Wednesday, June 12th 2019

NVIDIA's SUPER Tease Rumored to Translate Into an Entire Lineup Shift Upwards for Turing

NVIDIA's SUPER teaser hasn't crystallized into something physical as of now, but we know it's coming - NVIDIA themselves saw to it that our (singularly) collective minds would be buzzing about what that teaser meant, looking to steal some thunder from AMD's E3 showing. Now, that teaser seems to be coalescing into something amongst the industry: an entire lineup upgrade for Turing products, with NVIDIA pulling their chips up one rung of the performance chair across their entire lineup.

Apparently, NVIDIA will be looking to increase performance across the board, by shuffling their chips in a downward manner whilst keeping the current pricing structure. This means that NVIDIA's TU106 chip, which powered their RTX 2070 graphics card, will now be powering the RTX 2060 SUPER (with a reported core count of 2176 CUDA cores). The TU104 chip, which power the current RTX 2080, will in the meantime be powering the SUPER version of the RTX 2070 (a reported 2560 CUDA cores are expected to be onboard), and the TU102 chip which powered their top-of-the-line RTX 2080 Ti will be brought down to the RTX 2080 SUPER (specs place this at 8 GB GDDR6 VRAM and 3072 CUDA cores). This carves the way for an even more powerful SKU in the RTX 2080 Ti SUPER, which should be launched at a later date. Salty waters say the RTX 2080 Ti SUPER will feature and unlocked chip which could be allowed to convert up to 300 W into graphics horsepower, so that's something to keep an eye - and a power meter on - for sure. Less defined talks suggest that NVIDIA will be introducing an RTX 2070 Ti SUPER equivalent with a new chip as well.
This means that NVIDIA will be increasing performance by an entire tier across their Turing lineup, thus bringing improved RTX performance to lower pricing brackets than could be achieved with their original 20-series lineup. Industry sources (independently verified) have put it forward that NVIDIA plans to announce - and perhaps introduce - some of its SUPER GPUs as soon as next week.

Should these new SKUs dethrone NVIDIA's current Turing series from their current pricing positions, and increase performance across the board, AMD's Navi may find themselves thrown into a chaotic market that they were never meant to be in - the RT 5700 XT for $449 features performance that's on par or slightly higher than NVIDIA's current RTX 2070 chip, but the SUPER version seems to pack in just enough more cores to offset that performance difference and then some, whilst also offering raytracing.
Granted, NVIDIA's TU104 chip powering the RTX 2080 does feature a grand 545 mm² area, whilst AMD's RT 5700 XT makes do with less than half that at 251 mm² - barring different wafer pricing for the newer 7 nm technology employed by AMD's Navi, this means that AMD's dies are cheaper to produce than NVIDIA's, and a price correction for AMD's lineup should be pretty straightforward whilst allowing AMD to keep healthy margins. Sources: WCCFTech, Videocardz
Add your own comment

126 Comments on NVIDIA's SUPER Tease Rumored to Translate Into an Entire Lineup Shift Upwards for Turing

#101
bug
64K, post: 4066050, member: 148270"
I thought I saw on the Videocardz site something about price reductions on the Supers. I can't find it now though. Maybe I just imagined it. It wouldn't make much sense for Nvidia to lower the price below what the cards are selling for now unless the stockholders are getting nervous about the RTX cards not selling as well as expected according to Mr Huang.
This is the most reliable (if it can be called that) rumor we have so far: https://hothardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-rtx-super-family-next-week
So probably the same prices combined with better specs. The 2060 was the best deal and will become way sweeter with 256 bits memory bus and 8GB VRAM.

Edit: Managed to dig up the version that includes pricing: https://www.techradar.com/news/nvidia-super-rtx
Posted on Reply
#102
OC-Ghost
And thus the cycle begins again, Welcome back LE cards!
Posted on Reply
#103
Razrback16
bug, post: 4066046, member: 157434"
Hell, till I see benchmarks I'm not even sure we're back into sane territory.
Yep that's what I'm watching for. At this point I fully expect NVidia to disappoint me. However, my wallet is on standby on the off chance that they don't.

My expectations at this point are simply a small performance bump, but maintaining the same unreasonable price scheme. Now, if the "2080 Ti Super" version is say ~80+% faster than a 1080Ti, I may be willing to buy a couple of them at $1200 per unit, but if it's only 50-60% faster, then they can keep 'em and I'll stay in my holding pattern until Intel Xe / Nvidia 3000 series.
Posted on Reply
#104
Xaled
bug, post: 4066053, member: 157434"
This is the most reliable (if it can be called that) rumor we have so far: https://hothardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-rtx-super-family-next-week
So probably the same prices combined with better specs. The 2060 was the best deal and will become way sweeter with 256 bits memory bus and 8GB VRAM.
Their actual price will depend on AMDs new cards price and perofmance. And no, Nvidias current cards are way overpriced and the 2060 should've been at best 250$ and the 2070 should've been 350$. Stop justifying the ultimate greediness of Nvidia and the SUPER EXPENSIVE OVERLRICED PRODUCTS.
Posted on Reply
#105
bug
Xaled, post: 4066281, member: 158027"
Their actual price will depend on AMDs new cards price and perofmance. And no, Nvidias current cards are way overpriced and the 2060 should've been at best 250$ and the 2070 should've been 350$. Stop justifying the ultimate greediness of Nvidia and the SUPER EXPENSIVE OVERLRICED PRODUCTS.
Stop confusing wishful thinking with market rules. Why should the 2060 go for $250? Why should the 2070 go for $350?
Turing is expensive for me, but the right price is the one the market is willing to pay.
Posted on Reply
#106
Xaled
bug, post: 4066283, member: 157434"
Stop confusing wishful thinking with market rules. Why should the 2060 go for $250? Why should the 2070 go for $350?
Turing is expensive for me, but the right price is the one the market is willing to pay.
It is not wishful, It is the truth, they are mid and upper-mid range cards and their price was always like that, until Lisa SU, the niece of Jensen Huang took over AMD and killed the GPU department of AMD. (I don't care if it is a coincidence or a conspiracy, but that's what happened)
Posted on Reply
#107
bug
Xaled, post: 4066285, member: 158027"
It is not wishful, It is the truth, they are mid and upper-mid range cards and their price was always like that, until Lisa SU, the niece of Jensen Huang took over AMD and killed the GPU department of AMD. (I don't care if it is a coincidence or a conspiracy, but that's what happened)
They're only mid and upper-mid rangers if you look at their names. Otherwise, 2060 replaces the 1070 in both HP and TDP, while 2070 does the same for 1080.
But if you think the box defines a product better than its capabilities, well, you'll probably keep complaining.
Posted on Reply
#108
Xaled
bug, post: 4066287, member: 157434"
They're only mid and upper-mid rangers if you look at their names. Otherwise, 2060 replaces the 1070 in both HP and TDP, while 2070 does the same for 1080.
But if you think the box defines a product better than its capabilities, well, you'll probably keep complaining.
So according to your logic the 2060's price should've been 20.000$ because it has 20x the perofmance of 7800gtx ?
Posted on Reply
#109
bug
Xaled, post: 4066289, member: 158027"
So according to your logic the 2060's price should've been 20.000$ because it has 20x the perofmance of 7800gtx ?
I don't think what I wrote can lead you to this conclusion.
Posted on Reply
#110
efikkan
Xaled, post: 4066285, member: 158027"
It is not wishful, It is the truth, they are mid and upper-mid range cards and their price was always like that, until Lisa SU, the niece of Jensen Huang took over AMD and killed the GPU department of AMD.
The market defines what is low-end, mid-range and high-end, and the only qualifier that makes sense is performance vs. the rest of the market, not price. E.g. if AMD priced RX 570 at $2000, it would still be a low-end card. The typical bins of low-end, mid-range and high-end divides the market in three bins, which would make the transition between upper mid-range and high-end at or above RTX 2080 in the current market.
Posted on Reply
#111
moproblems99
bug, post: 4066291, member: 157434"
I don't think what I wrote can lead you to this conclusion.
Well, that depends.

