Wednesday, November 22nd 2017

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Shows Up in Final Fantasy XV Benchmarks

The RTX family debuted with top of the line graphics cards, but the Turing era is just started and there will be new members joining those first products. One of the most expected is the RTX 2060, and now this new graphics card has been seen in Final Fantasy XV benchmarking database. This information should be taken with a grain of salt, but in the past this listing has showed us upcoming products such as the Radeon RX 590, so the evidence is quite interesting. According to this data, the RTX 2060 would perform slightly below the Radeon RX Vega 56 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, but its numbers are quite better than those of the GTX 1060.

NVIDIA itself confirmed there would be a "mainstream" product in the Turing family in the future, and although the company seems now focused on selling out their excess inventory of mid-range Pascal graphics cards -Black Friday could help there-, the new GPU could be announced in the next few weeks and some analysts expect it to be available on Q1 2019. It'll be interesting to confirm if the data in our TPU database is correct, but we're specially curious about the price point it'll have.
Source: Overclock 3D
Add your own comment

121 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Shows Up in Final Fantasy XV Benchmarks

#101
Valantar
bajs11 said:
I guess people have forgotten that gtx 1060 6gb is over 10% faster than the gtx 970.
and the 970 itself is quite a bit faster than the gtx 780
with that in mind we should expect the RTX 2060 to at least outperform the gtx 1070
That's what we'd all want, but we're not getting that without a significant price hike. The 970 was Maxwell 2, which was a major leap in efficiency (and thus how much performance you get in a given power budget, due to clock speed increases) over Kepler, even if it was made on the same node. Pascal was another major leap going from 28nm to 16nm, fitting more cores in the same area and increasing clocks yet again. Turing moves to 12nm, which is essentially just a refinement to 16nm, with (as we've seen in reviews of the 2070 and above) zero efficiency improvements over the last generation, no real area gains, and no clock speed increase (>5% top OC). In other words, they need more, lower clocked cores or hotter cards with better coolers to beat the previous generation - and the die will be bigger (and thus more expensive) no matter what.

GTX 780: GK110, 551mm^2, 2880 cores cut to 2304, ~900MHz, 288 GB/s memory
GTX 970: GM204, 398mm^2, 2048 cores cut to 1664 (28% decrease), ~1.3GHz (44% increase), 196 GB/s memory (32% decrease)
GTX 1060: GP106, 200mm^2, 1280 cores (23% decrease), ~1,5GHz (15% increase, though with GPU boost closer to 1.8 in reality, so a 38% increase), 192GB/s memory (2% decrease)

So: both of the last generations have used arch or process improvements to match or beat previous higher-tier performance through clock speed increases while reducing core counts to lower costs. This isn't happening this time around, so the die needs to grow. This used to mean that Nvidia ate some margins for a generation while they waited for a new node shrink (think GTX 700 series), but that's not happening this time - they've grown too greedy and callous for that, which the RTX series has shown clearly.

For the high end core counts went from 2816 cores (980 Ti) to 3584 cores (1080 Ti, up 27%) to 4352 cores (2080 Ti, up 21%). The story for the lower tiers is roughly the same, with 1664 -> 1920 (^15%) -> 2304 (^20%) cores for the '70s. That tells us the 2060 is likely to get around 1280 * 1,2 =1536 or * 1,3 = 1664 Cuda cores, which is nowhere near enough to beat the 1070 (with 1920 Cuda cores) given the tiny improvements in clock speed and core performance from Pascal to Turing. A 1920-core 2060 would likely be too close to the 2070 for comfort - or at least it would force the 2050 Ti to suddenly become a midrange rather than entry-level card.
Posted on Reply
#102
bajs11
Thanks for the very informative explanation.
So they are basically overcharging for very little gains.
If we were to compare MSRP for the previous 2-3 generations of gpus
they have almost the same msrp from generation to generation with but the gains were substantial

I wonder how much they spent developing the RT part of RTX.
and as i said in other discussions it just feels like a ripoff when there is only one single game that implemented that feature more than 3 months after the rtx gpus have been released (there is also a Chinese mmorpg that will have rt but nobody outside of that country would ever play it)

I am still looking for a reasonably priced replacement for my gtx 1080 and was actually hoping a Turing XX80 would have the same performance improvement over the gtx 1080Ti as the 1080 had over GTX 980Ti while with the msrp around 599 usd
Its just stupid that I will have to keep waiting for that replacement

So yeah, I don't know about you but I am absolutely disappointed that the 2080 turned to be very similar to the gtx 1080Ti. Also has anyone be able to buy the RTX 2080 at its msrp?
The cheapest I have seen was 750 usd and in many European countries close to 900 USD
Posted on Reply
#103
efikkan
bajs11 said:

I am still looking for a reasonably priced replacement for my gtx 1080 and was actually hoping a Turing XX80 would have the same performance improvement over the gtx 1080Ti as the 1080 had over GTX 980Ti while with the msrp around 599 usd

Its just stupid that I will have to keep waiting for that replacement

So yeah, I don't know about you but I am absolutely disappointed that the 2080 turned to be very similar to the gtx 1080Ti.
I'm a firm believer that people should have decent hardware to achieve good gaming experiences, but why do you need to upgrade every cycle? Turing is a solid performer offering about ~35% gain over Pascal, which is absolutely not bad at all, but still too little to justify an upgrade from Pascal, in my opinion. The important question is whether you have satisfying performance for the moment, if so upgrade when your demands increase. I would recommend saving up for a "3080" or "3080 Ti".
Posted on Reply
#104
Valantar
efikkan said:
I'm a firm believer that people should have decent hardware to achieve good gaming experiences, but why do you need to upgrade every cycle? Turing is a solid performer offering about ~35% gain over Pascal, which is absolutely not bad at all, but still too little to justify an upgrade from Pascal, in my opinion. The important question is whether you have satisfying performance for the moment, if so upgrade when your demands increase. I would recommend saving up for a "3080" or "3080 Ti".
Yeah, upgrading every generation is a major waste of money. Games generally don't progress that much in that short span of time (also, insisting on playing with maxed-out settings is silly); a G-sync monitor would be a better investment of that money, and it would smooth out any issues towards the end of a 2-3-generation wait. If you've got money to burn, buy more games, have some fun with your hardware rather than replace it prematurely :)
Posted on Reply
#105
Th3pwn3r
Upgrading from a 1080ti to a 2080ti only makes sense if you game @4k but other than that I'd say stick with 1080s and 1080tis. The price of the 2080ti definitely is too high relative to other generations of cards but if high end PC gaming is your hobby then it's probably not going to kill you to spend the $1300-$1400. I'll upgrade using the trade in value of my 1080ti in September.
Posted on Reply
#106
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
Th3pwn3r said:
Upgrading from a 1080ti to a 2080ti only makes sense if you game @4k but other than that I'd say stick with 1080s and 1080tis. The price of the 2080ti definitely is too high relative to other generations of cards but if high end PC gaming is your hobby then it's probably not going to kill you to spend the $1300-$1400. I'll upgrade using the trade in value of my 1080ti in September.
I have 4k and g sync 1440p 165hz, the price isnt justifed but a 2080ti is definitely needed for the demanding titles
Posted on Reply
#107
lexluthermiester
efikkan said:
uring is a solid performer offering about ~35% gain over Pascal, which is absolutely not bad at all, but still too little to justify an upgrade from Pascal, in my opinion.
It depends on what you upgrade from. I upgraded from a 1080 to a 2080 and the performance difference, at the settings I run, was between 45% to 55% improvement.
Posted on Reply
#108
Bytales
Kamgusta said:
Raytracing in videogames is the step in photoreality we have been expecting for 15 years.
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~uffe/xjobb/Readings/GPURayTracing/Ray Tracing Fully Implemented on Programmable Graphics Hardware.PDF
Yes, current RTXs have horrible raytracing performance, but this is going to be better and better.
I remember the first AA, T&L, BM implementations (GeForce 3 from early 2000's, boys) and they had over 50% performance hits. Now they are "free".
And I must say, raytracing effects add really a lot to realism.
By the time we get Quantum computing we will have free realistic raytracing (with bilions more rays than current Maximum capable) on handheld nintendo Switch - with infinite Detail engines, and its 8k Screen at 240 Frames per second. The future is looking good Baby !

But im afraid such nintendo swithc is probably 50 years away at least...
Posted on Reply
#109
bajs11
lexluthermiester said:
It depends on what you upgrade from. I upgrade from a 1080 to a 2080 and the performance difference, at the settings I run, was between 45% to 55% improvement.
are you sure? in every review i have seen the difference is between 25-35% very similar to upgrading from gtx 1080 to 1080Ti
maybe you had a gtx 1070ti
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2080_Founders_Edition/15.html

Valantar said:
Yeah, upgrading every generation is a major waste of money. Games generally don't progress that much in that short span of time (also, insisting on playing with maxed-out settings is silly); a G-sync monitor would be a better investment of that money, and it would smooth out any issues towards the end of a 2-3-generation wait. If you've got money to burn, buy more games, have some fun with your hardware rather than replace it prematurely :)
Well the upgrade would be justified if Nvidia weren't so greedy.

I upgrade from gtx 970 (paid 340 for msi gaming X) to gtx 1080 strix, around 550 usd, and saw an improvement of between 60-100% with a 62% price increase
now, if I upgrade to the rtx 2080Ti which will give me slightly less performance gains than going from 970 to 1080 I would have to pay 136% more for the extra 60-80% more fps...
Posted on Reply
#110
lexluthermiester
bajs11 said:
are you sure?
Very sure.
lexluthermiester said:
It depends on what you upgrade from. I upgrade from a 1080 to a 2080 and the performance difference, at the settings I run, was between 45% to 55% improvement.
bajs11 said:
in every review i have seen the difference is between 25-35%
And most reviewer max out the setting during testing. I don't run that way. As a rule, AA is turned off in the driver. Thus the difference.
bajs11 said:
maybe you had a gtx 1070ti
You think I'm so stupid I didn't know what I had? :rolleyes::kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#111
EarthDog
lexluthermiester said:
It depends on what you upgrade from. I upgrade from a 1080 to a 2080 and the performance difference, at the settings I run, was between 45% to 55% improvement.
oh.....do tell, sir, how you take a card that has a 25%-30%difference on average and nearly double that on your machine...


And no go on turning off AA... and that did it... dknt buy it.


Is this at 4k? How do you without AA at my res less? Legally blind? :p

5 years here... how about creating system specs...;)
Posted on Reply
#112
lexluthermiester
EarthDog said:
And no go on turning off AA... and that did it... dknt buy it.
Go buy a 1080, benchmark it with AA off then put a 2080 in the same system and run the same benchmarks. Then show us your results.
EarthDog said:
Is this at 4k? How do you without AA at my res less?
Dual 1440P screens. Even at 1080p, pixel laddering is not visible during game play.
EarthDog said:
5 years here... how about creating system specs...;)
No thanks. If there were any practical need to do so, it would have been done by now.
Posted on Reply
#113
EarthDog
I had one. Didn't show the miracle of life you saw. So few run without AA (unless its for performance reasons) anyway, I can't say I care much... it was just an outlandish statement from what I have seen.

I run dual 1440p screens as well. I don't play games on both (mostly FPS here). I must have AA. I can CLEARLY see a difference with it disabled... even without my glasses/contacts. If you can't see aliasing at 1080p (I can easily see it at 2560x1440) you should get your eyes checked. :)

There is a practical need right now......which is why I asked.
Posted on Reply
#114
Prince Valiant
qubit said:
I can't wait for the "RT 2030" with ray tracing performance of 0.1 fps! :laugh: Yes, I will be buying it just for the nerd factor of having one and watching it struggle, lol.
I can hardly wait for your benches :D.

I don't expect this is going to have RT functionality, seems pointless considering how horrible the performance would be, guess we'll find out soon enough.
Posted on Reply
#115
lexluthermiester
EarthDog said:
So few run without AA (unless its for performance reasons)
That's exactly why I run without AA. I'd rather have better framerates. I'll bet the number of people who run without AA, or with it turned down would surprise you. And that's not the only setting setting that is turned down or off, it's just the main performance hog.(That gives me an idea..)
EarthDog said:
it was just an outlandish statement from what I have seen.
Like I said, do the benchmarks yourself and prove up if you think it's that "outlandish". An extra 10% to 20%, depending on the game, is about par for the course in my experiences.
EarthDog said:
I must have AA. I can CLEARLY see a difference with it disabled...
Not saying your wrong. What I'm saying is that it's not important to me because the differences at 1080p and above are just not that noticeable when playing through a game.
EarthDog said:
even without my glasses/contacts. If you can't see aliasing at 1080p (I can easily see it at 2560x1440) you should get your eyes checked. :)
Funny you should say that, I recently had an eye exam. Perfect vision.
EarthDog said:
There is a practical need right now......which is why I asked.
A practical need for AA? Can't agree with that. And at 2160p it really is superfluous. Personally, I'd rather have RTRT on and lose frames than have AA all day long. Because at least RTRT offers something tangible to gameplay experience. Especially for cards like the 2060 in this article.
Posted on Reply
#116
Apocalypsee
lexluthermiester said:

A practical need for AA? Can't agree with that. And at 2160p it really is superfluous. Personally, I'd rather have RTRT on and lose frames than have AA all day long. Because at least RTRT offers something tangible to gameplay experience. Especially for cards like the 2060 in this article.
Judging from Earthdog previous reply, I think he meant creating System Specs on your profile so people would know what kind of hardware you using.
Posted on Reply
#117
lexluthermiester
Apocalypsee said:
Judging from Earthdog previous reply, I think he meant creating System Specs on your profile so people would know what kind of hardware you using.
And that's why I responded with the following;
lexluthermiester said:
No thanks. If there were any practical need to do so, it would have been done by now.
Posted on Reply
#118
EarthDog
Lol....wow.

There was a PRACTICAL NEED FOR SYSTEM SPECS. Lololol

I have no idea your system specs and was trying to find reason for your statements. ;)


Anyway, you started another thread and I clarified, I hope, the confusion.
Posted on Reply
#119
lexluthermiester
EarthDog said:
Lol....wow.
There was a PRACTICAL NEED FOR SYSTEM SPECS. Lololol
I have no idea your system specs and was trying to find reason for your statements. ;)
Anyway, you started another thread and I clarified, I hope, the confusion.
Honestly, I don't care to post my systems specs. I have 5 different systems that get used and upgraded regularly. Too much to keep track of. Plus, it's not compulsory to post system specs. So please do let it go.

Back on topic, after reading more about the up coming 2060 I think the specs are going to be closer to the 2070 than the 1060 was to the 1070. And if so, the 2060 might be able to push RTRT at reasonable framerates when on low.
Posted on Reply
#120
EarthDog
Lol, just clarifying what I was referring to when saying "practical" since you clearly missed it talking about games and talking through bj who also tried to clarify what I wrote. You wont hear a peep from me now. ;)
Posted on Reply
#121
efikkan
lexluthermiester said:
Back on topic, after reading more about the up coming 2060 I think the specs are going to be closer to the 2070 than the 1060 was to the 1070.
I sure hope so, as I've been saying since the beginning with Pascal, the gap between 1060 and 1070 is way too big. Yet Nvidia added many variants of 1060, and even the 1070 Ti to fill the small gap between 1070 and 1080. Strangely enough, AMD had a similar gap between RX 580 and Vega 56. I understand it has to do with how the chips turn out, but it still surprises me that both managed to have a huge hole in the most important segment.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment