Nvidia Super Card Reviews

[mr moose]

Maybe there is some competition on the horizon?   It has been 8-9 months since there last release and by most measures it seems to have sold well (make hay while the sun shines is the expression).

 

 

[NumLock21]

So RTX 2070 Super supports NV Link. nice!

[MeatFeastMan]

Great cards. One with a good price, and one with a bad one. And it happens that for once, the more expensive one is the one with the good price. The 2060 Super at $399 should not be applauded. All they've done is add $50 and add $50 worth of performance on top. It's just as bad value as the 2060. And that got mixed reviews. The 8gb VRAM is welcome, they obviously decided to listen for once. Want a card that solidly beats the 2060 with 8gb vram? The RX 5700 is cheaper than the 2060 Super and arguably comes closer to the 2070 than it does to the 2060.

 

As for the 2070 Super though, that is a good card with a decent price. At $499 it's what everyone wanted, just a year late. It will require AMD to lower their Radeon VII prices, probably to $550 and maybe even to $500.

 

2060 Super = Same old, same old, buy vega 56 instead while you can

2070 Super = The new go-to buy for the high-end.

 

 

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, melete said:

I don''t like calling it "corporate greed" because all for-profit corporations are out there to make money (hey it's in the name). But it's Nvidia exercising their market power, especially on the pricing side (and stuff like adding VRAM to the 2060). They could have priced lower but chose not to in order to increase their profits. You might be right about their ability to raise clock speeds as their manufacturing process matures, though. I don't begrudge them of their decision as it's more or less what you'd expect of a manufacturer with few competitors in their industry, but I still see what they're doing.

I will be honest I dont think I blame them. If I new I would make more money by pricing my product higher then I would do it. At the end of the day i want to make the most money that I can and as long as it isn't illegal or immoral. 

[justpoet]

25 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Great cards. One with a good price, and one with a bad one. And it happens that for once, the more expensive one is the one with the good price. The 2060 Super at $399 should not be applauded. All they've done is add $50 and add $50 worth of performance on top. It's just as bad value as the 2060. And that got mixed reviews. The 8gb VRAM is welcome, they obviously decided to listen for once. Want a card that solidly beats the 2060 with 8gb vram? The RX 5700 is cheaper than the 2060 Super and arguably comes closer to the 2070 than it does to the 2060.

 

As for the 2070 Super though, that is a good card with a decent price. At $499 it's what everyone wanted, just a year late. It will require AMD to lower their Radeon VII prices, probably to $550 and maybe even to $500.

 

2060 Super = Same old, same old, buy vega 56 instead while you can

2070 Super = The new go-to buy for the high-end.

 

 

Seeing actual 5700 benchmarks, and how markets play out over the next month or two for pricing, will more or less say which segment is worth buying from a price/performance stand point.  I wouldn't be surprised to see it end up with AMD and 5700 cards winning out in the less expensive segment, then nothing making much sense to buy until the 2070 super as far as pricing and performance is concerned.  That would roughly equate with AMD having the 1080p or 2k 60hz crowd, and NV having the high refresh and 4k crowd that is already dropping a ton more money on their setup.  I think both companies would be happy with that split, which maintain both decent income and mind share for both, and the higher end marketing that NV has lived off of to be able to charge higher prices.

 

What would SUCK is if AMD doesn't even become relevant at the low end of current cards, so developers have no reason at all to bother optimizing for any AMD platform, just to make sure it works, in which case then both AMD later and Intel whenever they ship will have a MUCH harder time getting back to a performance parity.

[SuperNerd Kid]

I dunno. Nvidia has crappy customer service and some rtx 2070's have problems.

#laughter

[Unixsystem]

8 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Like NVIDIA, wtf are you even doing with your software? So you make good HW. Big fucking deal when software is absolute worthless shit. I love the performance of my GTX 1080Ti, but its terrible software makes me want to get away from it as fast as possible.

Agree wholeheartedly. You can go look on the Nvidia tech support forums where you can find threads with thousands of replies that are asking for fixes to incredibly basic low level bug fixes. It's absurd that I still need to run Nvidia Inspector 24/7 to prevent my cards from running at P0 on an idling desktop and using ~200W more than they should, despite this being a known bug since Maxwell. 

 

And heaven forbid you use more than two monitors and try to open Nvidia Control Panel. Enjoy your minute-plus long wait just to see the main screen. 

[BiG StroOnZ]

TPU's review is up.

 

2060 Super:

 

 

2070 Super:

 

 

Source 1: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-super/27.html

Source 2: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvida-geforce-rtx-2070-super/27.html

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

basically any rtx super cannot beat its upper tier card and nvidia get rid of the worst value ones, 2070 /2080...

I will be waiting patiently for next gen...rtx pcie4.0?

 

can anyone explain this graph from LTT?:

 

[D13H4RD]

"SUPER" 

 

Oh, why did they choose that name...

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

"SUPER" 

 

Oh, why did they choose that name...

because when everyone has a super, no one will be a super.

 

[Quadriplegic]

Gamers Nexus uploaded tear down video
 

 

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

the original RTX was priced ~1.5x than expected and now with the super launch, its still ~1.3x higher than expected. 

still overpriced

[RejZoR]

4 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

TPU's review is up.

 

2060 Super:

 

 

2070 Super:

 

 

Source 1: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-super/27.html

Source 2: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvida-geforce-rtx-2070-super/27.html

Percentage display is the dumbest thing possible. 9% sounds like a lot, but when you convert that to framerate it's a much different picture. People need to stop relying on this nonsense and compare actual framerate. And despite perfomance bumps, this is an incredibly boring launch. They just upped the HW like always. Not a single new software feature. Last meaningful one they released was Adaptive V-Sync/Fast V-Sync. And it has been years since then. The rest is utter useless ugly shit.They had so many chances to release new software too and they refused. First with RTX cards and now with Super. I guess NV CP, NVIDIA EXperience and everything around it will maybe get fixed and improved in 2034... If lucky.

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

Percentage display is the dumbest thing possible. 9% sounds like a lot, but when you convert that to framerate it's a much different picture. People need to stop relying on this nonsense and compare actual framerate.

yes, each tier gpu should have at least ~ 30% fps diff for us to see the improvement

[xg32]

the original 2060 was launched less than 6 months ago, now 50bucks more basically gets a 2070, and the 2070 launched than a year ago, now gets a 2080.

 

The 2070 was always a terrible deal but still...damn.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Percentage display is the dumbest thing possible. 9% sounds like a lot, but when you convert that to framerate it's a much different picture. People need to stop relying on this nonsense and compare actual framerate. And despite perfomance bumps, this is an incredibly boring launch. They just upped the HW like always. Not a single new software feature. Last meaningful one they released was Adaptive V-Sync/Fast V-Sync. And it has been years since then. The rest is utter useless ugly shit.They had so many chances to release new software too and they refused. First with RTX cards and now with Super. I guess NV CP, NVIDIA EXperience and everything around it will maybe get fixed and improved in 2034... If lucky.

 

2 hours ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

yes, each tier gpu should have at least ~ 30% fps diff for us to see the improvement

 

So are you guys saying there is no point in reviewing or publishing figures if they are not decently different?   9% is 9%, it is what the product does and needs to be considered when evaluating if the price is worth it,  how significant that is will depend solely on the end user, for me I'd rather save $50 and forgo 10FPS but the next person might not. 

 

 

 

  

[RejZoR]

@mr moose

Nah, I'm not saying that, I'm saying % figures are deceiving. % always sound huge, but when you convert to framerate differences, they are all of a sudden not that impressive. Like, 50% improvement sounds like huge deal. 50% faster! But when you realize original card for example barely ran games at 30fps, 50% improvement all of a sudden doesn't feel like it's all that dramatic improvement. Sure, it results in 45fps, but is that really all that great? I'd say no, not really. Especially if price is also a factor. People are quick to justify price premiums for large %, that don't necessarily reflect the same story when it's told in straight framerate. Which is why I hate these "relative" graphs. They are meaningless. Not saying for "Super" cards specifically, that's my opinion as whole on ALL graphic cards. Same for overclocks. Whoa, you get 15% of free performance! Then you look at the actual framerate difference and it's like 4fps difference. Absolutely meaningless. It's why people need to look at framerate more and get an idea or a picture from that. % just doesn't give the right idea in performance differences, especially since they don't tell what the base framerate is. This especially applies to lower tier cards that generally have crappy framerate to begin with, which means baseline is set really low and even adding 100% performance may end up giving you barely playable 30fps. Because baseline was 15fps...

[mr moose]

Just now, RejZoR said:

@mr moose

Nah, I'm not saying that, I'm saying % figures are deceiving. % always sound huge, but when you convert to framerate differences, they are all of a sudden not that impressive. Like, 50% improvement sounds like huge deal. 50% faster! But when you realize original card for example barely ran games at 30fps, 50% improvement all of a sudden doesn't feel like it's all that dramatic improvement. Sure, it results in 45fps, but is that really all that great? I'd say no, not really. Especially if price is also a factor. People are quick to justify price premiums for large %, that don't necessarily reflect the same story when it's told in straight framerate. Which is why I hate these "relative" graphs. They are meaningless. Not saying for "Super" cards specifically, that's my opinion as whole on ALL graphic cards. Same for overclocks. Whoa, you get 15% of free performance! Then you look at the actual framerate difference and it's like 4fps difference. Absolutely meaningless. It's why people need to look at framerate more and get an idea or a picture from that. % just doesn't give the right idea in performance differences, especially since they don't tell what the base framerate is. This especially applies to lower tier cards that generally have crappy framerate to begin with, which means baseline is set really low and even adding 100% performance may end up giving you barely playable 30fps. Because baseline was 15fps...

 

Then how do you suggest the difference in performance is reported?    FPS is just as deceiving if not more deceiving because citing an FPS difference between two cards is meaningless without all the other data.   Where as if you can see the overall percentage and the percentage difference in cost you can very quickly tell how far apart the cards are.

[Fnige]

Still gonna say it

 

TI

[RejZoR]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Then how do you suggest the difference in performance is reported?    FPS is just as deceiving if not more deceiving because citing an FPS difference between two cards is meaningless without all the other data.   Where as if you can see the overall percentage and the percentage difference in cost you can very quickly tell how far apart the cards are.

No it's not. If old card makes 30fps and new one 65fps, that tells me a lot. If you express difference in % as relative value, it's absolutely meaningless and you're just forced to calculate things backwards.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

No it's not. If old card makes 30fps and new one 65fps, that tells me a lot. If you express difference in % as relative value, it's absolutely meaningless and you're just forced to calculate things backwards.

what? they are the same data.  If they are averages like the above comparisons are then the data is exactly the same.  It is not a benchmark of the cards specific game performance, but a comparison to other cards across a range of games.   And that's before you even consider that the 2060super does 60FPS with RTX on at 1080 and 58FPS 4k on ultra, so we really aren't talking far sub 60 FPS rates.    

 

If card A is 15FPS on average better than card B, then what does that tell you about either card?   Is 10FPS worth $50? You can't just answer that, but you get a much better picture if you were asked is 9% more performance worth a 9% price premium?

 

 

[JuztBe]

What if they provided both stats. Both seem helpful and relevant for me.

[Origami Cactus]

11 hours ago, justpoet said:

What would SUCK is if AMD doesn't even become relevant at the low end of current cards, so developers have no reason at all to bother optimizing for any AMD platform, just to make sure it works, in which case then both AMD later and Intel whenever they ship will have a MUCH harder time getting back to a performance parity.

Consoles are on AMD hardware, so all console ports will be AMD optimized. The PS5 and New XBOX are on Ryzen+Navi. The current PS4/pro and Xbox 1/x are also on AMD hardware.

[RejZoR]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

what? they are the same data.  If they are averages like the above comparisons are then the data is exactly the same.  It is not a benchmark of the cards specific game performance, but a comparison to other cards across a range of games.   And that's before you even consider that the 2060super does 60FPS with RTX on at 1080 and 58FPS 4k on ultra, so we really aren't talking far sub 60 FPS rates.    

 

If card A is 15FPS on average better than card B, then what does that tell you about either card?   Is 10FPS worth $50? You can't just answer that, but you get a much better picture if you were asked is 9% more performance worth a 9% price premium?

 

 

Performance is not linear, just like the prices aren't... % always sound so fancy but do you check your performance in % or FPS in games? We're much closer with framerate than % numbers. People have better idea what they are dealing with than if you tell them %.