
99
13
535
0
The price to performance ratio seems to be in favor of the older GTX 1080 Ti. However Nvidia will be quick to point out key features like Ray Tracing, DLSS and variable shader. Somehow I feel Turing's performance advantage could be driven by the variable shader since the GPU don't have to work that hard to render each screen, unlike the old Pascal GPUs without this feature.
I don't think I've come across anything that I can't play on ultra settings with my dual 2K monitors, or anything that has pushed my GPU. Even games like PUBG and Fortnite my GPU doesn't break a sweat. Perhaps when things like ray tracing, DLSS and veriable shader is mainstream this will mean something, but with the massive price hikes, there is no way to justify the cost, even with those features.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY