GeForce RTX 2060/2070/2080 Super Reviews

[Mopetar]

2080 Super Reviews:

AnandTech Review: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14663/the-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-super-review

To be sure, the RTX 2080 Super is the smallest performance jump of any of the Super cards. While the other cards delivered around 15% better performance per dollar than their vanilla predecessors, the RTX 2080 Super is only about half that, at 8%. Which is enough to be meaningful and enough to justify a new SKU (especially with the hardware changes), but it’s not a card that changes the video card calculus significantly.

Guru3D Review: https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-rtx-2080-super-review,1.html

So if you bought an RTX 2080 last or this year, this release might be a bit of a bummer (or not). Not only did NVIDIA make the card faster, but they also made is cheaper as well (compared to the founders RTX 2080 which launched at 799 USD). Our perspective obviously needs to be what NVIDIA puts on the table today, and we have to state that it didn't disappoint. . . . They refreshed the RTX 2080 to be faster and cheaper, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, it ain't anything revolutionary either.

TechSpot Review: https://www.techspot.com/review/1881-geforce-rtx-2080-super/

Overall, the RTX 2080 Super is a solid premium-priced GPU, it's just not particularly exciting. Officially discounting the RTX 2080 to $600 would have been worlds more thrilling in our opinion. Put in other words, the RTX 2080 Super is ~9% faster on average than the GTX 1080 Ti at both 1440p and 4K. So we're getting a performance boost, at the exact same price point, almost two and a half years later.

TechPowerUp Review: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-super-founders-edition/

Performance numbers of the RTX 2080 Super are good, the higher FPS rates definitely help improve the gaming experience at 4K. While not a 4K60 max details card, it is good enough for solid 4K gaming with decent frame rates if you are willing to sacrifice some details settings (depending on the game). Its high performance will also help gamers looking to drive a high-refresh-rate monitor beyond 60 Hz on 1440p at the highest details.

Tom's Hardware Review: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-super-turing-ray-tracing,6243.html

In the end, GeForce RTX 2080 Super represents a slight performance improvement over GeForce RTX 2080. It’s quite a bit less expensive than GeForce RTX 2080 Founders Edition but matches the price of third-party 2080s already available. The 2080 Super was designed in a way that allows Nvidia’s partners to repurpose their existing efforts. Its power consumption is 25-35W higher though, so expect warmer GPU temperatures, faster fan speeds, and slightly elevated acoustics.

Video Reviews:

Spoiler: Gamer's Nexus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qeb3IhsZSCM

2060 Super / 2070 Super Reviews:

AnandTech Review: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14586/geforce-rtx-2070-super-rtx-2060-super-review

The GeForce RTX 2060 Super is all but an RTX 2070 in name and in price, delivering virtually identical performance for $100 less than the original RTX 2070. And the GeForce RTX 2070 Super, while not quite a facsimile of the RTX 2080, delivers much of those gains, offering 96% of the RTX 2080’s performance for 71% of the price – or nearly some $200 cheaper than what that level of performance cost just last month.

Tom's Hardware Review: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-super-geforce-rtx-2070-super,6207.html

Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 2060 Super does deliver smooth frame rates across our benchmark suite at 2560 x 1440 at maxed-out detail settings. Support for real-time ray hybrid ray tracing technologies should become even more of a differentiator as time passes.

TechPowerUp Reviews: 2060 Super / 2070 Super

Results from our new graphics card test suite with all the latest games and a new Core i9-9900K paired with an EVGA Z390 DARK motherboard, show a solid 14% performance improvement over RTX 2070. Last generation's flagship, the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is 2% slower, so RTX 2070 Super can be considered to deliver equal performance. AMD's fastest, the Radeon VII is 3% behind, and we expect the Navi-based Radeon RX 5700 XT to be around 10% slower than RTX 2070 Super, too. The next step up is the GeForce RTX 2080, which is 7% faster, not that much, especially when you consider the price difference. With those performance numbers, we can recommend RTX 2070 Super for highest detail gaming at 1440p."

Guru3D: https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-rtx-2060-and-2070-super-review,1.html

The more popular of the two cards released today would be that RTX 2060 Super. It's now at 8 GB of graphics memory that is faster. The added 2Gb has increased the memory bus to 256-bits wide as well. ROPs are tied to that, so that number increases to 64. And then another 256 shader processors bumped to 2176, combined with the new clock frequencies, will make sure that the end result seen from the regular 2060 is a significant performance boost.

TechSpot: https://www.techspot.com/review/1865-geforce-rtx-super/

The 2070 Super on the other hand comes out at a cost of $4.90 per frame, so it’s 16% faster than the 2060 Super but only costs 7% more per frame, making it the better value option. This also means the GTX 1080 Ti cost 33% more per frame, so not a bad result for the 2070 Super comparing it to a now 2 year old product. . . . The RTX 2070 Super is good, it kills off the Radeon VII at its current price and does the same to the RTX 2080. So you’re almost getting $700 performance for $500, almost. There’s also no better deal to be had at this price point and that’s why we need AMD to step it up a notch, or ten.

Video Reviews:

Spoiler: Gamer's Nexus Video

Spoiler: Hardware Unboxed

Edit: Added the 2080 Super reviews

 

[tviceman]

If these were what Turing was at launch, would the complaints still have been as pronounced? The 2070 Super now delivers > 60% more performance than the GTX 1070, and the 2060 Super is over 90% faster than the GTX 1060. $500 for >= 1080 TI performance and $400 for GTX 1080 + 10% performance back in October (or whenever it was released) would have been much easier to swallow. The power consumption sucks, though.

 

[BFG10K]

These two cards definitely improve Turing. 2060S basically gives you 2070 performance for a lower price, while 2070S is almost a 2080 at the same price of a 2070.

 

[Stuka87]

So basically, when nVidia launched Turing they sandbagged on purpose. They got people to buy the cards, and gave AMD a false target knowing that Navi was coming. Yet there are still people that love nVidia, even after these anti-consumer practices.

Some interesting bits are the jump in power consumption, specifically for the 2070S. TDP went from 175W to 215W. Although real world power increase is closer to 17W per TPU. Which basically means nVidia's measurement is now closer to real world. The 175W measurment was never realized.

But basically, this is what consumers should have gotten from day one. Now people that bought cards like the 2060 just a handful of months ago at launch are screwed. Nobody buys a card expecting it to be completely replaced within 6 months.

 

[Bouowmx]

From what I see at AnandTech and TechPowerUp, performance increased 1:1 with power; so, efficiency has not changed

 

[mohit9206]

2060S should be $300, 2070S $400 respectively but $100 extra is your RTaX.

 

[NTMBK]

So basically, when nVidia launched Turing they sandbagged on purpose. They got people to buy the cards, and gave AMD a false target knowing that Navi was coming. Yet there are still people that love nVidia, even after these anti-consumer practices.

Nvidia made as much money as they could while AMD had no competitive GPU. AMD becomes competitive again, Nvidia drops prices in response. It's not really a surprise, is it?

 

[Mopetar]

If these were what Turing was at launch, would the complaints still have been as pronounced? The 2070 Super now delivers > 60% more performance than the GTX 1070, and the 2060 Super is over 90% faster than the GTX 1060. $500 for >= 1080 TI performance and $400 for GTX 1080 + 10% performance back in October (or whenever it was released) would have been much easier to swallow. The power consumption sucks, though.

I think that people would have been a lot more satisfied in general. There would always be some who would complain, but these are a lot more compelling for their price. Essentially this would be like the 2070 launching for $100 less and the 2080 launching for $200 less.

On a side note, does anyone know how to just link to YouTube videos. Even when using the URL tag, it will just embed them which takes up a lot of space and is distracting in my opinion. Also, if anyone has other reviews they feel are good, feel free to post them and I'll edit the main post. I'll try to toss in some summaries or other information as I have time to go through more of them.

 

[Dribble]

So basically, when nVidia launched Turing they sandbagged on purpose. They got people to buy the cards, and gave AMD a false target knowing that Navi was coming. Yet there are still people that love nVidia, even after these anti-consumer practices.

Some interesting bits are the jump in power consumption, specifically for the 2070S. TDP went from 175W to 215W. Although real world power increase is closer to 17W per TPU. Which basically means nVidia's measurement is now closer to real world. The 175W measurment was never realized.

But basically, this is what consumers should have gotten from day one. Now people that bought cards like the 2060 just a handful of months ago at launch are screwed. Nobody buys a card expecting it to be completely replaced within 6 months.

Err, I think the odd person might have complained about Nvidia in the last few months

The performance/power consumption is the same, which is not surprising being as it's the same process and the same architecture.

The 2060 is still available at the same price, it's actually everything above it that got replaced by cheaper alternatives. Then the 2060 was always though of as the RTX card that wasn't a completely overpriced for it's performance.

It is true we can thank AMD and Navi for the release however - Nvidia might well have sat on this, but AMD played their Navi card so Nvidia showed their hand.

 

[BFG10K]

But basically, this is what consumers should have gotten from day one. Now people that bought cards like the 2060 just a handful of months ago at launch are screwed. Nobody buys a card expecting it to be completely replaced within 6 months.

Yep, the 2060 was the most egregious Turing example of obsolescence at launch. 6GB was proven too low right out of the gate, but they can't lower its price due to RTX/DLSS tax, so it'll remain a lemon.

From what I see at AnandTech and TechPowerUp, performance increased 1:1 with power; so, efficiency has not changed

That's no surprise given there are no real architectural or manufacturing changes, not even a respin.

 

[guachi]

When the Navi cards were given prices at E3 my first thought was that they were each about $30 too high. I still think that.