bug, post: 4066287, member: 157434"
Otherwise, 2060 replaces the 1070 in both HP and TDP, while 2070 does the same for 1080.
If just HP and TDP determine the price compared to previous generations then, yes, in far stretched, obtuse way.
Posted on Reply
#112
Valantar
bug, post: 4066287, member: 157434"
They're only mid and upper-mid rangers if you look at their names. Otherwise, 2060 replaces the 1070 in both HP and TDP, while 2070 does the same for 1080.
But if you think the box defines a product better than its capabilities, well, you'll probably keep complaining.
Expecting equal performance to shift down a full product tier per generation is a reasonable expectation, and has always been so, and "product tier" in this case means "price tier" - as that's really the only sensible differentiator given that there's neither a set maximum or minimum for performance, while price brackets change far more slowly. The issue with Turing is that we got somewhat less than a full tier down in terms of naming, while at the same time prices didn't budge whatsoever. While the argument can be made that "the market sets the prices", that's also rather tautological - after all, any market actor with enough power has the power to determine prices, and consumers have zero say on the matter. Consumers are the weakest actors in any market, period. "Voting with your wallet" isn't a thing, as there's no way of voting no, just yes or an uncounted and thus unnoticeable "option" to abstain.
Posted on Reply
#113
moproblems99
Valantar, post: 4066310, member: 171585"
Consumers are the weakest actors in any market, period.
Yes and no. Yes if you can get enough consumers to band together. No if the consumers are fractured.
Posted on Reply
#114
RichF
efikkan, post: 4066304, member: 150226"
The market defines
The market in which we have a little thing called duopoly in action. Not much of a market when you've got that, especially when one of the two doesn't even bother to compete at the high end.

Worse yet, one of the two players is actively working against the PC gaming platform by promoting the nonsense known as the console (for a total of three artificially incompatible x86 platforms — unnecessary platform fragmentation). The situation will be less dire once Jaguar finally gets the boot it should have gotten when it was first suggested for adoption but the problem remains. It's actually in AMD's interest to not compete at the high end in order to make consoles look better. Let Nvidia keep prices in the stratosphere for the best hardware. Then people will have little choice if they are of modest means to buy either the midrange AMD cards on offer or a console. Neat, huh? Everyone wins but the consumer.

Monopolization eats markets and spits out inefficiency in the form of yachts and swallows' nest dinners.
Posted on Reply
#115
Valantar
moproblems99, post: 4066332, member: 155919"
Yes and no. Yes if you can get enough consumers to band together. No if the consumers are fractured.
Consumers are notoriously fractured, and the vast majority of attempts to organize them fail miserably (and the ones that don't are short lived). The reason is simple: most consumers don't have the time, money or energy to put too much effort into ensuring their consumption is ethically sound, as they have other things (e.g. life) that take precedence. The myth of the empowered consumer is propagated by the powerful in capitalist systems to make the system seem fair and make consumers seem equal, when the core of capitalism is inequality and concentration of power.

The only effective example of a large-scale boycott or similar consumer action over the past few decades is the one against South African apartheid. And that is quite a while ago.
Posted on Reply
#116
bug
Valantar, post: 4066310, member: 171585"
Expecting equal performance to shift down a full product tier per generation is a reasonable expectation, and has always been so, and "product tier" in this case means "price tier" - as that's really the only sensible differentiator given that there's neither a set maximum or minimum for performance, while price brackets change far more slowly. The issue with Turing is that we got somewhat less than a full tier down in terms of naming, while at the same time prices didn't budge whatsoever. While the argument can be made that "the market sets the prices", that's also rather tautological - after all, any market actor with enough power has the power to determine prices, and consumers have zero say on the matter. Consumers are the weakest actors in any market, period. "Voting with your wallet" isn't a thing, as there's no way of voting no, just yes or an uncounted and thus unnoticeable "option" to abstain.
Well, the 2060 is slightly faster than a 1070Ti and the 2070 is better than a 1080. The reason we're not seeing the whole expected performance shift is RTRT. So for Turing, we're trading some of the expected performance for a whole new GFX tech. I just don't see the fuss.

If you take RTRT out of the equation, even the 1660 is a good deal faster than the 1060 for about the same price.
Posted on Reply
#117
Valantar
bug, post: 4066441, member: 157434"
Well, the 2060 is slightly faster than a 1070Ti and the 2070 is better than a 1080. The reason we're not seeing the whole expected performance shift is RTRT. So for Turing, we're trading some of the expected performance for a whole new GFX tech. I just don't see the fuss.

If you take RTRT out of the equation, even the 1660 is a good deal faster than the 1060 for about the same price.
The 1660 is a decent deal, absolutely, but sadly the clear exception to the rule in terms of Turing and value. The 1650 is downright terrible value, and the higher tiers provide no real-world value gains for normal users. You're right that we gain new tech, but that tech works in, what, five games now, 6 months after the launch of the "people's RTX" 2060? I doubt RTX will provide any actual value for users before the majority of these cards are obsolete, sadly - which means buyers are giving up on a generational perf/$ gain for a feature with very, very limited use. And in two years or so when we have far more games with RTRT, will an RTX 2060 be powerful enough to run these at 1080p60 without very significant compromises? That sounds unlikely to me - but of course, predicting the future is impossible, and I might be entirely wrong. It just seems like a poor bet from an end user stand point, and a poor showing from Nvidia in the way that they're essentially saying "No, you're not getting a faster GPU this time around, but you're getting a feature that you might - if you're lucky - get some IQ gains from in games in the future." It's also rather odd, given that GPUs tend to be upgraded on a 2-3 year cycle, meaning that 1st-gen products like these inevitably get superseded by newer solutions long before the tech actually becomes relevant or useful.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for more realistic lighting, reflections and spatial audio (realism can foster immersion, after all), but I'm not a fan of paying a(n effective) premium for the promise that this might become a reality at some point in the future.
Posted on Reply
#118
bug
@Valantar I was just pointing out we get new tech supported by new hardware and yet everybody is dismissing Turing for not following the price/perf ratio perfectly. We do get a more than decent perf boost, but the large silicon costs $$$. That's all there is to it.

And yes, RTRT is only present in a handful of games, but guess what? So was PS3.0 or PS2.0 that came before. And I'm pretty sure Nvidia would have kept the lid on RTRT for one more generation till they could introduce it a more palatable price point. But with AMD pretty much a no show for years now, they would have been stupid not to gain a foothold in the new tech as soon as they could.
Posted on Reply
#119
InVasMani
Better hardware and faking it like CryTek/ReShade is still the best option considering the pace of advancements to refresh rates and resolution size options on the market and in the near horizon today. Those are easier options and will perform better and not look a whole heap load worse in the end at the same time.
Posted on Reply
#121
Razrback16
Appreciate you sharing that Medi -

Will be curious to see performance. Wonder how long before they release the 2080 Ti Super, sounds like the Ti models will be last to be released.
Posted on Reply
#122
bug
medi01, post: 4067027, member: 158537"
From WCCyouknowheweare:




So you're saying they're not worried about Navi?
Posted on Reply
#123
moproblems99
medi01, post: 4067027, member: 158537"

Well that's not confusing at all...
Posted on Reply
#125
Chloe Price
That Super moniker just sounds like that some Nvidia employee's kid had an idea for those models.

Even that Boost (like in HD 7950 in GTX 650 Ti) was more not that stupid.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment