Nvidia 20-Series Laptop Chips Coming Early 2019 - Report

I would say that a 2060 Ti fits in exactly with existing trends, that is, Nvidia's trend of moving up model numbers to significantly higher price points this generation, and I already figured they might be planning to go that route based on their current known product lineup. As far as their desktop cards go, the 2080 Ti is launching for around $1200, the 2080 for around $800, and the 2070 should be around $600 at launch. So, Nvidia needs some product that they can position somewhere around the $400 mark, to take the place of the 1070, while still offering something in the sub-$300 price range. They can't leave a $300 gap between the 2060 and the 2070. So logically, one might expect a 2060 Ti to launch for around $400, a 2060 for around $300, a 2050 Ti for around $200 and a 2050 for around $150, along with an eventual 2030 for under $100. Or perhaps some of those prices will end up being a bit lower to remain competitive against AMD's next generation of cards. Either way, it seems like they're definitely going to need something between the 2060 and the 2070.
Those who are saying that the GTX 2xxx series is a fail, and most of that is based on price relative to the previous 1xxx series same number (like say 1080 vs. 2080 launch price), do not pay attention to details. Let me give just one example with exactly that GTX xx80 series comparo utilizing Tom's own most recent Zotac GTX 2080 AMP review with FC5 at 1440p and looking at non-FE reference GTX xx80 numbers:

Reference price of GTX 1080 at release: $599
Reference price of GTX 2080 at release: $699

FPS of GTX 1080: 80
FPS of GTX 2080: 103

The takeaway price increase/performance increase of the GTX 2080 over the GTX 1080: the GTX 2080 offers a 16.7% increase in price for a 28.8% more FPS in the SAME GAME. Anyone who says that's a fail obviously has not run price increases of Nvidia products relative to game performance increases in the past. Allow me to quote an Anandtech preview article dating from June 16, 2008:

"The GeForce GTX 280 will retail for $650 with availability planned for June 17th."

^^For those not educated on how money works over time, that $650 in 2008 would be closer to $750 in today's buying power of US dollars. So what's the problem with the new GTX 2080 price structuring, people?


Except you're comparing the wrong card, at the wrong prices. The GTX 1080 Ti launched over one and a half years ago for $699. And tell me where one can buy any RTX 2080 for anywhere close to $699? The price I see in the review's affiliate link is $840, and the lowest price for that model I can find online is $830. Nearly all of the partner cards are priced higher than the Founder's Edition. Nvidia shifted their model numbers to different price points this generation, so a 2080 should not be directly compared against a 1080, as it's priced higher than even a 1080 Ti.

So, let's use these corrected prices and performance levels for the comparison...

GTX 1080 Ti at release: $699
Zotac RTX 2080 AMP: $830

FPS of GTX 1080 Ti: 99.3
FPS of RTX 2080 AMP: 102.9

So, that particular overclocked 2080 actually only offers a 3.6% increase in performance in that game over a 1080 Ti, at an 18.7% higher launch price. Even if we're comparing the less expensive FE card at $799, that's still a 14.3% higher price for just 3.4% more performance in that game. And again, keep in mind that the 1080 Ti was available at that price a year and a half ago, so if someone was interested in that level of performance, they could have already had it with the last generation of cards at a lower price point. Performance-wise, the 2080 currently brings nothing new to the table.

Now, there are the new features like RTX and DLSS, but as of now, they still aren't available. Perhaps they will eventually help justify the higher prices compared to previous-generation cards, but for the time being, their benefits are intangible. These are features that Nvidia absolutely should have had available in some form at launch.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what this had to do with the topic, since I don't think the article was even discussing the value of these cards. : P


Feb 27, 2012
I can't ingaine them keeping RTX just because the die size they'd need to actually do Ray tracing at an acceptable frame rate would be too big for laptops. Can you imagine how many gamers would be pissed to get an "RTX" card that can only do 15-25 FPS with Ray tracing on?

1) Nice goal post moving! I'm comparing prices/performance of previous GTX x(x)80 series over the years and people whining about the new 2080 release price. So 280 vs. 480 vs. 580 vs. 680 vs. 980 vs. 1080 vs. 2080. I'm not sure why there could be any confusion there and why you even brought in the Ti. I think you need to circle back and look at the release price of the 980 Ti vs. the 1080 and the performance variance if you want to go down that road. Again, that was not my point. I'm talking series here. I'm not even going into lower power consumption as we've seen with every new generation of GPU.

2) I only reference officially released pricing when comparing GPU pricing because AIB partners, sellers, and market conditions affect the outcome. There can only be one price structure reference point when trying to be consistent.

3) It is most relevant here because we are talking about the new 20-series chipsets (as the article is about).

4) Since you did bring up the Ti (which was not a part of my argument), you are correct on that. It is largely a fail in !/$ value over the 1080 Ti.

So again, I'm not sure why you are confused on matters. My numbers on the 1080 vs. 2080 stand.

What a graphics card launched for more than a decade ago is not particularly relevant to today's pricing. What people care about is how the prices and performance compare to the cards that have been available for purchase immediately prior to these cards, over the last year or two. And the nearest-priced card to the 2080 during this time span has been the 1080 Ti. Even if 2080s were actually available for around $700 right now, people might be a little underwhelmed by the launch, since performance in existing games is virtually identical to what the previous generation had to offer at that price point, and any new features that might make a difference are not yet available in any form. Compared to the big performance and efficiency gains Pascal brought with it at any given price point, its a bit hard to get excited for the equal (or worse) performance per dollar that the 20-series has shown so far.

Maybe these cards will look a lot better next year, once the prices have had a chance to settle and there are actually examples of DLSS and raytracing out in the wild, but in that case, it might make more sense to wait until then to consider buying one.

Another problem with directly comparing one generation's "80" card to the next, is that this last generation was stretched out abnormally long. Going back through those previous generations you mentioned, each of those cards came out less than 16 months apart on average. How long was it between the launch of the 1080 and the 2080? 28 months. Normally, there would have been almost two generations of cards by now. So, how long was it between the release of the 1080 Ti and the 2080? Over 18 months. Even the time span between the 1080 Ti and the 2080 is longer than what it was between most of these 80 cards. Comparing the 1080 to the 2080 is more like comparing a card from two generations back. It only makes much sense to compare the 2080's performance against that of the 1080 Ti.

Why not focus on the Founder's Edition cards then? The 1080 Ti was $699, while the 2080 is $799. Anything that might help justify that $100 price-hike is tied up in features that are still nonfunctional.

The article is about rumored mobile chipsets based on the architecture, set to come out next year at unknown prices, with unknown capabilities, so no one was really complaining about their value here.

As for the 2080 Ti, it's pretty much taking the role of what would have normally been called a Titan, and the Titan cards have never really offered particularly good performance per dollar. They're more for people willing to pay whatever it takes for the fastest card they can get, who aren't concerned much with value. And just because it has "80 Ti" branding doesn't make it the 1080 Ti's successor, since again, Nvidia shifted their product names this generation. It's more reasonable to compare it against the similarly-priced Titan XP. The Titan V is in another price class altogether, which I suspect they'll use for the next "Titan" card as well.


Jun 13, 2008
Hopefully a 2070 max-q will be cooled well enough in a MSI GS65VR thin laptop/ Gigabyte Aero 15x. The 1070 max-q is cooled well enough but 2xxx series takes more power.
Wonder how far into 2020 we will have to wait for 10nm class GPUs from Nvidia. Intel is 2020 as well. ARM is 2019. Apple is 2018.