And what happens one day when a game uses and needs 6.5 - 7.5GB vram? And we were discussing future needs. Personally, I think 2060 is too strong chip for "only" 6GB, and if they do announce versions with 5, 4 or 3GB it will be funnyfor sure.
This. It is far too easily overlooked. If you intend to keep your GPU for more than a year or two, this is something that should be vital in your purchase decision.
Low VRAM cards fall off
fast. It happens every time. And we also still see the 7970 as pretty relevant (much more than one would expect given its age) due to its 3GB, which was considered a lot at its time of release. Similarly, 3GB 780(ti)'s also survived far longer than the rest of the Kepler/refresh stack.
If you're talking about value for money, the Vega 56 choice at even an equal price as the 2060 is easily the safer choice. Yes it guzzles more power. But what you're looking at is a card with consistency over longer periods of time, versus a card that is somewhat faster today (a barely noticeable FPS win) and will lose its consistency in two years time. 192 bit + 6 GB VRAM will bite you in the ass. Both these cards are very capable of 1080p/ultra or 1440p high. There was a good reason the Pascal line up equipped 8 GB on its 1070 and up products, and that reason hasn't changed + RTX 2xxx doesn't improve on existing compression methods. A GTX 1070ti or 1080 will be that much more relevant in two years time, and an RTX 2060 will not be the card to pick up on second hand market compared to all of those options.
You have to keep in mind that we're not seeing major performance wins per generation anymore. That means you're likely to hold on to your GPU for a longer time. And thát means, that 8GB will come in handy - it already does today, and it surely will in the future. Nvidia's delta compression has nothing to do with that - that is just about bandwidth. And even there you see edge cases where the compression is insufficient and consistency suffers. Edge cases, but I'd buy a GPU for good performance
everywhere. That is the same logic I apply to a gaming-CPU, and reason I'd advise an Intel CPU for that purpose up until Ryzen pops up with a 4.5 Ghz boost. If you spend this kind of money, performance should simply be optimal in every situation.
RTX and DLSS are completely irrelevant. Don't buy into tech that has no content to show for it. It was never a good idea, not with AMD, not with Nvidia.
Then the price comparison. A vega 56 at 300 bucks is a no brainer versus the 2060 IMO. At equal price, it all depends on your personal view on my story above. I'll just conclude by saying: been there done that, all I'm saying is from experience.
Buying the RTX 2060 gets you either Anthem or Battlefield V your pick.
Two EA published MTX-infested cesspools... I wouldn't consider that a bonus, those games will be in the budget bin within a year. And you'll be buying DLC to stay relevant in them regardless, so they ain't free at all. Those titles up against The Division, RE2 and DMC5... its not even a contest. You're looking at two subscriptions versus 3 real games.
