NVIDIA Launches GeForce RTX 2080 Super, RTX 2070 Super and RTX 2060 Super GPUs, Aims To One-Up AMD With More Power For the Same Price (hothardware.com) 63
MojoKid writes: NVIDIA just launched three new GeForce RTX gaming GPUs to battle against AMD's forthcoming Radeon RX 5700 series. The GeForce RTX 2080 Super, GeForce RTX 2070 Super and GeForce RTX 2060 Super will all be shipping this month. GeForce RTX 2070 Super and RTX 2060 Super cards are out making the rounds in benchmark reviews, while the RTX 2080 Super will arrive in a couple of weeks. The GeForce RTX 2070 Super is more than just an overclocked RTX 2070 but actually based on the GeForce RTX 2080's TU104 NVIDIA Turing GPU with 40 active SMs, for a total of 2,560 CUDA cores at 1,605MHz and 1,770MHz base and boost clocks, respectively. The RTX 2060 Super is still based on the original TU106 GPU, but it has four additional SMs enabled, which brings the CUDA core count up to 2,176 (from 1,920) at a somewhat higher 1470MHz base clock and boost clock 30MHz lower at 1,650MHz.
There is an additional 2GB of GDDR6 memory on the card too for a total of 8GB now. Performance-wise, both cards are significant upgrades over the originals, with roughly 10 -- 23 percent gains, depending on the resolution or application. The GeForce RTX 2070 Super is often faster than the pricier AMD Radeon VII, especially at 1440p. At 4K, however, the Radeon VII's memory bandwidth advantage often gives it an edge. The new GeForce RTX 2060 Super is faster than a Radeon RX Vega 64 more often than not. It will be interesting to see how these cards compete with AMD's Radeon RX 5700 Navi-based card when they arrive later this month. NVIDIA could have just thrown a wrench in the works for AMD.
There is an additional 2GB of GDDR6 memory on the card too for a total of 8GB now. Performance-wise, both cards are significant upgrades over the originals, with roughly 10 -- 23 percent gains, depending on the resolution or application. The GeForce RTX 2070 Super is often faster than the pricier AMD Radeon VII, especially at 1440p. At 4K, however, the Radeon VII's memory bandwidth advantage often gives it an edge. The new GeForce RTX 2060 Super is faster than a Radeon RX Vega 64 more often than not. It will be interesting to see how these cards compete with AMD's Radeon RX 5700 Navi-based card when they arrive later this month. NVIDIA could have just thrown a wrench in the works for AMD.
CUDA is a niche (Score:2)
CUDA was nice in its day but other technologies that actually work across cards are growing...
Because AMD cards have better price/performance more people are using them, and over time that will mean technologies that support them will dominate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, NVidia is protecting it's CUDA market share and not supporting the newest versions of the OpenCL specification, so you are stuck on AMD cards. So much for portability.
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that AMD GPUs are used in every modern gaming console on the planet, right? This is a huge partnership for AMD and isn't going away any time soon, with both next gen consoles from MS and Sony still planning for AMD GPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it doesn't filter down. Otherwise, we'd have FreeBSD commercial drivers from AMD. The PS4 and Switch are both using FreeBSD code as a base. NVIDIA has FreeBSD drivers.
It may benefit AMD PC gamers who play console ports.
Re: (Score:2)
AMD's GPU business is not going anywhere, as it's the key in them constantly winning contracts for making consoles for MS and Sony. They're pretty much the only company on the market that can deliver both with performance requested, and this is their unique synergy that gives them an edge on that market against both intel and nvidia, who're missing 1/2.
Problem being that their GPU business is heavily focused on maintaining compatibility with prior versions of these chips, because console update cycles are m
2080 to 2080ti (Score:3)
Do these cards fall between the 2080 and 2080ti or are the more powerful than the 2080ti's. These naming conventions are terrible.
Re: (Score:3)
Still a bad deal. (Score:3)
Given their MSRP's you still have to pay $700 to exceed the performance of the 1080ti, a card that came out in 2017 at the same $700 price. The only improvement really is that the 2080 super has better TDP and has ray tracing, which wont matter until the next generation anyways.
So Turing is still a scam as far as I'm concerned. Nvidia has been unable to make an appreciable improvement since 2017 and given the lack of performance improvements even the higher end 900 series skus are still viable for gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
2060s AND 2070s are similar in performance that they're both competing with 1080Ti?
Did someone give you a wrong cheat sheet to astroturf with?
Re: (Score:2)
Everything gets close together at 4k. And the 2070S is faster in a handful but the 1080ti also beats it by not insignificant margins as well in other games.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also have a 980ti in my living room HTPC and it handles 4k/60 fps just fine.
Given I have a 1070 that can't handle 1440p at 60fps in many games with every setting put to 'max' you must enjoy gaming with 2003 level graphics, rendered in 4k.
Re: (Score:2)
Given their MSRP's you still have to pay $700 to exceed the performance of the 1080ti, a card that came out in 2017 at the same $700 price. (...) So Turing is still a scam as far as I'm concerned.
More like a pricing error on the 1080 Ti. AMD was hyping Vega that was due later that summer and I don't know why but nVidia bought it hook, line and sinker. They dethroned their own flagship card, the 1080 that also launched at $700 for the founder's edition a year earlier and replaced it with a card that gave you +32% performance and 11GB of RAM at the same price. Even in the new lineup you paid +40% for +32% performance over the 1080 which is extremely generous considering it was their top of the line l
Re: (Score:2)
Right. For $700 you cam be the proud owner of a Radeon VII with 16 GB of hbm2, 1TB/sec bandwidth, and rocking 4K at high settings. Best value at the moment IMHO, and future proof.
Costs? (Score:2)
I don't currently have, and don't have immediate plans to purchase 4K display. With this is mind, these new GPU cards seems to offer only incremental performance updates over even 900-Series for my use case.
Is $500+ tag for incremental update seems justifiable in 2019 or are these prices still all about mining crypto currency?
NVIDIA's bullshit has to stop. (Score:2)
Ti, Super, the 1660, it's all becoming meaningless. How do you know which chip you are getting? How does a 2060 Super differentiate from the existing overclocked 2060s on the market. Better still that magical GTX1060 6GB which suddenly without change to the model number ended up with RAM clocked a full 15% higher than previously only to be replaced again with GDDR5X for another performance boost in exactly the same model number.
The entire NVIDIA marketing department need to have their pubic hairs individual
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. That at least has a different model number. I still think the worst was the 1060 6GB / 1060 6GB. Yep you're literally getting a different performing card now with identical model numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see. I have high hopes for AMD given they've proven themselves in the CPU market that they still have "the right stuff". Time will tell if they can follow through on GPUs.
"Aims to..." (Score:1)
So, Nvidia is lowering the price of their cards before AMD has even released the new models, and this article tries to spin this as a victory for Nvidia. Hilarious.
Big deal... (Score:2)
New high-end GPUs are great and all but I still can't find a worthwhile upgrade from my current GTX 750 without spending a fortune.
2400g (Score:2)
On that note, I just bought a Ryzen 2400g for gaming.
Works great for every game I've tried.
I don't need anything more for now...