Discussion RTX 2060 SUPER & RX 2070 SUPER Review Roundup !!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
And it was AMD's fault?
it's a bit complicated. remember AMD have quite limited resource. so in the end they have to be selective to which game developer they will give their full support. in general it was probably like this:

AMD sponsored games: both AMD and nvidia will work closely with game developer.
Nvidia sponsored games: AMD most likely will not work that much with this developer since they have no official marketing effort. unless the said game is triple A stuff that will get a lot of coverage from media.

when the issues with Project Cars happen some people blame that game developer working more closely with nvidia purposely sabotaging the performance on AMD GPU. even saying stuff like forcing PhysX to run on CPU causing slower performance on system with AMD GPU when in fact the game did not have any GPU accelerated function being used and PhysX will always run on CPU even for system with nvidia GPU. in the end game developer did explain what happen with their working relation with AMD and AMD never once denying it nor did they accuse nvidia and Slightly Mad Studios sabotaging their performance.
 
Reactions: King_V

lux1109

Proper
BANNED
Apr 30, 2019
117
25
110
0
what did you expect? nvidia is profit making company. so is AMD. that's why if you have been aware about it AMD not interested moving the performance to the lower price point either. they just do it because the pressure from nvidia.
Making PROFIT is some other thing, but being greedy like NVidia doesn't bode well, imo. But don't get me wrong, since I've used GPUs from both the red and green teams. I just don't like the way how NV keeps on pushing their products, and their cards have always been more expensive than AMD.

AMD is still trying to be on the lower end of price spectrum.
 
Making PROFIT is some other thing, but being greedy like NVidia doesn't bode well, imo.
when you want to make profit being greedy as much as you can is what you need. R&D keep increasing so is the cost to manufacture the product. consumer will not going to like it but any company have to be like this if they want success. sure they can play nice for quite sometime (with pricing) but eventually they need to address the increasing cost issue.

AMD is still trying to be on the lower end of price spectrum.
AMD still trying to be on the lower end of price spectrum? they are not trying they are forced to be the value option. for years AMD has been trying to convince and tell the public that their product also worth the premium price like nvidia. AMD done playing the "cheaper and yet powerful" game after 6k series. remember how AMD priced their 7970? it was freaking $550 which is even more expensive than what nvidia ask for their fastest GPU at that time. and then the thing with fury nano. AMD intend to use it's small size to justify the asking price of $650 which is the same price the much faster Fury X.
 
On the "nGreedia" comment: that's why nVidia's marketing team/dept is one of the best in the world. They manage to convince people the prices they are putting out are absolutely fair and attainable. Everyone that can see past the smoke screen has complained since day 1, but brainwashed zealots are happy with the prices (including AMDs!).

As for the performance of the cards... They're right where* most rumours were expecting them to land. While the process part is an interesting bit, it doesn't change the reality of things for street price and performance.

Like I said before in the other thread: AMD already missed their chance to come out as heroes with Navi. They're the butt-joke now by not preempting something nVidia has done almost every single generation. The most obvious and recent one being the Fury siblings (also, they lost the brand there!). They should've announced the MSRPs to be $100 lower right off the bat as I said, but NOOOOOOOOOO. Well, they reap what they sought.

Cheers!
 
Reactions: Metal Messiah.

TCA_ChinChin

Reputable
Feb 15, 2015
247
53
4,790
7
to be honest i don't know why turing early adopter need to feel bad about this. something like this has happen in GPU world for a very long time now. remember when nvidia coming out with 500 seires only 6 months after 400 series launch? yeah GTX580 was supposed to be what GTX480 should have been since the very beginning but back then no one say that it will upset GTX480 owner because nvidia release GTX580 and GTX570. especially with GTX570 because it has the same performance as GTX480 but the price is $150 cheaper. in one way it's like some people did not want new and improved product being release so they will not going to feel bad with their early purchase.
Of course nobody needs to feel bad about this. Definitely people should expect that later cards will perform better. However, just because companies have been doing it for a long time doesn't mean its not a bad thing for consumers. You could say that we should just suck it up to ISPs because they have always been terrible, or that we should get used Intel only going +5% every generation. Just cause Nvidia screwed their customers once by not releasing what they should have doesn't give them the right to do it again.
 
Reactions: King_V
Of course nobody needs to feel bad about this. Definitely people should expect that later cards will perform better. However, just because companies have been doing it for a long time doesn't mean its not a bad thing for consumers. You could say that we should just suck it up to ISPs because they have always been terrible, or that we should get used Intel only going +5% every generation. Just cause Nvidia screwed their customers once by not releasing what they should have doesn't give them the right to do it again.
i don't like the high price myself. but my point is more about the consumer itself not the company. yes we should be complaining about the high price or when company on purpose holding back releasing better product because there is no competition. but should consumer feel bad when new product is better when it comes to price/performance vs what they have purchased before? i have been saying this a lot in various other thread as well. some people want their initial purchase to be the best deal/decision they made even against future product. isn't that absurd?
 
. but should consumer feel bad when new product is better when it comes to price/performance vs what they have purchased before? i have been saying this a lot in various other thread as well. some people want their initial purchase to be the best deal/decision they made even against future product. isn't that absurd?
Yea, a bit absurd. As for those who always feel bad, these are mostly budget oriented users. But they want the absolute best, for the price/performance ratio, which isn't always possible. New and better/faster TECH always comes with a premium.

Honestly speaking, I'm impressed how NVIDIA keeps on pushing new tech like ray tracing, DLSS, and other graphics pipeline features, faster and more efficient GPUs. Just excited to see how AMD's new RDNA arch is going to pan out, when the reviews go life on 7'th July.
 

TCA_ChinChin

Reputable
Feb 15, 2015
247
53
4,790
7
i don't like the high price myself. but my point is more about the consumer itself not the company. yes we should be complaining about the high price or when company on purpose holding back releasing better product because there is no competition. but should consumer feel bad when new product is better when it comes to price/performance vs what they have purchased before? i have been saying this a lot in various other thread as well. some people want their initial purchase to be the best deal/decision they made even against future product. isn't that absurd?
No I don't think that people feel bad because they want an initial purchase to be their best. That would be absurd, but I don't think most people think like that. The problem is that Nvidia are subverting their own customers expectations that have been built up by Nvidia themselves. Of course one can argue this is in response to competition from AMD, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't logically be disappointed when they are early adopters. A similar situation would be when Intel releasing 6 core i5's after AMD's Ryzen 1000 series chips, but there was only a 6 month gap between 4-core i5s and 6-core i5s and they were the same price (Hypothetical to illustrate the point). Would you argue that it is Intel customer's fault or was it Intel sandbagging due to no competition?

As for those who always feel bad, these are mostly budget oriented users. But they want the absolute best, for the price/performance ratio, which isn't always possible. New and better/faster TECH always comes with a premium.
Budget builders aren't even gonna consider the RTX-2060, RTX-2070, or their super counterparts. New tech always comes with a premium, but these products actually have NO new technology built in. A counter-example is Nvidia's own GTX-900 series launch and even their own GTX-1000 series launch. The Maxwells were superb price to performance and did not carry a premium over their 700 series products (at least not significantly). Pascal again, upped the performance significantly, increased price/performance (at least for launch MSRP) and both introduced new architectures with significant technological improvements. These had very nice budget options for budget builders. Current Turing is quite disappointing for budget builders in reality, as previous generation cards from both Nvidia and AMD are better value.

Turing refresh simply introduces performance that was intentionally withheld (for a plethora of reasons). Its not even a refresh, its just an introduction of the same architecture with different prices and different performance levels. There is no new technology.
 
Turing refresh simply introduces performance that was intentionally withheld (for a plethora of reasons). Its not even a refresh, its just an introduction of the same architecture with different prices and different performance levels. There is no new technology.
So you think that even the dedicated Turing RT and TENSOR cores are not new tech ? Nvidia has changed the GPU arch, with TURING....
 

TCA_ChinChin

Reputable
Feb 15, 2015
247
53
4,790
7
Ah, okay. Now I get what you were trying to convey....No worries.
Yeah, the actual Turing architecture is decent, as in the RT stuff is interesting, albeit having lots of teething issues. It's too expensive for my personal taste, but Nvidia have exposed an interesting technology and technique to a great amount of people this way and we'll hopefully see more and better ray-tracing in the future. The machine learning stuff seems like a big gimmick though... at least for gaming.
 
Reactions: Metal Messiah.
Yeah, the actual Turing architecture is decent, as in the RT stuff is interesting, albeit having lots of teething issues. It's too expensive for my personal taste, but Nvidia have exposed an interesting technology and technique to a great amount of people this way and we'll hopefully see more and better ray-tracing in the future. The machine learning stuff seems like a big gimmick though... at least for gaming.
Yup, the TURING is kind of expensive, but someone had to start, and NVidia did exactly that by bringing hardware level support for RAY TRACING. RT is still in it's infancy stage though.

IMO, apart from all the above factors, it seems we are basically paying an "early adopter" price for this new Turing tech/hardware, hence the premium. We all know Nvidia has totally changed the GPU arch as well, with the addition of new RT and Tensor Cores, and other design/pipeline improvements (memory/cache) etc. But to take proper advantage of this hardware, few games and software are currently out in the market. So basically the hardware won't get fully utilized (if we think from this perspective).

Also, how well some of the upcoming Games will actually perform on a TURING GPU, with Real time ray tracing and DLSS, still remains to be seen. I think it will take at least another 2-3 years for this whole RTX technology to become mainstream.

As of now, few PC titles are going to take full advantage of this new RTX feature, provided Game developers also adopt and implement ray tracing, and DLSS deep learning AA in games as well. Still, it's good to see new Tech being released. With time things might settle down a bit, and the performance gain might be there when DLSS and Ray Tracing features are enabled.
 

Phaaze88

Reputable
Herald
Dat chart...
/START RANT
2060 Super is even closer to 2070-like performance, which doesn't measure up to anything, since the original 2060 was already in the SINGLE DIGITS relative of that card's performance.
At least it has better value than the 2070, right? Not when it was already expensive for a mid-range card to begin with, it's not.
Same deal with the other Super models, it seems. Yeah, that's right. Super doesn't quite measure up (it's close though!) to the performance of the card it's replacing, but it comes at an overall 10-15% better value, but even that value gets pegged down a notch when you consider that they're already pricey.
Three ways to look at this. From a performance only perspective, it's 'meh'. Value is... 'okay?'. Put those 2 together, and it's...
"Why even bother with this launch?"
Oh right, the upcoming Navi cards which were already looking to be inferior to Turing, but will likely be a threat to Nvidia's mid-range only due to pricing. *I say this, because for a while now, Nvidia has made the superior product in performance and power consumption. All AMD has in this field so far is pricing. Performance isn't as good, when comparing the same tiers, and while having higher power use, which depending on where you live, could make for a noticeably higher power bill.
There was no need for this Super launch - they don't really offer anything over the cards they're replacing! All the stubborn pricks(Nvidia) had to do was LOWER THEIR PRICES on the existing cards, but NOOOOOOOO...
I'm skipping this gen. As much as I want to see a 2080Ti Super, I can't expect much from it after the sour taste in my mouth that is the other Super cards.
/END RANT

That said, the 2060 Super is looking to be the new price/performance leader among the 20 series.
 
One RTX 2080 SUPER GPU bench just leaked out, but it's a FFXV benchmark result, and not from an actual gameplay scene. But at least it gives us a fair idea about the performance bracket.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-rtx-2080-super-benchmark,39988.html

The performance benchmarks of NVIDIA’s upcoming GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER graphics card have leaked out showing it almost on par with the $3000 US Titan V. The RTX 2080 SUPER, featuring the Turing GPU architecture, will be launching next week for $699 US while delivering better graphics performance than its non-SUPER predecessor.

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-super-gpu-performance-benchmark-leak/
 

Phaaze88

Reputable
Herald
*If I have to take the FFXV benchmark into account...(I already know it's not a good one)

With the 2080Ti Super being nothing more than a rumor, I'm not sure how to take this one.
This version of the 2080 actually appears to have a leg up over the 1080Ti, which the regular 2080 was going head-to-head with, but it ends there.
It's still a ways from the 2080Ti, which I was expecting it to close the tier gap with, like the other Supers did, but nope. That's still a significant gap.

IMO, the Titan Volta shouldn't even be on the list - it was not marketed in the same manner as the other Titans, i.e, the poor professionals gpu that can also game(with the latter having been omitted for Titan V).
It's the only one of it's kind at $3000(excluding the CEO SE model)...

Perhaps the 2080 Super is the reason Nvidia didn't stick with the 'Ti' moniker.
 
Yeah, there won't be any Ti SUPER GPU model, since it won't make any sense for Nvidia to release such a card, due to lack of competition in the ultra high-end GPU market segment.

There are only two reasons for NVIDIA to launch RTX 2080 TI SUPER: AMD launches something faster or RTX TITAN goes EOL. We don’t know if RTX 2080 TI SUPER would feature fully unlocked TU102 GPU, but no matter if the SKU would be 4408 or 4608 core GPU, it would still affect the sales of TITAN.

The performance gap would be too narrow.
 
the super series is just nvidia shifting their product positioning a little bit due to AMD Navi existence. AMD obviously not competing with the likes of 2080ti. so there is no changes needed on that performance tier. you want the fastest performance? then pay for it. our competition have nothing like it.....yet. also rather than releasing something even more faster under Turing nvidia probably want to focus more on their next gen plan. AMD finally have more competitive architecture instead of just another GCN being brute force to compete. nvidia often coming up with something unexpected when they move to new architecture. they probably want to ready themselves to counter what ever AMD will throw at them later.
 

Phaaze88

Reputable
Herald
Yeah, there won't be any Ti SUPER GPU model, since it won't make any sense for Nvidia to release such a card, due to lack of competition in the ultra high-end GPU market segment.

There are only two reasons for NVIDIA to launch RTX 2080 TI SUPER: AMD launches something faster or RTX TITAN goes EOL. We don’t know if RTX 2080 TI SUPER would feature fully unlocked TU102 GPU, but no matter if the SKU would be 4408 or 4608 core GPU, it would still affect the sales of TITAN.

The performance gap would be too narrow.
You're right.
I was expecting too much.

Bring on 7nm!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY