Sunday, December 30th 2018

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Founders Edition Pictured, Tested

Here are some of the first pictures of NVIDIA's upcoming GeForce RTX 2060 Founders Edition graphics card. You'll know from our older report that there could be as many as six variants of the RTX 2060 based on memory size and type. The Founders Edition is based on the top-spec one with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory. The card looks similar in design to the RTX 2070 Founders Edition, which is probably because NVIDIA is reusing the reference-design PCB and cooling solution, minus two of the eight memory chips. The card continues to pull power from a single 8-pin PCIe power connector.

According to VideoCardz, NVIDIA could launch the RTX 2060 on the 15th of January, 2019. It could get an earlier unveiling by CEO Jen-Hsun Huang at NVIDIA's CES 2019 event, slated for January 7th. The top-spec RTX 2060 trim is based on the TU106-300 ASIC, configured with 1,920 CUDA cores, 120 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 240 tensor cores, and 30 RT cores. With an estimated FP32 compute performance of 6.5 TFLOP/s, the card is expected to perform on par with the GTX 1070 Ti from the previous generation in workloads that lack DXR. VideoCardz also posted performance numbers obtained from NVIDIA's Reviewer's Guide, that point to the same possibility.
In its Reviewer's Guide document, NVIDIA tested the RTX 2060 Founders Edition on a machine powered by a Core i9-7900X processor and 16 GB of memory. The card was tested at 1920 x 1080 and 2560 x 1440, its target consumer segment. Performance numbers obtained at both resolutions point to the card performing within ±5% of the GTX 1070 Ti (and possibly the RX Vega 56 from the AMD camp). The guide also mentions an SEP pricing of the RTX 2060 6 GB at USD $349.99.
Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

234 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Founders Edition Pictured, Tested

#126
GoldenX
unikin said:
Yep, we also used to have antitrust laws and people with spine and balls to implement them against duo(mono)polies, in the age of apathy we have neither anymore. That's why West is turning into shithole.
Worst thing is the Black and White mentality. Oh no, you criticize my product, I should not pay my employees for their work now.
Posted on Reply
#127
Rahnak
kings said:
People compare this to the price of the GTX 1060, but forget the RX 480 was on the market at the same time to keep prices a bit lower! Basically, the closest competition to the RTX 2060 will be the RX Vega 56 (if we believe in the leaks), which still costs upwards of $400~$450, except for one or another occasional promotion.

Unless AMD pulls something off their hat in January, $350 to $400 for the RTX 2060 will be in tune with what AMD also offers! Nvidia with their dominant position, is not interested in disrupting the market with price/performance.
Maybe AMD isn't the only competition anymore..? You have 400€ consoles taking their first steps into 4K already. Next generation is most likely going to make 4K mainstream. PC is still mostly 1080p. At this rate I don't foresee big changes in the near future, so PC gaming is probably going to lag behind consoles on resolution (considering highest adoption rates) and costing way more at that. And that's pretty sad.
Posted on Reply
#128
illli
This is... quite pathetic actually. You can buy a 1070 ti for $350 today. When this comes out you can buy a RTX 2060 @ 1070ti performance for.... the same price. NV priced their cards way too much this time around. RTX 2060 should have come in at $250, the RTX 2070 $350 and so on.
Posted on Reply
#129
the54thvoid
xkm1948 said:
Nice to see bunch of couch GPU designers and financial analysts knows better than a multi million GPU company regarding both technology and pricing. It is called capitalism for a reason, no competition means Nvidia can have free say on how much they price their cards. You don’t like it then don’t buy, good for you. Someone else likes it they buy and it is entirely their own business. NVIDIA is “greedy” sure yeah they better f*ucking be greedy. They are a for profit company not a f*ucking charity. How the hell are they able to develop new GPU designs? NVIDIA engineers should just work out of pure love instead of feeding their families? So much moan and whining
This is pretty much exactly the way it is. I can't think of a single 'successful' manufacturer that produces cheap items in the absence of comparative competition.

GoldenX said:
Another capitalist with the "not a charity" meme. A hundred years with the same lame excuse.
Price inflation due to lack of competition/monopoly is a good thing now?
Would you kindly be a slave somewhere else? I think Ryan is calling you.
But they're not a bloody charity. They have shareholders who quite literally demand a high ROI. This is how the business works. Yes, it means awful prices but that is life. And I'll add to the charity theme that seems to annoy and say it's a graphics card to enable you to play games. Play games. It's a luxury. It's not bread, it's not education - you are not entitled to it.

The sense of injustice is absolutely wonderful. I'm not a fan of wealth or capitalism but I understand it. What I cannot comprehend is the attitude of people that complain so vehemently about pricing. Take a look around. Every successful company is doing it.
Posted on Reply
#130
GoldenX
the54thvoid said:
This is pretty much exactly the way it is. I can't think of a single 'successful' manufacturer that produces cheap items in the absence of comparative competition.



But they're not a bloody charity. They have shareholders who quite literally demand a high ROI. This is how the business works. Yes, it means awful prices but that is life. And I'll add to the charity theme that seems to annoy and say it's a graphics card to enable you to play games. Play games. It's a luxury. It's not bread, it's not education - you are not entitled to it.

The sense of injustice is absolutely wonderful. I'm not a fan of wealth or capitalism but I understand it. What I cannot comprehend is the attitude of people that complain so vehemently about pricing. Take a look around. Every successful company is doing it.
That doesn't make it right. Keep rising prices, tolerating it, see what happens.
"They all do it" is not an argument, it's complacency.
Once they see their sales plummet as they see their shares now, we'll see what happens.

Coplaining about stupid prices is not a "sense of injustice", it's an option we have. What are companies now, dictatorship states? "Just buy it at whatever price they ask".
Posted on Reply
#131
Rowsol
The performance numbers are surprising, faster than I expected.

As for Nvidia's pricing: They will charge as much as they can, which is currently a lot because they have no competition. If AMD or Intel ends up putting out something competitive than maybe we'll see some price drops.
Posted on Reply
#132
TheOne
I have a feeling if Intel and AMD can get their performance numbers to NVIDIA's and include RT they will price along side them, especially Intel.
Posted on Reply
#133
Gutterbanger
lexluthermiester said:
Everyone is complaining about price. Is it really that expensive? And if so, is really that difficult to save money for an extra month or two?

The price is not the problem although it is to high for a card with no future. When RT hits full swing even the 2080 will be under powered for any of the new games. the 1080 TI is enough card for the next four years, by then RT will be in full swing along with many other upgrades that the 2080 is not ready for better cards will be needed. Buying a card for the future now is not going to work IMO. I will wait and buy a card in the future that is actually made to play the games in the future as I think the 2080 in four years will be just like trying to use a GTX 950 to play in 4k now.
Posted on Reply
#134
the54thvoid
GoldenX said:
That doesn't make it right. Keep rising prices, tolerating it, see what happens.
"They all do it" is not an argument, it's complacency.
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Right and wrong do not apply to capitalism.

Ethical? We can use that - but not right or wrong.

FWIW, I did not upgrade my 1080ti to a 2080ti because for me, it's NOT worth it. But I'm not bitching about it. I'm quietly voting with my wallet but as you'll see, that does nothing to change the situation. Yes - the quaint and rather impotent concept that if I don't buy it, they'll fail... well, there are a lot of people with good incomes that will buy it because to them, it has value.

As for the statement: "are companies dictatorships?" Take a good look at that. Nvidia (NVDA) is a Nasdaq listed company with shareholders that receive dividends for the company's performance. If they started selling cheap cards, the price would tank (that's how it works, it would be seen as a loss of confidence in business product and confidence is what the share index is all about.)

@xkm1948 actually has got it so correct - if you want 'sensibly' priced cards you need a government supported chip maker to swamp the market. Not going to happen. AMD is your only hope of Nvidia prices coming back to earth. And don't hold your breath on that one.
Posted on Reply
#135
Blueberries
1070ti to 1080 performance for a $350 MSRP is a bargain, people. When the 1070 (non ti) came out the MSRP was $380, and you couldn't find an AIB for under $450.

Performance is up and cost is down, and people are still finding a way to complain. Not to mention the lower power draw of this card means lower thermals and fan profile, and just to add icing on the already sweet cake you get some RT cores you'll never use.


Hell, I paid $400 for a GTX 670 years ago when Kepler came out, it didn't have HALF the performance of this card and it sounded LIKE A LAWNMOWER. I don't know if you guys are just now getting into computer hardware but we didn't all have it this easy.
Posted on Reply
#136
GoldenX
the54thvoid said:
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Right and wrong do not apply to capitalism.

Ethical? We can use that - but not right or wrong.

FWIW, I did not upgrade my 1080ti to a 2080ti because for me, it's NOT worth it. But I'm not bitching about it. I'm quietly voting with my wallet but as you'll see, that does nothing to change the situation. Yes - the quaint and rather impotent concept that if I don't buy it, they'll fail... well, there are a lot of people with good incomes that will buy it because to them, it has value.

As for the statement: "are companies dictatorships?" Take a good look at that. Nvidia (NVDA) is a Nasdaq listed company with shareholders that receive dividends for the company's performance. If they started selling cheap cards, the price would tank (that's how it works, it would be seen as a loss of confidence in business product and confidence is what the share index is all about.)

@xkm1948 actually has got it so correct - if you want 'sensibly' priced cards you need a government supported chip maker to swamp the market. Not going to happen. AMD is your only hope of Nvidia prices coming back to earth. And don't hold your breath on that one.
There is a difference between silently not buying and saying you can't complain at all about pricing.
The fact that "right and wrong don't apply to capitalism" sounds like communism with better cars.
Posted on Reply
#137
Totally
lexluthermiester said:
Everyone is complaining about price. Is it really that expensive? And if so, is really that difficult to save money for an extra month or two?

Seems to be at the end of the card.
To refererence the SHS, the bulk of cards on there are x50/x60 that occupy the $150-250 space. You try to overgeneralize things with "And if so, is really that difficult to save money for an extra month or two?" What if it took an individual 10 months just to save up the $250 in the first place? So they're supposed to just save for another 7-8 months? They are, that's we have threads should I buy old gen x or wait for new gen y because by the time they've finally saved up enough new cards are around the corner.
Posted on Reply
#138
xorbe
Blueberries said:
1070ti to 1080 performance for a $350 MSRP is a bargain, people. When the 1070 (non ti) came out the MSRP was $380, and you couldn't find an AIB for under $450.
I was going to mention something along this line. Sounds like 1070Ti/1080 ballpark for $350. Of course the 1080 came out over 2.5 years ago, the wheels of progress are moving slowly these days ...
Posted on Reply
#139
moproblems99
lexluthermiester said:
Gonna borrow from another conversation for a moment with this breaking news story;

Some are proceeding with the logic that is based on the idea of comparing a 2060 to a 1070, a 1080 to a 2070, a 1080ti to a 2080 and a Titan to a 2080ti.

The rest of us are not doing that. We're comparing a 1060 to a 2060, 1070 to a 2070, a 1080 to a 2080, a 1080ti to a 2080ti and a GTX Titan to an RTX Titan.

We now return you to your normally scheduled conversation..
It should be looked at like this: What did $350 get me last gen at launch? In this case, pretty much exactly what you get this gen with a little extra slightly useful fluff.

Vayra86 said:
Doesn't make sense though, because that will cannibalize the 2070 and we know that isn't Nvidia's style at all.
I said this in another thread. Either the the price is wrong or the performance is wrong in these charts. The numbers are too close to the 2070.

EarthDog said:
Vulkan reminds me of Physx... it is there and can be useful in some titles... but isnt a big player.

Vulkan really doesnt seem to have taken hold since its release. Not sure how it can gain traction. Time isnt on its side.
I wish Vulkan would be used more so I could drop Windows completely. If Linux had more share, Vulkan would be used. I think RTX is very much like Vulkan in the sense that the potential user base is so small that adoption will be slow.
Posted on Reply
#140
HisDivineOrder
the54thvoid said:
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Right and wrong do not apply to capitalism.

Ethical? We can use that - but not right or wrong.

FWIW, I did not upgrade my 1080ti to a 2080ti because for me, it's NOT worth it. But I'm not bitching about it. I'm quietly voting with my wallet but as you'll see, that does nothing to change the situation. Yes - the quaint and rather impotent concept that if I don't buy it, they'll fail... well, there are a lot of people with good incomes that will buy it because to them, it has value.

As for the statement: "are companies dictatorships?" Take a good look at that. Nvidia (NVDA) is a Nasdaq listed company with shareholders that receive dividends for the company's performance. If they started selling cheap cards, the price would tank (that's how it works, it would be seen as a loss of confidence in business product and confidence is what the share index is all about.)

@xkm1948 actually has got it so correct - if you want 'sensibly' priced cards you need a government supported chip maker to swamp the market. Not going to happen. AMD is your only hope of Nvidia prices coming back to earth. And don't hold your breath on that one.
I don't think it's better to silently accept things the way they are that you don't want them to be. I think complaining about them is a decent first step towards doing something about it. After all, people could have said the same thing when nvidia released the FX series. But they didn't. They could have said it with the 200 series. But they didn't.

No, nvidia responded to market competition.

https://www.cnet.com/news/nvidia-cuts-prices-on-gtx-260-280-graphics-boards/

No, the problem here is AMD's lack of competition. When this kind of "release the same performance at slightly higher pricing" happened, we'd always have ATI to counterbalance it. Well, ATI or 3dfx. Now, though, AMD's purchase of ATI has left the industry crippled. We're either slaves to Intel's greed or nvidia's greed. That's why there's equal amounts of blame to go toward AMD, whose incompetence is stagnating GPU progress throughout the industry. Hopefully, Intel will come along and price low with decent tech and support with good drivers (far from a sure thing) and give us the competition that AMD seemingly is unable to provide to nvidia.
Posted on Reply
#141
Gorstak
You aren't slaves to anything. 8800 GT 512 10 years ago costed 2000kn. I know cuz I bought it. And there were cards like 9800 GTX+ and ultra, that costed a tremendous ammount.
Everything remained the same. You can still buy a modern 8800 GT type for the same price. So mainstream cards remained with same price, and a normal, mainstream desktop pc still costs 4000kn.
Posted on Reply
#142
Eric3988
I love me some capitalism, but a good product can still be at a bad price point. It's too bad we can't have a discussion about this without so much mudslinging everywhere. I, for one, don't buy into any leaks ever and will judge this card based on actual price-performance in games I play, not with artificial benchmarks. If the price is justified on performance then it's a buy, if it's basically an updated 1070 at the same price, then I'll just scratch my head and move on.
Posted on Reply
#143
moproblems99
HisDivineOrder said:
We're either slaves to Intel's greed or nvidia's greed.
Last I checked, no one is required to by PC components.
Posted on Reply
#144
xkm1948
moproblems99 said:
Last I checked, no one is required to by PC components.
The f*ucking age of entitlement to anything. Yep you said it 100% right. i gotta say the education system did a good job training millions pf people to think like this.
Posted on Reply
#145
Fouquin
lexluthermiester said:

Here's a set of facts;
1. Every generation of new GPU's get a price increase.
2. Every generation of GPU's offers a performance increase.
3. People always complain about said price increase while trying to minimize or ignoring the increase in performance.
Every generation gets a price increase? Well hang up just a second there, that's not a 'fact' I've ever heard or seen presented.



The average MSRP of a flagship nVidia GPU was set at a hair over $525 for nearly a decade, with the majority of new releases being either cheaper or the same price. The GTX 780 was the first card to buck the trend in half a decade, and the GTX 980 looked like a return to that comfortable average before the 10 series and now 20 series have cranked up the heat. Even with the migration of flagship status to 'Ti' series cards the price increase is felt at the launch of the 20 series, with the 2080 Ti's minimum cost set where the first three generations of Titans were.

I have no argument against the fact that performance increased with each generation, except for with the 9800 GTX but that was a very strange special case as the 8800 Ultra was announced after the 9800 series launched, so there's this distinct overlap of product lines that lead to the 9800 GTX taking a bit of a back seat while still being sold as the flagship product of a new generation.

So the actual fact is the 20 series breaks the trend by being the first product series in over a decade to feature an increased MSRP over a previous generation that also had an increased MSRP. It also features the highest increase in average price, as well as the highest MSRP values to date since the 8800 Ultra 11 years ago. Those facts have helped form the opinion of large group of consumers that the entire product series is overpriced.
Posted on Reply
#146
lexluthermiester
Slizzo said:
Except MSRP, for the 2080Ti At least, is "starting at $999".
That's for the FE direct from NVidia. Most did/do not pay anywhere near that price for an AIB model. For example mine was under $800. Yes, yes.

Fouquin said:
Every generation gets a price increase? Well hang up just a second there, that's not a 'fact' I've ever heard or seen presented.
You didn't go back far enough and your own graph is incorrect.
Posted on Reply
#147
Fouquin
lexluthermiester said:

You didn't go back far enough and your own graph is incorrect.
I went back over a decade and provided 10 generations of data. Far enough is subjective, but there's plenty of data there to draw a conclusion. Rather than simply say, "You're wrong," please offer up corrections where needed.
Posted on Reply
#148
lexluthermiester
moproblems99 said:
It should be looked at like this: What did $350 get me last gen at launch? In this case, pretty much exactly what you get this gen with a little extra slightly useful fluff.
Gotta disagree. It should be looked at like this; " What level of performance can $350 get me today? Does it meet my needs? " While you have a good point, making comparisons to previous gen cards is fruitless as that is not going to help with a current purchase unless you're willing to buy used.

Fouquin said:
I went back over a decade and provided 10 generations of data. Far enough is subjective, but there's plenty of data there to draw a conclusion. Rather than simply say, "You're wrong," please offer up corrections where needed.
I've already done that previously, you seem to have missed it.. Hint, look on page 3 of this thread.
Posted on Reply
#149
GoldenX
xkm1948 said:
The f*ucking age of entitlement to anything. Yep you said it 100% right. i gotta say the education system did a good job training millions pf people to think like this.
I'm not forced to get a 2060, but inflating prices sets the bar higher for the competition, so enjoy your mid range at USD700 5 years from now, thanks.
Posted on Reply
#150
Xzibit
Fouquin said:
I went back over a decade and provided 10 generations of data. Far enough is subjective, but there's plenty of data there to draw a conclusion. Rather than simply say, "You're wrong," please offer up corrections where needed.
Be prepared to get redirected to one of his facts opinions.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment