Nvidia Turing Product Reviews and Previews: (Super, TI, 2080, 2070, 2060, 1660, etc)

It"s not like AMD prompted them to do much more than that.

In one case the difference is substantial, which is the 2060 Super. For $400 we now get virtually the same performance and VRAM amount as yesterday's $500 offering.

Unless there's a huge and very unlikely surprise in Navi's final performance, I don't know why anyone would pay $50 more for a 5700XT instead of the 2060 Super or be short of $50 to reach the 2070 Super.
And the $20 difference between the 5700 and the 2060S completely kills the former.



It's really intriguing how AMD decided to be so bullish with the price for cards using 250mm^2 chips that lack features that are present in their 9 month old competitors.
But that's a subject for another thread.

 

Well I have to disagree because there are lots of people buying Vega 56 cards for ~250€, and Vega 64 for ~320€ or RX570 for 120€, or RX590 for 180€). And I honestly thought they'd be selling the Navi 10 cards closer to the current Vega prices, as full replacement.
Actually if we look at the full lineup it's just the Navi prices that seem a bit autistic when compared to current street prices of the Vega cards.

But AMD also got their architecture in both consoles 6 years ago and that didn't translate into better competitiveness in the PC field.
And by not properly competing in the PC space they'll be losing mindshare even more. Making a product and putting it in the shelves costs money, but at 380€ for a RX 5700 I wonder if they'll just lose all that money.

Maybe the logic is they don't want to lower their brand value by competing in price, to try to turn around the general sentiment that "AMD cards are for poor people". They were successful at that with Ryzen, but it took them a couple years of actually having a better product in the shelves.

 

Okay, that naming is already really annoying. Are these super, in depth reviews of the 2060/2070, or are these ordinary reviews of the 2060/2070 Supers? In context we know, but that 'super' is going to precede a lot of words over the coming years and in a lot of capitalised titles. "Is 2060 Super Affordable?" "RTX 2070 Super Ray-Tracing Explored." Ugh.

 

"Rumors Say RTX 3080 Super Expensive"

 

These are mostly normal reviews found with new cards, though some also contain DXR ray-tracing benchmark comparisons against the outgoing siblings.

Once the Digital Foundry review is available that will be the one to read for a more in depth analysis.

 

If there was a 2080 Ti Super with 16 GB RAM I would be so on that

 

The TU102 has a 384bit memory controller. Getting 16GB of RAM would mean either losing performance for a 256bit bus or if the chip permits using the last 4GB with only 128bit.

 

More ram is really what you want here, not that lower prices are bad either. But Nvidia and AMD just sitting here pretending like there's not a new generation of consoles coming with easy access to 16+ gigs of Vram coming out soon. I feel bad for anyone buying this year.

 

Who is the customer of these cards...? Certainly not anyone who owns an RTX already.
These SUPER cards make no sense, at this time.


Everyone I know is just looking around the room, wishing their2060/2070 was these new SUPER cards. So now most of us are regretting paying Nvidia's RTX tax, with zero resale value, or upgrade path. I do not see Nvidia selling much of these cards, if any.

 

The GDDR6 standard allows for non-power-of-2 RAM chip sizes, so 12Gbit chips could be built in-spec. However I don't know if anyone is actually going to make those.

 

Of course not. As you mentioned, anyone whom has bought an RTX recently is feeling somewhat shafted. There are a ton of Pascal and even Maxwell owners out there still who just didn't want to pay that premium RTX tax when first released. Now that there's some RT support out there, a lot of buzz around it still and continued announced titles coming out with RT support in some fashion, there are going to be a bunch of people now willing to upgrade if not going for AMD. Especially since Nvidia have set that previous price anchor so now their not-super-sayan-stupid pricing actually looks good to people.

 

I didn't know that, that's interesting!
..But you still can't make a 16GB card using identical 12Gbit chips in a 384bit bus. 384bit means 12 chips, and 12 chips at 1.5GB results in a 18GB card.
Unless they'd somehow lock out 2 of the 18GB in the BIOS (1/9th of each chip's memory to maintain original bandwidth?), but now we're close to not even making any sense.

All the people who don't own a RTX card but were waiting for a significant price drop on this segment, and almost all the people who were thinking about getting a Navi card at their announced prices.

In a normal world without an ongoing crypto boom, video card prices go down and PC hardware in general devalues over time.
Mind. Blown.

 

Hm... so what’s the deal with such non-pow2 chips? Are they just salvaged DRAMs? I only recall seeing such configurations in the mobile arena (or something like Tegra X1).

 

Do you think all the people who don't own an RTX card are NOW all of a sudden by in..? SUPER is not that big of a boost, for those riding on a fence this long (1080ti to now) they will be more apt to wait until a true 4k gaming card hits in 2020, either buy Nvidia, or AMD.

As an example, I paid $800 for my RTX2080 1 year ago... today it is worth $450? used. There is zero incentive for previous RTX owner (ie: fans) to buy SUPER and for those on the fence? < they will buy used ones next year.... bcz those people are always sitting on the fence looking for a deal.

Most everybody is moving away from G-Sync too, so future monitor choice is a big decision in pairing a new GPU.

 

Judging by the latest Steam Hardware survey there should be a lot of people who were waiting for the price drops, as well as buying a card that is somewhat future proof.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

 

We already know a lot of people are looking to upgrade from 1080p to 1440p gaming. We already know when they decide to make the jump, they want at least 144hz too. So they will want a card that gives them the best performance ratio in games, not benchmarks. They will also want the best price/performance on their new 1440p Monitors as well. That is something the Gamer/Buyer is not going to dismiss. And in the future, almost all games will be tuned for RDNA and freesync2.

So what makes you think Gamers want RTX? (Because now it is SUPER?). Don't get me wrong, It is a much better buy, than a year ago. But that doesn't do anyone any good, because NV fans already bought. Also, RTX SUPER is not future proofing, because Navi is PCIe4.0.


SUPER is a good deal if you need to buy a top card today, because you just bought a top g-sync monitor. Otherwise, people are just going to wait....

 

Because the alternative (AMD) is worse?

As others have said, there is currently zero reason to buy any high end gaming AMD card other than bargain pin prices, they lack latest API features, they are also behind on performance and power and likely performance/price as well.

That's also in favor of NVIDIA GPUs which support all display standards FreeSync/G-Sync/G-Sync Ultimate, thus NVIDIA users have wider access to any VRR monitor.

Did you really resort to the PCIE 4 card? Even PCIE 3 is redundant in most cases with current gaming demands!

 

No, because the devs of Doom: Eternal and Cyberpunk have announced they'll support real time ray tracing, and cards supporting that feature at decent performance are now substantially cheaper. Doom already runs super fast on all modern hardware, so enabling raytracing will everything maxed out is probably going to keep all super cards above 60FPS.

Later this year, the people who got the GTX1070 or GTX1080 3 years ago will now have an actually valid reason to upgrade.

 

Your kidding right..?
Bcz ray tracing means that much to you? And you believe a 20 year old game is going to bring people into the fold on raytracing?


Listen, ray tracing has been around for evAr… but it is not the panacea of anything, if it bring a performance hit. So we are years away from RayTracing being the norm. I have an EVGA RTX2080 and I have never used raytracing and never intend to do so... EVAR. bcz it impacts performance. (IMO: It is a side-show gimmick that Jensen tried to shove down people's throats. BECAUSE Jensen had extra SFUs on his FARM/SERVER chips, that Jensen also sells as hand-me-down gamer chips.) Additionally, Nvidia is paying people to pre bake AI renders, into their games.)

Real time ray tracing can't be done in earnest on any card released to date... including SUPER.



People who own a GTX1070, or GTX1080 will be better served getting Navi on a new x570 AM4 mobo. I don't see any major developers who are not going to be working exclusively on RDNA. Is there anything else out there but RDNA now..? (being honest here)