Question NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 REVIEWS, – Faster Than GTX 1070 Ti For $349 US

[happy medium]

if you find a review please post it., i'll put it on the first page.

AnandTech review
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13762/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-founders-edition-6gb-review

1. PC master race
http://www.pcmrace.com/2019/01/07/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-founders-edition-review/
2. Gamers Nexus
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...-founders-edition-review-benchmark-vs-vega-56
3. guru 3d
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-rtx-2060-review-(founder),1.html
4. Toms hardware
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-ray-tracing-turing,5960.html

 

[happy medium]

7nm Vega Vll for $699? As fast as a 2080.
Looking at the performance the new Vega 7 has a horrible price performance vs the Vega 56 at $350. 35% faster for double the price.
This makes the 2060 look like a terrific value .at least the 2060 was 50% faster than the 1060 for 40% more money.

 

[Arkaign]

Yes and lets not forget the increase in performance.
The 1060 to 1070 performance difference was 37%. The 2060 to 2070 is 19%. That's why its more expensive.

Remember the gtx960 performance vs the 970 was like a 50% difference.
It seems they are moving thwe 1060 up the ladder to fill that big hole between the 1060 and 1070 type cards.

This is because 2070 is especially disappointing, not because 2060 is very good.

History on launch, price and performance range :

970 in range of 780ti (2 full segments!) for $329
1070 in range of 980ti (2 full segments!) for $379
2070 in range of 1080 AIB (1 segmentish!) for $599

Yes, RTX is more features, but at the performance penalty combined with hotter/hungrier, it's been a pretty painful launch.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-12-20-rtx-2070-vs-gtx-1080-7001#benchmarks

That's comparing the slow OG 1080, when decent AIB and 11GBPS 1080s are 10%+ faster than FE, basically making it a wash or slight 1080 win if you choose a good one.

Good 1080s are out there now for bargain prices. And if it's as good or better than 2070 for around 2060 money, I mean, 2060 isn't going to look super good considering this is 2019, 6GB vs 8GB as well.

I think the second gen RTX stuff should be a huge leap with a real die shrink. But this first gen sacrificed so much to get that die space, that the cost/what you get is pretty disappointing from a pure gamer standpoint. Nearly the same $/perf for 2+ years and counting.

 

[Arkaign]

7nm Vega Vll for $699? As fast as a 2080.
Looking at the performance the new Vega 7 has a horrible price performance vs the Vega 56 at $350. 35% faster for double the price.
This makes the 2060 look like a terrific value .at least the 2060 was 50% faster than the 1060 for 50% more money.

Both of these things are bad. I agree the 2060 is less bad though.

But saying 50% more money for 50% more performance? Uh. Yay? 2 years of waiting for a 1:1 zero progress gen. Only reason to upgrade is to get 2080ti if you're rich as hell. Otherwise $/perf is whatever, and sometimes better with 1070/1080/1080ti, especially if you want 8GB vs 6GB, 11GB vs 8GB.

 

[Hans Gruber]

You folks realize that intel sells CPU's to HP, Dell and others for less than half of what regular consumers pay? That i9 9900K goes for less than $250 to Dell. I imagine GPU sales to big computer manufacturers have similar discounts. I digress in this meaningless think tank called a forum.

 

[happy medium]

This is because 2070 is especially disappointing, not because 2060 is very good.

History on launch, price and performance range :

970 in range of 780ti (2 full segments!) for $329
1070 in range of 980ti (2 full segments!) for $379
2070 in range of 1080 AIB (1 segmentish!) for $599

Yes, RTX is more features, but at the performance penalty combined with hotter/hungrier, it's been a pretty painful launch.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-12-20-rtx-2070-vs-gtx-1080-7001#benchmarks

That's comparing the slow OG 1080, when decent AIB and 11GBPS 1080s are 10%+ faster than FE, basically making it a wash or slight 1080 win if you choose a good one.

Good 1080s are out there now for bargain prices. And if it's as good or better than 2070 for around 2060 money, I mean, 2060 isn't going to look super good considering this is 2019, 6GB vs 8GB as well.

I think the second gen RTX stuff should be a huge leap with a real die shrink. But this first gen sacrificed so much to get that die space, that the cost/what you get is pretty disappointing from a pure gamer standpoint. Nearly the same $/perf for 2+ years and counting.

2070 is
$500, 2060 is $350 for 25% less money for 19% less performance than a 2070.
2060 is a 450mm die 50% faster than a 1060 about 40% more money and has the same price performance than a 1060 basically which it at the top of the stack as far as price performance is concerned.
For the third time....
It's 14nm 1080 to 12nm 2080, you can't expect the same gains in performance that we got from the 28nm gtx980 to the 14nm 1080.., its just not gonna happen.

You people are spoiled.

And lets not forget the gains the 60 series received vs the 70 series this launch.
1060 was 37% slower than the 1070 .
The 2060 is now only 19% slower than the 2070. That's a good jump in performance.
The gtx960 was 60%percent slower than the 970 for about 60% less money.

The 1060 was priced at $265 most of its life and was 90% faster than the $200 gtx960.
That was a 2 node jump.
28nm to 14nm.
The $350 2060 is 50% faster than the $250 1060 and was a half node jump.
But Remember the 2060 is just a cut down die of the 2070 and only 19% slower.
Where as the 1060 was based on its own smaller 106 die and was 37% slower than the 1070.

What they did was essentially move the 2060 performance up to fill the gap that was huge between the 1060 and 1070 and 960 and 970 and it seems they are gonna place another chip (1160?)around 40% slower than the 2070 for less money. I'm guessing it will fit the $260 price point.

If they called the $350 2060 the rtx2065 and just made a $260 2060 that was 20% slower, ( which would make it the same performace difference between,the 1060 and 1070) I dont think people would be crying so much.
They essentially just made a new performance bracket.

 

[Hans Gruber]

2070 is
$500, 2060 is $350 for 25% less money for 19% less performance than a 2070.
2060 is a 450mm die 50% faster than a 1060 about 40% more money and has the same price performance than a 1060 basically which it at the top of the stack as far as price performance is concerned.
For the third time....
It's 14nm 1080 to 12nm 2080, you can't expect the same gains in performance that we got from the 28nm gtx980 to the 14nm 1080.., its just not gonna happen.

You people are spoiled.

And lets not forget the gains the 60 series received vs the 70 series this launch.
1060 was 37% slower than the 1070 .
The 2060 is now only 19% slower than the 2070. That's a good jump in performance.
The gtx960 was %50 percent slower than the 970 for about 60% less money.

How many times has the memory industry been fined by the US government for price fixing in the last decade alone? More than once and to the tune of around $1 billion.

 

[happy medium]

How many times has the memory industry been fined by the US government for price fixing in the last decade alone? More than once and to the tune of around $1 billion.

I think your in the wrong thread?

 

[Arkaign]

2070 is
$500, 2060 is $350 for 25% less money for 19% less performance than a 2070.
2060 is a 450mm die 50% faster than a 1060 about 40% more money and has the same price performance than a 1060 basically which it at the top of the stack as far as price performance is concerned.
For the third time....
It's 14nm 1080 to 12nm 2080, you can't expect the same gains in performance that we got from the 28nm gtx980 to the 14nm 1080.., its just not gonna happen.

You people are spoiled.

And lets not forget the gains the 60 series received vs the 70 series this launch.
1060 was 37% slower than the 1070 .
The 2060 is now only 19% slower than the 2070. That's a good jump in performance.
The gtx960 was 60%percent slower than the 970 for about 60% less money.

The 1060 was priced at $265 most of its life and was 90% faster than the $200 gtx960.
That was a 2 node jump.
28nm to 14nm.
The $350 2060 is 50% faster than the $250 1060 and was a half node jump.
But Remember the 2060 is just a cut down die of the 2070 and only 19% slower.
Where as the 1060 was based on its own smaller 106 die and was 37% slower than the 1070.

What they did was essentially move the 2060 performance up to fill the gap that was huge between the 1060 and 1070 and 960 and 970 and it seems they are gonna place another chip (1160?)around 40% slower than the 2070 for less money. I'm guessing it will fit the $260 price point.

If they called the $350 2060 the rtx2065 and just made a $260 2060 that was 20% slower, I dont think people would be crying so much.
They essentially just made a new performance bracket.

Bruh

nm and mm matters to interested followers of tech, and to Nvidia/TSMC/GF etc. I guarantee most everyone just looking for a gaming card doesn't know, and it doesn't matter to them.

How can we be spoiled if we get the same basic $/performance going over two solid years?

I am actually kind of hopeful for RTX2, because if you think about it, if tensor cores weren't taking up so much die space, this would have been a pretty huge upgrade in performance even just 14nm to 12nm with the other architecture tweaks. I'm definitely not saying Nvidia didn't put in work here, and we can't discount that maybe RTX features will eventually pay off.

But taking it back to 2016. Say someone bought a 1070 AIB for $379. About the price we'll probably see for retail 2060. And, about the same performance. A bit better sure, but hardly worth someone spending the money to go 1070 to 2060.

Now think about the previous gens. It made sense to go 970 to 1070. It made sense for someone to go 760 to 960. It made sense for someone to go 980 to 1080. Etc. More importantly, if you had $200, $300, $400 to spend, that money would get you MORE performance than it did a year or two before. You feel me? It extra hurts when you know new consoles are coming next year with a lot more available ram for textures and push for 4k. Going from an 8gb card in the segment to a 6gb card is tough bro.

A lot of this is elements beyond Nvidias control like the outsourced foundries having trouble with die shrinks. The mining craze causing a bunch of weird juju with inventory and stock prices and production commitments. And I actually applaud them for actually pushing new tech, even if I personally lean towards this kind of feeling like a 'beta' of the thing considering the ruthless performance penalty it's shown so far (I reserve the hope that maybe future titles will come out far better with implementation and efficiency).

But come on. AMD has let us down with serious stagnation, and then a fairly poor $/perf RX7 or whatever. And RTX is a situation where literally two+ years went by for next to zero movement on performance per dollar. That's crazy. I'm not kidding. At 10xx launch, whatever you had for that lineup, $250, $400, $600, etc, the same money today doesn't buy you any more performance in any real way unless you go so far as to reach the 2080ti. To be fair, the 1080ti took a while to hit, but an 11GB 1080ti AIB like a Strict or Aorus is still better the majority of the time vs the 2080FE.

It's less than ideal. I do think RTX2 and forward should get back on track however.

And what's with the 2050? There's a massive hole in the lineup under the 2060 in both price and performance unless they have such an inventory of 1050/60/etc that they can sit on it for the gen.

 

[Arkaign]

I think your in the wrong thread?

LOL ikr Was thinking the same thing. I reached to find the thread of relevance, but don't think there is one.

 

[happy medium]

Bruh

nm and mm matters to interested followers of tech, and to Nvidia/TSMC/GF etc. I guarantee most everyone just looking for a gaming card doesn't know, and it doesn't matter to them.

How can we be spoiled if we get the same basic $/performance going over two solid years?

I am actually kind of hopeful for RTX2, because if you think about it, if tensor cores weren't taking up so much die space, this would have been a pretty huge upgrade in performance even just 14nm to 12nm with the other architecture tweaks. I'm definitely not saying Nvidia didn't put in work here, and we can't discount that maybe RTX features will eventually pay off.

But taking it back to 2016. Say someone bought a 1070 AIB for $379. About the price we'll probably see for retail 2060. And, about the same performance. A bit better sure, but hardly worth someone spending the money to go 1070 to 2060.

Now think about the previous gens. It made sense to go 970 to 1070. It made sense for someone to go 760 to 960. It made sense for someone to go 980 to 1080. Etc. More importantly, if you had $200, $300, $400 to spend, that money would get you MORE performance than it did a year or two before. You feel me? It extra hurts when you know new consoles are coming next year with a lot more available ram for textures and push for 4k. Going from an 8gb card in the segment to a 6gb card is tough bro.

A lot of this is elements beyond Nvidias control like the outsourced foundries having trouble with die shrinks. The mining craze causing a bunch of weird juju with inventory and stock prices and production commitments. And I actually applaud them for actually pushing new tech, even if I personally lean towards this kind of feeling like a 'beta' of the thing considering the ruthless performance penalty it's shown so far (I reserve the hope that maybe future titles will come out far better with implementation and efficiency).

But come on. AMD has let us down with serious stagnation, and then a fairly poor $/perf RX7 or whatever. And RTX is a situation where literally two+ years went by for next to zero movement on performance per dollar. That's crazy. I'm not kidding. At 10xx launch, whatever you had for that lineup, $250, $400, $600, etc, the same money today doesn't buy you any more performance in any real way unless you go so far as to reach the 2080ti. To be fair, the 1080ti took a while to hit, but an 11GB 1080ti AIB like a Strict or Aorus is still better the majority of the time vs the 2080FE.

It's less than ideal. I do think RTX2 and forward should get back on track however.

And what's with the 2050? There's a massive hole in the lineup under the 2060 in both price and performance unless they have such an inventory of 1050/60/etc that they can sit on it for the gen.

Down below the 2060 the 1160? should be good competition for the rx590 at the $280 price point.
The $199 1150ti (cut down 1160 chip tu116) should be near rx480 / gtx1060 6gb speeds and the 1150 vs the rx570 15% below that for $150?. Then you have the gtx1130 junk at the end for $99.
If history is correct.

 

[Hans Gruber]

LOL ikr Was thinking the same thing. I reached to find the thread of relevance, but don't think there is one.

So the death of the mining craze. And prices on the 2060 go up after that? Your signature says it best, death is the answer. But I must be in the wrong thread. I understand supply side economics and the pricing for GPU's defies supply and demand in a flat computer industry. You wonder why consoles are selling so well with 5 year old technology?

 

[happy medium]

So the death of the mining craze. And prices on the 1060 go up? Your signature says it best, death is the answer. But I must be in the wrong thread. I understand supply side economics and the pricing for GPU's defies supply and demand in a flat computer industry. You wonder why consoles are selling so well with 5 year old technology?

The prices didnt go up the price performance went up 5%. So actually they went down.
The next card below the 2060 should be a bit faster than the 1060. let's see what it sells for.
The bad part is AMD's. Rx590 price sucks and the card Nvidia chooses to complete with it will be priced near it.

 

[mopardude87]

To bad this card wasn't only faster then the 1070ti but also had the same 8gb of vram. I guess i won't be losing sleep knowing a seasonable upgrade to my 1070ti is still prob 2 years and $600 away. This is prob the first time a **60 part part that was mean't to replace a **70 part performance wise did such but at a incredibly higher price point.Its a interesting release.Can it really be considered a replacement part given its price?

I spent quite a bit of time trying to type something to express something about this card,for years people have went to the **60 series for either a bang for buck card or one at a affordable price.Myself did that with a GTX660 some years ago.

 

[Qwertilot]

It clearly isn’t a 1060 replacement. Its a 1070 replacement. Modest bump performance wise + all the features, whatever weight you choose to put on those.

 

[mopardude87]

It clearly isn’t a 1060 replacement. Its a 1070 replacement. Modest bump performance wise + all the features, whatever weight you choose to put on those.

Would almost seem like it at that price but having less vram then a 1070 is prob going to be a issue for some people. Only people getting a real upgrade are those on 1060 or slower cards.

 

[Qwertilot]

You're just not getting sensible like for like upgrades at the same tier this generation One major reason that NV might have decided to move the naming of course!

Those are often quite hard to justify when you get a 'normal' (~66%??) generational uplift and this one is roughly half that I think? Some people who didn't bite for the 9xx to 10xx upgrade might obviously now be able to justify 9xx to 20xx etc etc.

Not NV being lazy of course - everyone is struggling much harder these days than previously.

 

[Guru]

7nm Vega Vll for $699? As fast as a 2080.
Looking at the performance the new Vega 7 has a horrible price performance vs the Vega 56 at $350. 35% faster for double the price.
This makes the 2060 look like a terrific value .at least the 2060 was 50% faster than the 1060 for 40% more money.

AMD are basically selling off their faulty MI60 GPU's, this is a good way to actually make decent profits on them for such price. The only reason they are pricing it so high is because Nvidia has priced their RTX series cards as high or higher.

They are placing a bet on the 3 free games that amount for a value of $180 and that people will go for the Radeon 7 because of those free games. They are also designing it very nicely, it has an amazing look and has three coolers, so basically your average joe's out there when going into a PC shop would look at the Radeon 7 and the RTX 2080, the Radeon 7 looks cooler, has 1 more cooler and comes with 3 free games, they are likely to choose the Radeon 7.

If I had the money and I didn't care about value and was looking at the Radeon 7 and RTX 2080 I would definitely buy the Radeon 7 assuming AMD's benches are 100% true and the card is on average 2% faster than the RTX 2080. Again it's got amazing look, beefy cooler, AMD GPU's are generally better in DX12 and Vulkan and comes with 3 free games.

Again I'm not the type of consumer who would buy either of these cards, my MAIN thing is VALUE and neither the RTX series, nor this new Radeon 7 provide good value.

 

[linkgoron]

7nm Vega Vll for $699? As fast as a 2080.
Looking at the performance the new Vega 7 has a horrible price performance vs the Vega 56 at $350. 35% faster for double the price.
This makes the 2060 look like a terrific value .at least the 2060 was 50% faster than the 1060 for 40% more money.

Well, at least you can admit that the 2080 has horrible price/perf. Radeon 7 is supposed to have essentially the same performance for the same price.

It clearly isn’t a 1060 replacement. Its a 1070 replacement. Modest bump performance wise + all the features, whatever weight you choose to put on those.

The 1060 was in essentially exactly the same situation, matching the previous gen 80 card. Maybe it's the second time in a row Nvidia have changed the naming tiers!

 

[Qwertilot]

The 1060 was in essentially exactly the same situation, matching the previous gen 80 card. Maybe it's the second time in a row Nvidia have changed the naming tiers!

Only once, come on The previous few generations they got twice the raw performance jump they've got this time.

They've chosen to disguise that by sliding everything in the 20xx down a teir name wise. The pricing and product structure is actually very similar to the 10xx.

The actual 1060 replacement will near certain be at its price & tdp bracket and about 30% faster. No idea about if rtx or not.

 

[AtenRa]

Because its 40% faster than a gtx1060

GTX 960 was 40% faster than GTX660 but it was also cheaper

GTX 660 2GB launch price at $229
GTX 960 2GB launch price at $199

But after that we started climbing the hill,

GTX 1060 6GB lauch MSRP at $249, more than 40% faster + triple (3x) more memory + at new low yield 16nm

RTX 2060 6GB launch MSRP $349, 40% faster at $100 extra

By your logic, next year RTX 3060 that will be 40% faster it should launch at $449

 

[StrangerGuy]

Meh, RX580 is only a tad slower at 1080p/1440p but at half the price.

I dunno about you all but I'm utterly unimpressed by the current breed of high-end PC gear from a value proposition PoV.

 

[sontin]

Meh, RX580 is only a tad slower at 1080p/1440p but at half the price.

I dunno about you all but I'm utterly unimpressed by the current breed of high-end PC gear from a value proposition PoV.

What?! RTX2060 is average 66% faster than a RX580. Doesnt matter that RX580 is only half the price when this card fails to archive at least 60FPS in 1080p in the most demanding games...

And 1440p/60FPS with RX580 is out of question when you want the best graphics.

 

[tajoh111]

GTX 960 was 40% faster than GTX660 but it was also cheaper

GTX 660 2GB launch price at $229
GTX 960 2GB launch price at $199

But after that we started climbing the hill,

GTX 1060 6GB lauch MSRP at $249, more than 40% faster + triple (3x) more memory + at new low yield 16nm

RTX 2060 6GB launch MSRP $349, 40% faster at $100 extra

By your logic, next year RTX 3060 that will be 40% faster it should launch at $449

The problem this time around was the die size.

Where GTX xx60 chips have been around 200mm2, this one is doubled up in size vs the last gen 660,960,1060. It might be cut down but even with the cut, this is still 350mm2 + chip larger than the die size of the last gen GP104.

However, what it has resulted in is a GPU that is actually closer to 60% faster than the previous gen making it the biggest uptick of the RTX lineup.

https://www.computerbase.de/2019-01/asus-geforce-rtx-2060-strix-test/2/
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/33.html

What this has resulted in is a card that priced with superior price to performance than most cards even when compared to street pricing.
fThis has resulted in price cuts which is better than what the rest of the RTX lineup has managed so far and better than AMD has managed for the last 4 or 5 years.

The pricing isn't ideal but with the lack of competition, its better than expected given how the rest of the RTX cards launched and considering the pricing and performance of the RX590.

The problem this generation is the large build up of GTX 1060 cards along with the problem of the die size of the RTX 2060.

If your investor, do you think it makes sense to release a RTX 2060 at 250 when it's double the size, you spent a boat load of R and D and you have a gigantic pile of GTX 1060 that are unsold? Launching at 250 is impractical unless your goal is to kill AMD graphic division and with the aforementioned consequences mentioned, its potential predatory pricing. That is forgoing all or most of the profit to force the competition to sell at a loss. RX Vega 64 and VEGA 56 are a loss in the 279 to 229 range with HBM2 and the rest of the RX series has to take a price cut which kills them.

It all comes down to die size and performance potential. If Nvidia released a 250mm2 2060, the price likely would have stayed around 250 but with a 10% performance uptick given the RTX die space tax, we would basically be in the same situation we are now where price to performance doesn't really improve.

With the increased cost of transistors(or the lack of a price decrease with advancing node), technology will get more expensive for the same die size going forward. We can either get Intel's lack of performance increases with the advance in the node being used to reduce cost for Intel or we can do what Nvidia is doing and passing the additional cost onto the consumer. These are the only two outcomes when there is no competition.

I would be okay with a bit of price increase if the die size and performance uplift kept up and increased along with it.

 

[AtenRa]

The problem this time around was the die size.

Where GTX xx60 chips have been around 200mm2, this one is doubled up in size vs the last gen 660,960,1060. It might be cut down but even with the cut, this is still 350mm2 + chip larger than the die size of the last gen GP104.

However, what it has resulted in is a GPU that is actually closer to 60% faster than the previous gen making it the biggest uptick of the RTX lineup.

https://www.computerbase.de/2019-01/asus-geforce-rtx-2060-strix-test/2/
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/33.html

What this has resulted in is a card that priced with superior price to performance than most cards even when compared to street pricing.
fThis has resulted in price cuts which is better than what the rest of the RTX lineup has managed so far and better than AMD has managed for the last 4 or 5 years.

The pricing isn't ideal but with the lack of competition, its better than expected given how the rest of the RTX cards launched and considering the pricing and performance of the RX590.

The problem this generation is the large build up of GTX 1060 cards along with the problem of the die size of the RTX 2060.

If your investor, do you think it makes sense to release a RTX 2060 at 250 when it's double the size, you spent a boat load of R and D and you have a gigantic pile of GTX 1060 that are unsold? Launching at 250 is impractical unless your goal is to kill AMD graphic division and with the aforementioned consequences mentioned, its potential predatory pricing. That is forgoing all or most of the profit to force the competition to sell at a loss. RX Vega 64 and VEGA 56 are a loss in the 279 to 229 range with HBM2 and the rest of the RX series has to take a price cut which kills them.

It all comes down to die size and performance potential. If Nvidia released a 250mm2 2060, the price likely would have stayed around 250 but with a 10% performance uptick given the RTX die space tax, we would basically be in the same situation we are now where price to performance doesn't really improve.

With the increased cost of transistors(or the lack of a price decrease with advancing node), technology will get more expensive for the same die size going forward. We can either get Intel's lack of performance increases with the advance in the node being used to reduce cost for Intel or we can do what Nvidia is doing and passing the additional cost onto the consumer. These are the only two outcomes when there is no competition.

I would be okay with a bit of price increase if the die size and performance uplift kept up and increased along with it.

The only problem I see is people always trying to find an excuse of the ever higher price.

GTX 1080 with a 314mm2 die size and MSRP price of $599 had the excuse of using a new 16nm process back in 2016 vs the GTX 980
Today the RTX 2060 with a 445mm2 die size produced at TSMCs 12nm and MSRP of $349 has the excuse of the large die size.

Next year people will digest the even higher price of the new 7nm cards because of the new more expensive process (again)

The big problem for the consumer the last 8 years is that he is getting lower and lower performance per price segment.

For example,
In 2010 at the $349 price point (GTX 570) the consumer was able to get 85-90% of the fastest card in the market the GTX 580
In 2013 at the $349 price point (GTX 670) the consumer was able to get 75-80% of the fastest card in the market the GTX 780
In 2017 at the $349 price point (GTX 1070) the consumer was able to get 60-75% of the fastest card in the market the GTX 1080Ti
In 2019 at the $349 price point (RTX 2060) the consumer is able to get 50% of the fastest card in the market the RTX 2080Ti

 

[happy medium]

compared to the XX70 series the 2060 is the fastest XX60 series in history.
The 2060 is only 19% slower than the 2070.
the 1060 was 39% slower than the 1070.
The gtx 960 was 58% slower than the 970.
the gtx660 28% slower than the 670.

They should have called it the rtx2060ti.
With a good overclock its only 12% slower than a 2070.
And is faster than a vega 64 and gtx 1080.