News Use other 2060 thread please.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 25, 2001
42,440
220
126
#51
"NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 to cost 349 USD"quote,"The RTX 2060 is a mid-range model replacing GTX 1060 from Pascal architecture.
But was the MSRP of the GTX 1060, $349 USD? I thought that it was $299. Maybe I'm wrong?

$349 is around what a GTX 1070ti costs on a good sale these days, so basically no improvement in price/performance among NVidia offerings?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1369701-REG/evga_08g_p4_5671_kr_geforce_gtx_1070_ti.html

Ok, I was $10 off.
 

mohit9206

Senior member
Jul 2, 2013
974
40
116
#52
Aug 25, 2001
42,440
220
126
#53
MSRP of 1060 6Gb was $249 and Flounders Edition was $299.
So Nvidia is moving entry-level gaming parts up $100, just because they can, because of lack of competition... so sad for gamers. Can't they see, that miners were never the real problem?
 

mohit9206

Senior member
Jul 2, 2013
974
40
116
#54
So Nvidia is moving entry-level gaming parts up $100, just because they can, because of lack of competition... so sad for gamers. Can't they see, that miners were never the real problem?
Yes exactly. $349 is a really bad price for 1070Ti like performance because most cards will be closer to $400 and you can buy 1070ti cheaper than that so gamers are gaining absolutely nothing in terms of generational performance increase. The only thing you're getting is RTX which is not suitable for cards of this level.
 
Aug 25, 2001
42,440
220
126
#55
I'm trying to remember what I paid for my GTX 460 1GB cards back in the day. I got the Gigabyte dual-fan OC versions. I *think* that they were $320. Not sure if that was individually, or for both of them combined.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king

I'm thinking, that I paid $180 ea. for them, and there was supposed to be a $20 rebate on each of them, making them, in theory, $160 ea. But I never sent in the rebates. (Edit: Or maybe, I paid $200 ea., for them, and they were supposed to be $180 with rebates? I remember them being like $20-30 discount at Newegg, before an additional $20 rebate that I never sent in.)

I remember using those cards for quite a long time, they were one of my favorite cards ever. Very powerful, both in CUDA and games, and made a perfect compliment to my Core2Quad Q9300 OC rigs, as well as my later Phenom II X6 1045T rig in SLI. (But they caused GPU errors and crashes, when they would overheat on a summer's day, doing F@H or whatnot.)
 
Last edited:
Jun 8, 2003
13,984
42
126
#56
But was the MSRP of the GTX 1060, $349 USD? I thought that it was $299. Maybe I'm wrong?

$349 is around what a GTX 1070ti costs on a good sale these days, so basically no improvement in price/performance among NVidia offerings?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1369701-REG/evga_08g_p4_5671_kr_geforce_gtx_1070_ti.html

Ok, I was $10 off.
Yea but your seeing fire sales on the gtx1070ti, its msrp was at least $450 and on a everage I remember it being about $479.
 

mohit9206

Senior member
Jul 2, 2013
974
40
116
#57
I'm trying to remember what I paid for my GTX 460 1GB cards back in the day. I got the Gigabyte dual-fan OC versions. I *think* that they were $320. Not sure if that was individually, or for both of them combined.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king

I'm thinking, that I paid $180 ea. for them, and there was supposed to be a $20 rebate on each of them, making them, in theory, $160 ea. But I never sent in the rebates. (Edit: Or maybe, I paid $200 ea., for them, and they were supposed to be $180 with rebates? I remember them being like $20-30 discount at Newegg, before an additional $20 rebate that I never sent in.)

I remember using those cards for quite a long time, they were one of my favorite cards ever. Very powerful, both in CUDA and games, and made a perfect compliment to my Core2Quad Q9300 OC rigs, as well as my later Phenom II X6 1045T rig in SLI. (But they caused GPU errors and crashes, when they would overheat on a summer's day, doing F@H or whatnot.)
$229 was the launch price of 1GB GTX 460 and $199 for 768MB.
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,984
42
126
#58
Price vs performance it's about = to a gtx1060 at $245. It's at least 30% faster than a gtx1060.
That's not great, but good in my eyes.
Compared to the gtx1070ti at $450 , it has much better price performance.
Its only a bit slower than a gtx1080 which was at least $600 at release and still at least $525 now.

And it seems to handle Ray tracing @1080p fairly good at 60fps.

I'll hold my opinion for 2 or 3 week's until we actually see real world gaming reviews and prices.

I'm sure as per usual prices will be inflated for the first month after release.

We shall see.
 

linkgoron

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2005
1,840
40
106
#59
Looks like Nvidia are keeping the hikes consistent. GTX 1060 launched at 250 and 1070 launched at 380. 970 launched at 330 and 960 at 200 (although it was crap). The 20XX lineup continues to impress.
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,984
42
126
#60
Here are the last 18 month's price trends and msrp's for Nvidia cards, so there is no confusion.
1050ti msrp was $140

Gtx1060 msrp $250 or $300 for the Fe

Gtx1070 msrp $380 and $450 for Fe

Gtx1070ti msrp $450

Rtx 2060 msrp $349 and is faster than all of these cards and can do Ray tracing at 1080p @ 60fps.
 

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,346
22
106
#61
Still not a great value jump by historical standards perhaps - physics is fighting back hard :(

Of course of they do do an 1160 & release it to the public it'll come in at less.
 

coercitiv

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2014
2,962
249
136
#62
Still not a great value jump by historical standards perhaps - physics is fighting back hard :(
How is physics fighting back hard when you're willing to spend 50% of your transistor budget on RTX?

When Nvidia's yearly figures come in and show record profits and margins, that's when I'll be listening for the choir to sing the ballad of insurmountable die cost and node physics woes.
 

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,346
22
106
#63
Their profit margins have mainly been rising due to all those very high margin AI/compute sales.

Given the need to dispose of the Pascal backlog post mining I'd rather expect the part of them arising from gaming GPU's to drop next time.
 

Ottonomous

Senior member
May 15, 2014
303
15
116
#64
Here are the last 18 month's price trends and msrp's for Nvidia cards, so there is no confusion.
1050ti msrp was $140

Gtx1060 msrp $250 or $300 for the Fe

Gtx1070 msrp $380 and $450 for Fe

Gtx1070ti msrp $450

Rtx 2060 msrp $349 and is faster than all of these cards and can do Ray tracing at 1080p @ 60fps.
Can you post a source showing it does 1080p60fps at BFV ray-tracing?
 

Ottonomous

Senior member
May 15, 2014
303
15
116
#65
How is physics fighting back hard when you're willing to spend 50% of your transistor budget on RTX?

When Nvidia's yearly figures come in and show record profits and margins, that's when I'll be listening for the choir to sing the ballad of insurmountable die cost and node physics woes.
Doesn't matter, they'll sing the usual
1 - 'Successful business model from a successful company, monopolization is beneficial for us consumers if they're leading'
2 - 'Perf/dollar is a useless metric, I pay to game on 4k anyway'
3 - 'We all need to shoulder this development with nvidia shareholders, it is after all the holy grail of graphics'
4 - 'Why are you complaining?, don't buy it and just stick to pascal/maxwell. The age of generational leaps for lower cost is over'
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,984
42
126
#66
Can you post a source showing it does 1080p60fps at BFV ray-tracing?
Its in the videocardz article posted all ready.

Edit.
https://videocardz.com/79505/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-pricing-and-performance-leaked

Quote.
One more thing to note is that with RTX on Ultra at 1080p, the card scores 58 FPS while with Medium preset, it scores 66 FPS.
https://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce...eliver-60-fps-with-rtx-dlss-enabled-on-1080p/

Going by the benchmarks, it beats a 1070ti in 13 games and a gtx1080 in 3 games. A small overclock should give you gtx1080 performance.

I don't see how Vega 64 performance for $349 at 160 watts is bad.
It seems it performs like a, 7nm Vega 64 for $350.
If AMD had a card like that people would be saying its the next 9800pro.
 
Last edited:

linkgoron

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2005
1,840
40
106
#68
Its in the videocardz article posted all ready.

Edit.
https://videocardz.com/79505/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-pricing-and-performance-leaked

Quote.
One more thing to note is that with RTX on Ultra at 1080p, the card scores 58 FPS while with Medium preset, it scores 66 FPS.
https://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce...eliver-60-fps-with-rtx-dlss-enabled-on-1080p/

Going by the benchmarks, it beats a 1070ti in 13 games and a gtx1080 in 3 games. A small overclock should give you gtx1080 performance.
You can also overclock the 1070ti, or the 1080...

Those are the official Nvidia benchmarks, which are supposed to paint the 2060 in the best light. Let's wait for official reviewers. I'm not sure which 2060 and 1070ti they're comparing, however, according to Nvidia @ 1440p you've got:
1070ti winning 5 out of 19.
2060 winning 8 out of 19.
Not exactly a blow out, and most games are ~2 FPS anyway. I left out VR Mark, as it's not a game.

I don't see how Vega 64 performance for $349 at 160 watts is bad.
It seems it performs like a, 7nm Vega 64 for $350.
If AMD had a card like that people would be saying its the next 9800pro.
Obviously, the only reason that people are disappointed by the pricing is because it's Nvidia and people hate them. Historically, people have never expected a significant improvement in price/performance when a new generation has been released. Never before has a company released faster cards than their previous generation with better pricing.

1546189586708.png

1546189665751.png

1546190564756.png

1546189729194.png

For completeness, let's check what happened in the top cards @ 1440p after the 2070 release:

1546190222189.png
2080ti is way way up there... However, even the 2080 has worse price/perf than the 980ti and the 1080ti. The 2070 essentially matches the 1080ti.

Nvidia realized that people expect the price/perf to improve and that's why they have the FE pricing nonsense. Compare the 2080 and 2070 to the 1080/1070 (@ MSRP at least) or 980/970.
 
Last edited:
Mar 28, 2005
102
5
101
#69
You can also overclock the 1070ti, or the 1080...

Those are the official Nvidia benchmarks, which are supposed to paint the 2060 in the best light. Let's wait for official reviewers. I'm not sure which 2060 and 1070ti they're comparing, however, according to Nvidia @ 1440p you've got:
1070ti winning 5 out of 19.
2060 winning 8 out of 19.
Not exactly a blow out, and most games are ~2 FPS anyway. I left out VR Mark, as it's not a game.



Obviously, the only reason that people are disappointed by the pricing is because it's Nvidia and people hate them. Historically, people have never expected a significant improvement in price/performance when a new generation has been released. Never before has a company released faster cards than their previous generation with better pricing.





For completeness, let's check what happened in the top cards @ 1440p after the 2070 release:

2080ti is way way up there... However, even the 2080 has worse price/perf than the 980ti and the 1080ti. The 2070 essentially matches the 1080ti.

Nvidia realized that people expect the price/perf to improve and that's why they have the FE pricing nonsense. Compare the 2080 and 2070 to the 1080/1070 (@ MSRP at least) or 980/970.
If cards actually launched at none FE pricing for the 2080 and 2080 ti upon launch, I think pricing would be mostly fair considering the lack of competition.

At 350 dollars for something along the lines of GTX 1070 ti performance, is not great but it definitely moves pricing forward compared to the MSRP of cards.

Compare this to the RX 590, and you would be surprised, that AMD is somehow the good guy in all this. This card should be about 40% faster than an RX 590 for 25% more money. It should also be slightly faster than a RX Vega 56 and very close to a Vega 64.

This negative perspective on Nvidia cards and positive perspective on AMD cards has shown that forums have just become as ignorant as the general public in some ways. Vega 64 and Vega 56 did not move price to performance really forward and mostly launched at pricing competitive with the competition(even worse when you considering it was mostly bundling pricing at launch with very limited unbundled cards) yet AMD somehow always comes out unscathed.

People are already crapping on this card but are willing to recommend Vega 64 at 400 dollars with the terrible stock cooler shows we are not at a point of balance anymore but heavily biased. If this card comes out with Vega 64 performance at half the power it will be a good card with a 350 MSRP. Before we point out, that rumor of a RTX 2070 speed, rx 3080 card at 250 dollars, lets point out the pricing of the RX 590 and even the pricing of the r9 285 and 7870 at launch. At 280, 250 and 350 dollars, these cards did not move price to performance forward at the time at all.

The only midrange to come out with competitive pricing from AMD was the RX 480 and that's because the GTX 1070 was 50% faster than it and had a price between 379 and 450.

Considering AMD is charging 280 dollars for their 232mm2, on their 3rd respin of the polaris midrange card, it is fair for Nvidia to charge $350 for the 440mm2(even if it is cut down) for a brand new chip and new architecture if it is 40% faster.

For Videocards and GPU's, AMD is simply not the tech Jesus that viral and guerrilla marketing want you to believe it is.
 
Last edited:

linkgoron

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2005
1,840
40
106
#70
If card actually launched at none FE pricing for the 2080 and 2080 ti upon launch, I think pricing would be mostly fair considering the lack of competition.

At 350 dollars for something along the lines of GTX 1070 ti performance, is not great but it definitely moves pricing forward compared to the MSRP of cards.

Compare this to the RX 590, and you would be surprised, that AMD is somehow the good guy in all this. This card should be about 40% faster than an RX 590 for 25% more money. It should also be slightly faster than a RX Vega 56 and very close to a Vega 64.

This negative perspective on Nvidia cards and positive perspective on AMD cards has shown that forums have just become as ignorant as the general public in some ways. Vega 64 and Vega 56 did not move price to performance really forward and mostly launch at pricing competitive with the competition(even worse when you considering it was mostly bundling pricing at launch with very limited unbundled cards) yet AMD somehow always comes out unscathed.

People are regularly crapping on this card but are willing to recommend Vega 64 at 400 dollars with the terrible stock cooler shows we are not at a point of balance anymore but heavily biased. If this card comes out with Vega 64 performance at half the power it will be a good card with a 350 MSRP. Before we point out, that rumor of a RTX 2070 speed card at 250 dollars, lets point out the pricing of the RX 590 and even the pricing of the r9 285 and 7870 at launch.

The only midrange to come out with competitive pricing from AMD was the RX 480 and that's because the GTX 1070 was 50% faster than it and had a price between 379 and 450.

For Videocards and GPU's, AMD is simply not the tech Jesus that viral and guerrilla marketing want you to believe it is.
What are you talking about? When have I stated that AMD is the tech Jesus? I'm not sure I even mentioned AMD in my post. However, I have said that the RX 590 has bad pricing in the RX 590 thread. Here is a quote from my post, Nov 16:

590's perf/watt is just terrible. The "fatboy" 590 has worse perf/watt than Fiji at 1440p and 4k. I'm not even sure why AMD released this card, at least at with its current MSRP. AMD releasing the 590 now probably means that anything better is quite far off.

For AMD, at least the Fatboy manages to beat the 1060 by 10%... however its price/perf is still worse than the 580 and even the 1060.
 

Charlie22911

Senior member
Mar 19, 2005
519
26
116
#71
I doubt the 1160 is a real thing, it would feel horribly out of place in NV's naming scheme and basically be "instantly out of date" thanks to the 20xx series naming. I mean they might have a sub 2060 card but they're not going to call it the 1160.

NV already has GTX/GT/MX naming schemes to fall back on for the non-RTX branded stuff.
This^

The rumored 11xx naming scheme has always rubbed me wrong, I don’t see why they would add unnecessary confusion to their lineup when they already have GTX and RTX as a way to differentiate their lineup.
 

DidelisDiskas

Senior member
Dec 27, 2015
233
0
51
#72
Great, this probably means that the previously low end gpu tiers (the esports cards like the *50 line) are now creeping into the 200-250$ msrp bracket. Those consoles (even with the price hikes) are starting to look like a decent offering.
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,984
42
126
#73
Great, this probably means that the previously low end gpu tiers (the esports cards like the *50 line) are now creeping into the 200-250$ msrp bracket. Those consoles (even with the price hikes) are starting to look like a decent offering.
I would think the 2050 line will be as fast as a gtx1060. That's too fast for e sports.
E sports card will be more like gtx1030 speed.
The new gtx2030 will be as fast as a gtx1050 and should easily be under $150.
 

DidelisDiskas

Senior member
Dec 27, 2015
233
0
51
#74
I would think the 2050 line will be as fast as a gtx1060. That's too fast for e sports.
E sports card will be more like gtx1030 speed.
The new gtx2030 will be as fast as a gtx1050 and should easily be under $150.
That's only relevant for right now, video games however do not have any problems using all the computing power they can get and i'm not seeing people hesitating buying these cards at these new prices. This means that *60 tier will probably still be the most popular one amongst gamers and upcoming games will be scalled accordingly. So looking at the future, the 200-250$ msrp price range would now be for the low end (i don't consider GTX 1030 to be a low end gaming gpu, it's not really a gaming gpu imo) gaming.
 

Guru

Senior member
May 5, 2017
480
76
76
#75
Don't see the RTX 2060 as a good value. It offers about 40% performance gains over the GTX 1060 6GB for about 40% higher price. Essentially you are not getting any improved performance price for price.

And again the RTX 2070 trades blows with the GTX 1080, the biggest advantage being in Vulkan games, and slightly better DX12 performance across the board, so essentially -2%-5% performance depending on the gpu model, game, etc...

So the RTX 2060 is trading blows with the 1070ti, but in certain games it performs as a GTX 1070. I suspect this is because of the significantly cutdown ROP count and 6GB of vram at 192bits.

So essentially 25% up to 40% faster than a GTX 1060 6GB, generally on par with the GTX 1070ti, but in some games it performs as a 1070.

Hopefully the GTX 1160 will offer better value. That card should be $250 and offer 30% faster performance than the GTX 1060 6GB to be better in terms on the GTX 1060 6GB, but even that would be bad value in terms of upgrade from a GTX 1060, as 25-30% performance increase for the same price is not that big of a jump.

I'm not planning to "upgrade" this generation anyways, I always skip one generation, because there is never good value in upgrading like for like every generation. The generation after Turning would actually bring in the value upgrade path and with 7nm I fully expect the GTX/RTX 3060 to be at least 50% faster than the GTX 1060 6gb for $250. Hopefully something closer to 60% performance increase.

And I really hope AMD brings something good to the table, if they can release mainstream range gpu's around July on 7nm and price them very competitively, I will definately be upgrading with an AMD card.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


ASK THE COMMUNITY