Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 Review: Is Mainstream Ray Tracing For Real?

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
I am not sure I would say it is faster, than a 1070ti. It seems that they trade blows throughout, at very similar FPS, for the most part. Price/performance, this is a winner, hands down, though, with the price being $50 cheaper than the cheapest 1070ti.
 

ammaross

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2011
267
0
18,790
1
@Chris:
"The Founders Edition card employs a 120W TDP, down 25W from the 2070, but up compared to 1060 (120W) and even 1070 (150W)."
You typed "120W" when you meant "160W" as shown in your chart.
 
this is exactly the same trick nvidia played with its other cards. all the cards this gen got pushed into a higher price bracket; it used to be we got 40% or so performance improvement in the SAME price bracket. now we're getting zero performance increase across the price brackets, however if we stick to the same product lineup we have to pay for a 50% increase in price.

nice disingenuous framing of the problem.
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,868
0
19,790
4

Thank you, fixed!
 
Jan 7, 2019
1
0
10
0
Comparing reference crappy vega cards to a dual (!) fan card? Riigght.

Reference Vega cards can't sustain proper core clocks.

Now, let's compare AIB Vega cards, undervolted and OCed to an OCed 2060.
 

NinjaNerd56

Honorable
Apr 6, 2013
58
0
10,630
0
What kind of test bed did you use?

I have a GTX1060 6GB - EVGA SSC - on an I7 tower with an Optane board in front of a WD Black 10K RPM HD.

Now, I tend to hypertune all of my boxes...and this one is par for the course.

When I test Destiny 2, with Ultra settings, I get 200-240 fps at peak and around 130 at 96th percentile.

Granted, 99.9% of the populace won’t tune a game tower like I do BUT considering none of the games I play use DXR, there’s ZERO value in my blowing $350.

Yes, I could get EVEN MORE...to what end? At 120fps and above, I literally won’t appreciate any difference.
 
Jun 29, 2018
10
0
10
0
In other words completely useless raytracing support. You'd be bat <mod edit> crazy to go 1080p with raytracing compared to 1440p without raytracing. All its direct competitors in the same price bracket can do good 1440p, no amount of raytracing achievable at 1080p is going to make up for the extra resolution.

<Moderator Warning: Watch your language in these forums>
 

TCA_ChinChin

Reputable
Feb 15, 2015
118
4
4,715
6
Despite the confusing market shifts the Nvidia have done with the 20 series, I think that the rtx-2060 is still probably a good value relative to the rest of the RTX lineup. If the launch prices are right and availability is good, then even if it is more expensive than a gtx-1060, it's still alright since it compares decently fps/$ to gtx 1070/1070ti's. It wasn't the amazing value that the 1000 series had at their launch compare to the 900 series, but its at least reasonable. However, the gtx-1160 is probably gonna be a thing later, so idk about buying the rtx-2060 right now.
 

Johnny5

Community Manager
Staff member
Feb 28, 2016
1,632
36
5,840
13

Performance could improve with driver updates though. Still, this is the most expensive x60 card to come out *checks notes* ever. Seems kind of a wash when you could pick up a used 1080 for the same price. I thought graphics card prices were supposed to drop this year :D

EDIT: FWIW the build quality on the FE 2060 looks top notch.
 
Sep 1, 2018
28
0
30
0
Just buy it. The more you buy, the more you save, right TOM :)

For no red/green fans price/performance of RTX 2060 still stinks.

From Anandtech review: "The RTX 2060 (6GB) is simply no longer a ‘mainstream’ video card at $350... Against its direct predecessor, the GTX 1060 6GB, it’s faster by around 59%. In context, the GTX 1060 6GB was 80-85% faster than the GTX 960 (2GB) at launch, where presently that gap is more along the lines of 2X or more, with increased framebuffer the primary driver. But at $200, the GTX 960 was a true mainstream card, as was the GTX 1060 6GB at its $249 MSRP"
 

jgraham11

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2010
9
0
18,510
0
Nice! In the final verdict " It largely outperforms them all and at a lower price point." Mean while, reality is, using Tom's own numbers: it beats the Vega 64 in only 3 titles and the rest, it gets destroyed by up to 30%. Not to mention the frame times, where the Vega64 provides a vastly superior experience...
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
524
1
18,995
3


Is it? Well, until now, you could only go with higher resolution. Now you can choose to go with raytracing. I'd go for raytracing, since my monitor is 1080p. I don't think there's such an easy answer, it all depends on the user.

Also, remember people dismissed VR when it first appeared.
 

BulkZerker

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2010
816
1
18,990
1
"Comparing reference crappy vega cards to a dual (!) fan card? Riigght.

Reference Vega cards can't sustain proper core clocks.

Now, let's compare AIB Vega cards, undervolted and OCed to an OCed 2060."

They can though, when you manually set the money fan speed to 85% and scale to 100%
 

AgentLozen

Distinguished
May 2, 2011
511
0
19,010
22
I'm sad to hear that the efficiency has dropped slightly. I was expecting the 2060 to be even with the 1070 worst case. What happened to the 12nm shrink? Do the ray tracing processors cause a dramatic drop in efficiency?

On the other hand I'm glad to hear that we're finally seeing a value improvement over Pascal. Even if its only a few bucks, its better than what the other Turing cards offer. I suspect that the price may drop further still when AMD Navi comes around later this year.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

The joys of years of little to no meaningful competition. Hopefully, now that GPU crypto has mostly died, we'll see Navi drive performance at all price points up by a significant amount..
 

madbiker

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2009
96
0
18,640
4
I've been running an overclocked (water cooled) 980ti for 4 or so years and I still cant justify an nvidia card. I paid $680 for my card, it gets about 18,000 3dmark in Firestrike (1080p). To me it's looking more and more like a Vega64 or AMD's next GPU are the only sensible upgrade.
 

nitrium

Distinguished
Jul 27, 2009
1,423
2
19,665
194
Hopefully AIB versions will be at least $50 cheaper. Certainly that was case for the RTX 2070, where the FE is $599 whereas the AIBs are mostly around $499 - a full $100 cheaper. I'm on a GTX1050Ti (after my R9 390 died) and seriously want a higher end board; the RTX 2060 ticks all the boxes (except for 6GB VRAM - would have liked to see 8GB on it).
 
Jun 29, 2018
10
0
10
0


Well I've had the chance to play around with a 2080Ti and Battlefield V I could only tell the difference at the same resulotion when I stood still admiring it or when I made screenshots. I can however tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p on a 28" screen while playing. (1440p to 4k not so much except that the framerates give it away.)

I can see how you would turn it on if you only had that 1080p monitor. But if you ever buy a 1440p monitor I can almost guarantee you will not turn raytracing on anymore and rather enjoy the higher resolution at a higher framerate.

And as for VR I already know more people playing with raytracing on than I know people with VR headsets. And I build PCs for a lot of people. VR has not taken of in any significant numbers yet.
 

Loadedaxe

Commendable
Jul 30, 2016
26
0
1,540
2
Alrighty then, this isnt a mainstream card. Its priced to high.

I wonder how many people are going to pay for nvidias RND, it sure isnt nvidia!
 

s1mon7

Proper
Oct 3, 2018
94
4
135
0
I'm not sure I can agree with the conclusion of the review. This card is pretty much in the same ballpark of performance as the GTX1070Ti and imperceivably faster than the GTX1070. It is launching almost 3 years later for pretty much the same price.

I find it disappointing to see big name reviewers like Tom's playing along, not criticizing Nvidia for the lack of progress in the days of little competition. In the history of GPUs, we have never had as little increase in perf/$ as we did with Turing. Even the rebrands did a better job. How come a card offering less than 15% better perf per dollar 3 years later is capable of receiving 4.5/5? Not to even mention the price creep itself - we have never had price hikes to the extent we had from Nvidia within the last two generations. The 60 series now officially cost more than the 7 series did 2 generations ago. The GTX 970 launched at $329..

I am disappointed that Tom's is not feeling the moral obligation to cover that, referring to this card as a mid-range/mainstream card as if everything was fine, and simply recommending the card instead. I don't want to go low and say things feel off since the "just buy it' days, but I used to respect Tom's for their consumer-friendly write-ups and being on our side even when we didn't know something was wrong with a product. Now clearly something is very wrong with Nvidia and the 20-series (even if it's not related to the card per se) but it feels like all flies with Tom's, which is a bit sad to see. Reviewing a product is more than just covering technology that you're receiving for free. Most people will actually have to buy it, and acknowledging that they are not getting the greatest end of the stick is also part of reviewing that product.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY