Self_Destructive
Member
There goes any wind the 5700 series might have had.
Well done Nvidia.
Well done Nvidia.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060/2070 Super Review Thread. New $399/$499 GPU King.
CyberPanda
Banned
Poof. Like a fart in the wind.
manfestival
Member
To be honest, this is gonna be the time to upgrade. At these prices unfortunately.... there is no reason to be going with anything less than a 2070 super.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Who says they didn’t?
Both MS and Sony have used Nvidia in their consoles and neither considered them after that. Nvidia was known to be a terrible business partner in that regard.
wordslaughter
Banned
960 - $199
1060 - $249
2060 - $349
2060 "super" - $399
The XX60 level GPUs have DOUBLED in price since 2015.
1060 - $249
2060 - $349
2060 "super" - $399
The XX60 level GPUs have DOUBLED in price since 2015.
Ellery
Member
There are also huge benefits for having one company manufacture both the CPU and the GPU in a single APU die.
It is not like Sony/MS take a CPU from Intel/AMD and a GPU from Nvidia/AMD and slap them in.
And also another important thing, and we have seen it with different APIs like Vulkan, Mantle and DX12 is that AMD has good hardware, but most PC games aren't properly optimized to utilize AMD graphic cards to their fullest potential.
You can see it quite well in games like World War Z on Vulkan that the AMD cards pack quite a punch.
Sadly most games are still DX11 and optimized with Nvidia in mind.
But for consoles it doesn't really matter that much honestly and I am positive that it wouldn't matter for us as consumers if Sony/MS went with AMD or Nvidia in terms of what games we get and how they look and play.
Also another important factor is that AMD cards don't consume that much power at lower voltage and clockspeeds. They actually behave quite nicely undervolted and underclocked and you can find a nice sweetspot and that is something that Sony and Microsoft are actively doing. They find the sweetspot of hardware + clockspeeds + voltage needed + cooling solution to make a round product.
So don't worry and don't be sorry.
Ellery
Member
They also have doubled in die size, quadrupled in VRAM and the relative performance is closer. The RTX 2060 Super is closer to the previous gen flagship than the GTX 960 was to the 780 (Ti).
But this doesn't mean that I think the price hike is acceptable, because I dislike it too and performance increases are excepted as time passes.
Sadly this happens when one company is the literal "chip leader" in this case.
Oh btw also the GTX 1060 6GB launched at $299.
Leonidas
Member
Damn 2070 Super is a beast! 1080 Ti level stock + extra features, 2080 level when overclocked
Sure, if you ignore the fact that Nvidia released the 1660 and 1660 Ti at $229 and $279.
Sure, if you ignore the fact that Nvidia released the 1660 and 1660 Ti at $229 and $279.
Last edited:
wordslaughter
Banned
Nvidia do make the best most powerful GPUs ( and I love my 1080ti ) but they have pretty much become the EA of hardware.
Red Crayon Aristocrat
Member
Does anyone know what the timespan is from when a new card releases to when it's available in pre built systems?
Leonidas
Member
Probably depends on the vendor, CyberPower PC for example changed their Twitter image to Super, so they'll probably have it on launch day next week.
Red Crayon Aristocrat
Member
Last edited:
Speedwagon
Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel. Yabuki turned off voice chat in Mario Kart races. True artists of their time.
I want that 2070 Super. Now I need a PC to put it in. 
thelastword
Banned
Good Interview and one I have seen, but no way did he specify that 1% of buyers have ultra bad airflow....He said 1% of gamers use Multi GPU setups, when talking about if PCIE4 bandwidth would improve crossfire performance...
In essence, a blower cooler is guaranteed performance for any person, one who can tinker in his case and those who can't, no hassle, no talk about AMD promised me 1800Mhz and I'm only getting 1600Mhz......Then they spoke of acoustics being better than Vega 64/56 blowers with the Navi cooler......Like is standard for any CPU or GPU, you can always improve the cooler....There are people who don't buy NV FE's either, they wait for their triple fan 2080ti's and buy it at a high price. So if you prefer an Axial design, that's fine, but in no way is a blower fan not achieving it's purpose........So you want to go buy a triple fan for much more money, that's fine, you do you, but not everybody is perturbed by a blower fan..........
Here's another thing, forget about Axial fans, how about a water block? Many persons have placed waterblocks on their GPU's......are you that much of an enthusiast? There's is always a league higher, but people have to understand is that not everybody is affected by some fan noise......There are many AIB Nvidia RTX GPU's out there that have one fan, some are loud and some were DOA...and don't forget, many Turing GPU's died at launch and had several display issue, regardless of their fans......
Just wait for the 7th and see how well these fans work....I'm pretty sure those buying Navi will be just fine....
Ellery
Member
Oh yeah I didn't intend to make it sound like he said 1% of the people have bad airflow etc.
But they made the decision because of those people that have lacking airflow and it was something they internally discussed. I can somewhat understand why they are doing this. Nvidia seems to be doing pretty well without blower type reference cards nowadays though.
Of course I will wait for the 7th.
What I think will happen is that the RX 5700 slides somewhere in between the RTX 2060 and the RTX 2060 Super and will also occupy that same price/perf those cards have e.g. :
- RTX 2060 349$
- RX 5700 379$
- RTX 2060S 419$
and same for the 2070, 5700 XT and 2070 S with the 5700 XT being pretty close to the standard 2070.
- RTX 2070 (discontinued)
- RX 5700 XT 449$
- RTX 2070 S 499$
One thing that worries me a bit is this :
The blower won't have an easy time with those W.
I mean it will be better than the R9 290X (438mm²) and Vega 56/64 (495mm²) blower cards that is for sure, but to be fair those cards are like nearly 2x the die size of the RX 5700 (251mm²) cards.
But in all honestly. We know the prices, we know the performance of the RTX 2070, we know the performance of the RX 5700 XT in relation to the RTX 2070 FE (from official AMD slides and I heard whispers that those slides perfectly match with what reviewers are witnessing right now regarding the RX 5700 XT for their reviews. The AMD slides are spot-on) and now we know where the RTX 2070 SUPER FE is in terms of performance.
What could happen that makes the RX 5700 XT interessing other than a price cut? The anti-lag feature that the AMD person in the video I linked to you RECOMMENDED to turn OFF for AAA titles?
Even when we consider that price/perf of the Navi cards matches the 2060,2060S and 2070S.
And we haven't even talked about RayTracing here. There are probably people who really don't care about that, but if you ask me I would take the possibility of having hardware raytracing over not having it 10 out of 10 days.
Indeed I am eagerly waiting for the 7th. The day I will buy new AMD Hardware and bath in the glory of the reviews all day. I am extremely excited for Ryzen.
Krappadizzle
Member
Nvidia has released "super" card with the performance and price that the original lineup should have launched with. I'd be.....super.. pissed if I bought any of the 20xx lineup at launch. C'mon Nvidia, gimme a reason to upgrade my 1080ti.
CyberPanda
Banned
Desktops by Digital Storm
Our desktops form an entirely new breed that has been recognized industry wide as one of the most powerful systems available. Build one now.
www.digitalstorm.com
These guys do a good job with pre built systems.
V2Tommy
Member
They’ve been out since September 2018. That’s plenty of time to have enjoyed the performance over the previous gen.
Last edited:
Krappadizzle
Member
Yeah, but now they are finally priced what they should have been with the performance they should have had.
Last edited:
llien
Member
Really? Why does that sound like though? I mean, expected power consumption of 5700, which is also likely a bit faster than 2060 super, is in the 2060 Super's power consumption area.
Ok, this is close to insult, so let me spell it out for you:
1) My first post contains average across a wide range of games done by 2 different reviewers
2) It was you who cherry picked random games
Leak literally stated that "...it means AMD will price Navi directly against the RTX GPUs that Nvidia launched at higher price points last year. The lower-end Navi GPU is said to be targeting $399 and the RTX 2060, while the higher-end card will target $499 and the RTX 2070..."
So if price on targeted cards change, so does AMD's, logical eh?
llien
Member
I do.
nVidia pissed off Microsoft big time.
On top of not having anything even remotely resembling APUs with perf levels MS/Sony need.
If someone would ever replace AMD as the console chip supplier, it will be Intel, not nVidia.
Perf we see slides 5700 slightly above 2060 super.
It's a totally nonsensical statement, which only hints at user that would have never bought AMD card anyhow, since it isn't green.
AMD chips are half of nvidia's.
Last edited:
Arun1910
Member
I wouldn't say less than a year is a lot of time to enjoy performance especially since there were no RTX titles at launch for these GPU's which was the literal selling point of them, Ray Tracing.
If I bought one at launch I'd be disappointed now, but luckily for me I didn't.
Really stuck at what I want though.
I think performance of these new cards will basically be like this over some large selection of games (indexed with 2070 as 100):
2600 - 85
5700 - 90-95
2060S - 95
2070 - 100
5700XT - 100-105
2070S - 110
From AMD's provided benchmarks 5700XT is AVG ~5.8% faster than 2070 and 5700 ~11.5% faster than 2060. These don't include any outliers (like say GTA5/FFXVI) for nVidia, but includes BF5 with +22% and Metro Exodus with +15% for Navi. If we exclude those two performance between 2070 and 5700XT is <3% on favour of 5700XT.
5700 is hardest to place but it should be around 82-90% performance of a 5700XT depending on how aggressive the clock power targets are. Navi cards will do better with non-blower AIB coolers but these will also cost around the same as the nVidia FE cards.
2600 - 85
5700 - 90-95
2060S - 95
2070 - 100
5700XT - 100-105
2070S - 110
From AMD's provided benchmarks 5700XT is AVG ~5.8% faster than 2070 and 5700 ~11.5% faster than 2060. These don't include any outliers (like say GTA5/FFXVI) for nVidia, but includes BF5 with +22% and Metro Exodus with +15% for Navi. If we exclude those two performance between 2070 and 5700XT is <3% on favour of 5700XT.
5700 is hardest to place but it should be around 82-90% performance of a 5700XT depending on how aggressive the clock power targets are. Navi cards will do better with non-blower AIB coolers but these will also cost around the same as the nVidia FE cards.
Last edited:
llien
Member
Good summary.
Main point that most overlook is that AMD's chips are about 2 times smaller than nVidia's. Even with "pricier process" yadayada, they should be cheaper to produce.
And then we have 40% margins of AMD vs 60% margins at nVidia. AMD would have no issues dropping the price more to compete more aggressively.
V2Tommy
Member
I really hope you never buy a brand new car, then.
Self_Destructive
Member
It's completely true. I mean... the cards were designed for exactly that. Do you think it's some coincidence that Nvidia releases them right along with the 5700s? lol Nvidia knew exactly what they had to do to take the wind out from beneath AMD's 5700 series launch.. and that's what they did. Nothing more, nothing less. Have you looked at what the media is saying?
Last edited:
I definitely think nVidia has lower cost per transistor on 12nm than AMD has on 7nm, plus they can spread fixed costs over more sales. There's a reason why they are staying on 12nm, it's not like they have a shortage of funds or margin to move to a lower node. AMD on the other hand had to move to a newer node because their power consumption is trash in comparison. By AMD's own charts cost of a 250mm^2 die is 2x what it was on the previous node but you only get 60% more transistors (25Mt/mm^2 vs 40Mt/mm^2).
Last edited:
llien
Member
Both nVidia and AMD seem to know what the other side was doing.
nvidia released BIGGER cards that are more expensive to produce, to "counter" 250mm^2 and harvested 250mm^2 cards. It also raised the price.
In a price war, AMD is in a better position with smaller and cheaper to produce cards and lower margin targets.
Again, it only affects part of the market that is not buying cards (e.g. piece of garbage like 1050/1050Ti/1650) simply because they are green. nVidia has a sizeable cult of followers that buys its cards no matter what. Largely that is why market looks so pathetic for the last years.
That is HIGHLY unlikely.
I would agree if you were talking about square mm. The way you described it, node shrinks would always lead to "milk the market" stalemate that we have since transition to 14/16nm.
They did the same thing in the past when they skipped 20nm for Maxwell, increase in wafer pricing offset increase in transistor density, so we got bigger dies on 28nm instead. Unless there's evidence that D0 is several times higher on 12nm I see no reason for why AMD's 7nm 250mm^2 die would be any cheaper than a nVidia's 445mm^2 12nm die at present.
Last edited:
thelastword
Banned
Wow, these benchmarks are surely something...……..Look at how scammy Nvidia is...Three titles with RTX on Ultra and they compare it their Super cards WITH DLSS...….No shame in Nvidia's game....Pascal can't do dlss, so they gain more frames on their Super cards by using the blurry, rez cutting, aliased dlss to boost frames on Super....
The 2070 does not quite beat a 1080ti, it matches it in some, but loses in most...So it's not a 1080ti beater nor a 2080 beater, it's slightly below these cards, especially the 2080...Damn 2070 Super is a beast! 1080 Ti level stock + extra features, 2080 level when overclocked
Why would anyone buy these cards when a Vega 56 exists for $269....It destroys these cards...
Arun1910
Member
Did you just... compare buying a car to a gpu?
Why the assumption I would feel the same way about a car? There are so many different things to consider when buying a car. For a GPU it just comes down to power. I don't have to worry about what seats I have, automatic or manual, what the car looks like, the colour, the features.
That's a stupid comparison.
TheAdmiester
Member
Funny coming from the one who has a fetish for checkerboarding
thelastword
Banned
Checkerboarding is great, DLSS is a joke......Amd's Fidelity FX and IS filter is way superior to DLSS....Proof is in the pudding.....Funny coming from the one who has a fetish for checkerboarding
llien
Member
20nm had other issues, besides price. Thanks for the slides, but when comparing price on different nodes, they normally compare chips of the same size.
Doubling the size of the chip, more than doubles the price of it, as yields drop.
Last edited:
Armorian
Banned
What? DLSS is superior "upscaling" technique (compared to cb). FX offers image sharpening... same thing that you can do in reshade.
TheAdmiester
Member
Yup, I’d take A.I. driven upscaling (as we’ve seen from the various A.I. texture upscaling mods we’ve seen cropping up) over “simple” types any day. The results of DLSS are way sharper than any temporal filtering or checkerboarding I’ve ever seen.
Obviously the cost for total transistor count doesn't go up exactly linearly for a static defect rate per mm^2, no one is saying this, this is an argument you're having in your head. The argument is that the intersection between yield and wafer cost could very well result in a TU106 being cheaper (or at least not worth pursuing) than a Navi 10 given 7nm's meager density increase.
If these imaginary 7nm Turing products would've had higher margins over the life span of the product clearly the bean counters at nVidia disagree as they are in fact skipping them entirely in favour of 7nm EUV in 2020 at the earliest.
If these imaginary 7nm Turing products would've had higher margins over the life span of the product clearly the bean counters at nVidia disagree as they are in fact skipping them entirely in favour of 7nm EUV in 2020 at the earliest.
Evilms
Banned
On the one hand you have the RX 5700 and 5700 XT at $379 and $449.
And on the other side of the RTX 2060 Super and 2070 Super at $399 and $499 but with a better controlled power consumption and dlss, hardware ray tracing on the program with two more games in bundle control and wolfenstein youngblood.
In addition, I have the impression that Nvidia has done a good job with the RTX 2060 Super, which interleaves perfectly between the RX 5700 and 5700 XT.
Unless there's a price drop on the new Navi cards, it's ruined for AMD.
And on the other side of the RTX 2060 Super and 2070 Super at $399 and $499 but with a better controlled power consumption and dlss, hardware ray tracing on the program with two more games in bundle control and wolfenstein youngblood.
In addition, I have the impression that Nvidia has done a good job with the RTX 2060 Super, which interleaves perfectly between the RX 5700 and 5700 XT.
Unless there's a price drop on the new Navi cards, it's ruined for AMD.
Last edited:
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Checkerboarding is light years more impressive then DLSS has been.Funny coming from the one who has a fetish for checkerboarding
DLSS has been Nvidias biggest flop so far.
I was disappointed when I saw the image quality drop when enabling DLSS when I accomplished the same thing by dropping the resolution and still had a much better image.
Tarin02543
Member
I feel I will regret my RTX 2070 Super purchased at the end of December for 600 euro.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Here is an interesting comparison video that came out from HardwareCanucks that’s basically a chill out reminder that the 5700 and 5700 XT aren’t remotely dead by the release of the Super series. They do a lot of theoretical number comparisons from AMDs press conference.
Having said that it does make me feel that the 5700 and 5700XT would be light years better options $50 cheaper at $329 and $399.
Having said that it does make me feel that the 5700 and 5700XT would be light years better options $50 cheaper at $329 and $399.
Last edited:
WhiskeyDiver
Member
I'm sorry. After looking at several benchmarks across several sources and videos, they need to just rename the lineup to "RTX MAYBE 10% better than the normal cards of the same name."
Or call it the +10% spit shine super dance.
Yes I know it was done to shit on the new AMD new cards parade pricing wise.
Or call it the +10% spit shine super dance.
Yes I know it was done to shit on the new AMD new cards parade pricing wise.
Last edited:
thelastword
Banned
Absolutely false....DLSS is the laughing stock of recent graphical features, its a meme at this point......There are countless videos showing the farce that DLSS is, it's the reason why no one mentions it but Nvidia, to scam comparisons vs Pascal.......You get a worse, more aliased and blurry image with DLSS........Metro used sharpening to get rid of the blur, but it's still awful......It's no comparison to native rez, and besides, it has been proven that normal upscaling resolves much more detail and is sharper than DLSS........
Checkerboard is several classes above DLSS and so is Fidelity FX, if you happened to watch AMD's presentation from the Unity Engine.....
xPikYx
Member
Well it was quite expected, wasn't it? @500$ is a very good value though especially because it has raytracing acceleration. Raytracing is the future of the gaming 3D graphic, sure it is still on embryonal phase but for those who want to try it, they can 1080p@30/60 fps, I know the majority of people play on PC for better resolutions and higher framerates but on console many play 30fps and so you could on PC, it's up to you, without raytracing you can still play at those better resolutions and framerates moreover you've got the chance to try raytracing, it is definitely worth it
thelastword
Banned
Let the customers decide what they want to buy, when the reviews go up.....RTX on these cards are a joke, raytracing is not ready for primetime, not at least 1.5-2 years away to be done properly....
I was thinking about AMD slides yesterday and I felt that I should do some extrapolations, but hardwarecanucks beat me to it......In any case, the main point which I've mentioned in prior Super threads is that persons should hold on for actual benchmarks.......AMD used the best API for RTX cards and the best API for Navi cards...So if they tested Metro in DX12 and found that Navi performed better in DX12 and RTX performed better in DX11, they would use the API that offers the best averages for each card...….Now since Navi won most of the benches over RTX, some in excess of 20%, it could mean that if the same API was used, RTX could fall behind even more in said titles...…...
It only makes sense to compare common API to API to see the strengths of the new RDNA architecture from Navi, how it performs in older DX11 titles where Vega did worse, like Fortnite, Overwatch etc....How much better the new CU architecture makes it perform in titles Radeon already excelled in like Dirt 2, Strange Brigade, Battlefields, Kingdom Come, COD, Forza's, DMC's, Resident Evils etc...…...People who think Super has dusted 5700 are out of their minds and just FUDDING...
Also, people want to compare the 380 and 450 Navi cards vs 400 and 500 Super Cards and that's fine, but persons are forgetting that the $500 5700XT Anniversary exists, with higher clock speeds.....So it would make sense to compare the anniversary 5700xt to the RTX 2070 Super as well....
API to API, should be an interesting comparison come the 7th......