NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER and 2060 SUPER Review Roundup

Pieter3dnow said:
To do what exactly ?
I posted an excerpt from him endorsing Nvidia it does not mean anything if I get it from another source especially since all of them signed 5 year NDA from Nvidia ...
Click to expand...

A bad source is a bad source, even if it sometimes gets things right. A stopped clock is correct twice/day, but I wouldn't use it to tell time.

Adored TV is essentially like 2nd rate speculations on forums, except made into click bait videos for money. It's garbage.

There are a few high quality YT channels, like Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed, that do comprehensive detailed reviews and analysis (AKA real work), and both do their reviews in text, so you don't even have to waste time on videos.
 
Snowdog said:
A bad source is a bad source, even if it sometimes gets things right. A stopped clock is correct twice/day, but I wouldn't use it to tell time.

Adored TV is essentially like 2nd rate speculations on forums, except made into click bait videos for money. It's garbage.

There are a few high quality YT channels, like Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed, that do comprehensive detailed reviews and analysis (AKA real work), and both do their reviews in text, so you don't even have to waste time on videos.
Click to expand...

Meh, everyone seems to be looking for something to praise Nvidia on so they don't cheese off leather jacket man so they've been talking up a $350 to now $400+ 1080p video card in the 2060. At least price/perf the 2070s is tolerable if still historically overpriced.
 
Ranulfo said:
Meh, everyone seems to be looking for something to praise Nvidia on so they don't cheese off leather jacket man so they've been talking up a $350 to now $400+ 1080p video card in the 2060. At least price/perf the 2070s is tolerable if still historically overpriced.
Click to expand...

The market is what it is right now. BOTH AMD and Nvidia are playing the same pricing game now. In that context it does make the 2060 Super a better "value" than the 2060 non-Super. There's nothing "looking to praise" about it. Its the reality of the current GPU market. Things are never going back to where they were before. This has happened multiple times in the GPU market over the past decade and every single time we adapt to the new prices because the old prices are never coming back.
 
Derangel said:
The market is what it is right now. BOTH AMD and Nvidia are playing the same pricing game now. In that context it does make the 2060 Super a better "value" than the 2060 non-Super. There's nothing "looking to praise" about it. Its the reality of the current GPU market. Things are never going back to where they were before. This has happened multiple times in the GPU market over the past decade and every single time we adapt to the new prices because the old prices are never coming back.
Click to expand...

And you've bought into that mindset apparently. Resign yourself, pay up and bite odditory's pillow there I guess. And yes, I agree AMD is doing the same thing and at this moment Navi does not look like a good purchase. We'll see on Sunday for sure.
 
Ranulfo said:
And you've bought into that mindset apparently. Resign yourself, pay up and bite odditory's pillow there I guess. And yes, I agree AMD is doing the same thing and at this moment Navi does not look like a good purchase. We'll see on Sunday for sure.
Click to expand...

And by "mindset" you mean reality, right? No one likes the prices, but they're not going to change. AMD and Nvidia aren't going to suddenly drop to pre-mining prices again. Unless Intel decides to be the "value" brand (I highly doubt it) and knocks it out of the park from day one this is where we're at.
 
Derangel said:
And by "mindset" you mean reality, right? No one likes the prices, but they're not going to change. AMD and Nvidia aren't going to suddenly drop to pre-mining prices again. Unless Intel decides to be the "value" brand (I highly doubt it) and knocks it out of the park from day one this is where we're at.
Click to expand...

If no one buys then prices drop. It is always a buyers market. You seem to think Jensen’s jackets pay for themselves.
 
Ranulfo said:
Meh, everyone seems to be looking for something to praise Nvidia on so they don't cheese off leather jacket man so they've been talking up a $350 to now $400+ 1080p video card in the 2060. At least price/perf the 2070s is tolerable if still historically overpriced.
Click to expand...

It’s only overpriced if you ignore the RTX portion of the card... which I wouldn’t blame someone for doing.
 
Dayaks said:
It’s only overpriced if you ignore the RTX portion of the card... which I wouldn’t blame someone for doing.
Click to expand...

RTX in its current iteration is useless. Next gen maybe.
 
Dayaks said:
I really enjoy it in the games that use it. It just depends if you actually play those games.
Click to expand...

Man I can’t tell a difference whether it’s on or not lol. It all looks same to me.
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
Man I can’t tell a difference whether it’s on or not lol. It all looks same to me.
Click to expand...

You can notice it with the reflections in BF5. Though, the reflections are so clear and clean sometimes that it ends up feeling more unrealistic than having traditional fake reflections.
 
Skyblue said:
Not buying anything until I read the HardOCP review :)
Click to expand...

9ZOgqGO.png
 
Ranulfo said:
Meh, everyone seems to be looking for something to praise Nvidia on so they don't cheese off leather jacket man so they've been talking up a $350 to now $400+ 1080p video card in the 2060. At least price/perf the 2070s is tolerable if still historically overpriced.
Click to expand...

It looks like you are saying, you don't like high quality reputable sites, because they don't tell you what you want to hear?

There is a huge problem with this. It's called confirmation bias. You don't learn anything this way, you just get set in your bubble avoiding the truth.

"Historically overpriced"? What is that supposed to mean?

2070 Super gives you 1080Ti performance for about $200 less.
2060 Super gives you above 1080 performance for about $100 less.

If you are referring to the big gains back in the days when process improvements gave significant increases in transistor/$, then sadly those days are gone.

Edit:

A graph to illustrate the point, though these are 2016 projections, and likely a bit more negative than they are currently, but the point is, that up until 28nm there were massive improvements in cost/transistor at every new node. Since 28nm things have flat lined considerably.

Those big gains in the old days meant, you could get 50% more transistors for "free", so GPUs kept jumping by up to 50% performance for the same price.

Today you might get more like 5-10% more transistors for "free" with a node shrink, mean the perf/$ of GPUs will improve at a MUCH slower pace.

https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1329887
Handel1.png
 
Last edited:
Factum said:
That is almost signature worthy....because I get the same kind of "feeling" ;)
Click to expand...

I am all for NVIDIA making money especially at the top end with no competitors as innovation needs to be rewarded but the way they have been exploiting the mid range cards is like milking a cow then cutting its throat for the meat.
 
Snowdog said:
It looks like you are saying, you don't like high quality reputable sites, because they don't tell you what you want to hear?

There is a huge problem with this. It's called confirmation bias. You don't learn anything this way, you just get set in your bubble avoiding the truth.

"Historically overpriced"? What is that supposed to mean?

2070 Super gives you 1080Ti performance for about $200 less.
2060 Super gives you above 1080 performance for about $100 less.

If you are referring to the big gains back in the days when process improvements gave significant increases in transistor/$, then sadly those days are gone.
Click to expand...
The issue is for a lot of us is we already have 1080 Ti performance and everything below $998 is not really an upgrade. The 2080 Ti, at least in my case is a laughable card at the going rate. If there were some decent $999 ones (not the EVGA Black) but with great coolers etc. that would at least give an option for significant better performance. Just have to see what the 2080 Super delivers to the table but if between a 2080 and 2080 Ti, why bother if one already has a 1080 Ti? This whole generation has been meh to the max.

Pre Super Turing, you where paying same price for the same performance in the sub $1000 range - at least Super versions you are stepping up the performance/$ from the previous generation.

The other issue is one can already have great game performance, nothing really stressing the performance level. At 1440p my Vega 64 LC is running great for my needs. Really the best card I can see this generation is actually the 2070 Super for those upgrading from like a Maxwell cards 970/980/980 Ti or a 1070, Radeon Fury or a lower end current generation card. If AMD rethinks a little their pricing for Navi it could be good for those upgrading from older generation cards.
 
noko said:
The issue is for a lot of us is we already have 1080 Ti performance and everything below $998 is not really an upgrade. The 2080 Ti, at least in my case is a laughable card at the going rate. If there were some decent $999 ones (not the EVGA Black) but with great coolers etc. that would at least give an option for significant better performance. Just have to see what the 2080 Super delivers to the table but if between a 2080 and 2080 Ti, why bother if one already has a 1080 Ti? This whole generation has been meh to the max.
Click to expand...

The days of buying top end part and upgrading every generation with big gains are GONE forever.

The unfortunate reality of the slowdown in process technology are going to hit even harder at the top, as huge chips get hit much harder by yield issues.

2080Ti is crazy expensive because the die is ridiculously large. It's the largest consumer GPU chip EVER produced.

Also 12nm FFN is more marketing name than reality. It's really 16nm+. The transistor density is the same as 16nm (~25million/mm2), so there is really zero progress on process density since Pascal. Maybe slight power improvements, but really not much change, this is just slight refinement of 16nm. All the performance improvements of Turing come from much bigger, more expensive dies.
 
Snowdog said:
The days of buying top end part and upgrading every generation with big gains are GONE forever.

The unfortunate reality of the slowdown in process technology are going to hit even harder at the top, as huge chips get hit much harder by yield issues.
.
Click to expand...

And yet you will still justify increasing prices 2x+ over previous generations all because it suppposedly costs them more for these "huge chips". Fine, I get the slow down in performance jumps between generations but $399 for the new 2060 super? Still $349 for a 2060 with 6gb of ram and 192bit mem bus? Yeah, no thanks. Same deal with AMD and Navi. I sure don't see many people singing Navi's praises even before the Super cards hit reviewer shelves. Certainly not on price. Ooh, its premium product for $379! That is clearly a replacement for Polaris. Is the 1660 and 1660ti really costing nvidia so much to justify $220-310 prices they're charging?

The only sane deal as it were right now price/perf is the $499 2070Super and again, thats even 80 bucks more than a custom 1070 was 3 years ago. But hey, you get RTX gen1 which is still mostly stillborn and like most tech won't be worth a darn until gen2-3.
 
Snowdog said:
The days of buying top end part and upgrading every generation with big gains are GONE forever.

The unfortunate reality of the slowdown in process technology are going to hit even harder at the top, as huge chips get hit much harder by yield issues.

2080Ti is crazy expensive because the die is ridiculously large. It's the largest consumer GPU chip EVER produced.

Also 12nm FFN is more marketing name than reality. It's really 16nm+. The transistor density is the same as 16nm (~25million/mm2), so there is really zero progress on process density since Pascal. Maybe slight power improvements, but really not much change, this is just slight refinement of 16nm. All the performance improvements of Turing come from much bigger, more expensive dies.
Click to expand...
So why didn't Nvidia just use 16nm if there is very little benefit? How stupid they must be ;) to pay extra for nothing

TSMC 12nm is rated for 33.8mTr/mm^2 vs. 28.2mTr/mm^2 on the 16nm node. Transistor density is higher for 12nm.
 
noko said:
So why didn't Nvidia just use 16nm if there is very little benefit? How stupid they must be ;) to pay extra for nothing

TSMC 12nm is rated for 33.8mTr/mm^2 vs. 28.2mTr/mm^2 on the 16nm node. Transistor density is higher for 12nm.
Click to expand...

You can check the practical transistor density by transistors count/chip size, and it's ~25 million/mm2 for both Pascal and Turing.

Who says it costs more. It's just mature refined 16nm. Lower cost and and higher yield than 7nm. That is why they used it.
 
noko said:
So why didn't Nvidia just use 16nm if there is very little benefit? How stupid they must be ;) to pay extra for nothing

TSMC 12nm is rated for 33.8mTr/mm^2 vs. 28.2mTr/mm^2 on the 16nm node. Transistor density is higher for 12nm.
Click to expand...

nope… for TSMC 12nm and 16nm are the same, even it's categorized and marketed by TSMC as same 16/12nm

16/12nm

12nm didn't changed too much the density beyond improved process to achieve better yields, the enhanced process was just to achieve reduced leakage and better cost and more important better marketing name tan say 14nm, so yeah.. it's cheaper for nvidia to use 12nm, but basically TSMC 12nm and 16nm are the same..
 
Snowdog said:
You can check the practical transistor density by transistors count/chip size, and it's ~25 million/mm2 for both Pascal and Turing.

Who says it costs more. It's just mature refined 16nm. Lower cost and and higher yield than 7nm. That is why they used it.
Click to expand...

Araxie said:
nope… for TSMC 12nm and 16nm are the same, even it's categorized and marketed by TSMC as same 16/12nm

16/12nm

12nm didn't changed too much the density beyond improved process to achieve better yields, the enhanced process was just to achieve reduced leakage and better cost and more important better marketing name tan say 14nm, so yeah.. it's cheaper for nvidia to use 12nm, but basically TSMC 12nm and 16nm are the same..
Click to expand...

So TSMC lied on their density increase :whistle:, right. Just so Nvidia will pay more since they are so stupid. Yes it is a half node but increase density is one reason, plus reduce power/heat is another. If Nvidia takes advantage of it or spreads out parts of the chip that generates more heat is another thing for higher clock speeds. Bottom line is the specs says otherwise on density unless you two champs just know much more than TSMC.
 
GoldenTiger said:
It is a great card. Keep missing out due to your incredible bias and poor information sources.
Click to expand...
I am bias because I don't buy one, lol, nope - just plainly not worth the money. No reason to pay $1200 for a decent version to get 30% increase of real gaming performance. If your happy great, power to you game on. Now if I was on pre Pascal generation cards the 2070 Super would be my choice unless AMD pulls a cat out of the hat.

If there is a few great games that can actually show the worth of the hardware, prices come down, Nvidia has a faster version etc. I may just change my mind when it suits me to. Right now the 2080 Ti is a joke for me on the price - just my view.
 
GoldenTiger said:
The evga black is $999. Get your facts straight.
Click to expand...
The non A chip, the worst cooler of all 2080 Ti's - no thanks. Feedback poor, poor return rates, at least EVGA kicks ass on that. Of course some had great success with them, even A chips on board. Just don't like the thought of getting the worst bin chips as a good deal. If the 2080Ti FE was $999 or similar quality - that would be something to think about. Also if Nvidia has a 2080 Ti Super that has a significant performance increase making the higher price maybe digestible. Once again I did look into the 2080Ti Black, just not worth it to me at this time.

Really what I am looking at is getting Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master, Ryzen 3 3950x and put in the two 1080 Ti's and call it a year.
 
Last edited:
noko said:
So TSMC lied on their density increase :whistle:, right. Just so Nvidia will pay more since they are so stupid. Yes it is a half node but increase density is one reason, plus reduce power/heat is another. If Nvidia takes advantage of it or spreads out parts of the chip that generates more heat is another thing for higher clock speeds. Bottom line is the specs says otherwise on density unless you two champs just know much more than TSMC.
Click to expand...

It's no more a density increase than GF 12nm. You know the one used for 2nd generation Ryzen that is exactly identical to first generation Ryzen in size and transistor count.
(transistor count)/area doesn't lie. Marketing does.

At least intel is honest calling it's process refinement what they are (14nm, 14nm+, 14nm++) where TSMC and GF play games claiming a density reductions that never actually appear.

Again your making up the part about paying more. It's an older very refined process. Those are typically relatively inexpensive, and of course refinement often brings many benefits typically clock speed, and or power, and yield.
 
Riccochet said:
They're good cards for the money. Barely faster than a 1080Ti for $500 isn't a bad deal. AMD would be smart to drop the price on Radeon VII to $500 and rethink their pricing strategy on the new NAVI cards coming out.

think I'll wait for the 2080Ti Ultra Mega FTWWTFBBQ Super Sayan OC Extreme Shroud Edition
Click to expand...
I think I'll wait for 7nm ☺
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top