The Navi prices were good when they were announced but it's not like you could buy a card when they were announced.

 

[Bouowmx]

On a side note, does anyone know how to just link to YouTube videos. Even when using the URL tag, it will just embed them which takes up a lot of space and is distracting in my opinion. Also, if anyone has other reviews they feel are good, feel free to post them and I'll edit the main post. I'll try to toss in some summaries or other information as I have time to go through more of them.

Put media in inline code (ICODE): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5-vCnUC7bM
or a spoiler:

Spoiler: YouTube video

 

[Glo.]

So basically, when nVidia launched Turing they sandbagged on purpose. They got people to buy the cards, and gave AMD a false target knowing that Navi was coming. Yet there are still people that love nVidia, even after these anti-consumer practices.

Some interesting bits are the jump in power consumption, specifically for the 2070S. TDP went from 175W to 215W. Although real world power increase is closer to 17W per TPU. Which basically means nVidia's measurement is now closer to real world. The 175W measurment was never realized.

But basically, this is what consumers should have gotten from day one. Now people that bought cards like the 2060 just a handful of months ago at launch are screwed. Nobody buys a card expecting it to be completely replaced within 6 months.

This is the reason why I hate TPU numbers, in all of their glory.

17W more for RTX 2070S than 2070, they say?

 

[Thala]

This is the reason why I hate TPU numbers, in all of their glory.

17W more for RTX 2070S than 2070, they say?

The shown numbers above are meaningless for GPU power evaluation as they reflect system power consumption.

 

[SPBHM]

the main problem people had with the 2060 is fixed (6GB) and it almost performs like a 2070 now for a decent amount less, but the 2070 already looked like a badly priced product anyway, this should've been the 2070 pricing since the start, it's kind of a shame that they basically did this to avoid an actual price drop, and that keeping these prices is OK because the competition also think it's OK...

 

[fleshconsumed]

A step in the right direction, but still too expensive for what you pay. Both nVidia and AMD. I'll be playing the "waiting" game to see where the markets settle by the end of the year. None of the choices are appealing at the current prices, but hopefully it'll be more palatable in 6 months.

 

[Stuka87]

This is the reason why I hate TPU numbers, in all of their glory.

17W more for RTX 2070S than 2070, they say?

Anandtech uses system power consumption. So games that use more CPU will also increase power usage, where as TPU measure the GPU directly. BUT... I would like to see TPU break out the power consumption across all the games rather than averaging them all together.

AnandTech's numbers do hint that TPU's averages are really hiding something.

 

[mohit9206]

Yep, the 2060 was the most egregious Turing example of obsolescence at launch. 6GB was proven too low right out of the gate, but they can't lower its price due to RTX/DLSS tax, so it'll remain a lemon.


That's no surprise given there are no real architectural or manufacturing changes, not even a respin.

No 6gb wasn't proven to be a problem at all. Maybe after 3 years it would be a problem.

 

[beginner99]

When the Navi cards were given prices at E3 my first thought was that they were each about $30 too high

more like $100 too high especially because the "super" release was known to be coming. And if they want to build market share it's at least $130 too high.

 

[psolord]

So how is Palit going to name their Super Jetstream cards now? RTX 2070 Super Duper Jetstream?

 

[railven]

Pleasant surprise. Now if they had done a RTX 2080 Ti Super and it had the same up lift I'd have said something unpleasant. Haha.

NV pulled an AMD and juiced their cards! What a rodeo this is turning out to be.

Prediction: NV juiced these far enough to beat AMD's unreleased cards but still use less power. No way I'd see NV throw away that efficiency crown so easily. Seeing as how there is still OC'ing headroom, these cards aren't going for the throat - just the reviews. Custom cards will finish the rest of the job.

 

[railven]

So how is Palit going to name their Super Jetstream cards now? RTX 2070 Super Duper Jetstream?

Maybe a good time to snag some of them car aficionados by introducing an SS version!

 

[linkgoron]

Clearly, this is what the Turing family should've been from the start, although I expected performance to be a tiny bit higher. The price is still too high obviously, but the 2060S and 2070S at least have a closer price/perf to the 2060.

Radeon 7 is now clearly obsolete for $700, although it was overpriced anyway. Even at $500, TPU and CB put it under the 2070S (techspot doesn't). I assume that AMD will EOL it in five days, or July 23rd at the latest. I assume that AMD will need to cut Navi prices, but that was a given.

 

[Head1985]

2060S should be $300, 2070S $400 respectively but $100 extra is your RTaX.

Yep its still overpriced but atleast NAVI is now DOA like really DOA.Nobody will buy them for 450usd blower and 500usd AIB cards if they have 2070 performance(+-5%).2070S is only 8%slower than 2080.So AMD simply need reduce prices to 400usd for 5700xt and 330usd for 5700.

 

[renz20003]

Nobody buys a card expecting it to be completely replaced within 6 months.

I did back in the late 90's and early 2000's...