Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by Scania, Jan 7, 2019.
Shame its only 6GB, i'm finding some games already upto and passing 7GB.
Mulling over whether it's worth upgrading from my Geforce 980 to the RTX2060 ?
Well the 980 is roughly as fast as a 1060 6GB if you want to look at the comparisons.
If that's the case it would make it around 25-30% faster so not really worth the cost of upgrading on first impressions?
I've the same a 980 and I dont think its worth it for the price outlay. 6gb really puts me off the card too, ive seen what happens in the past when a card just barely has enough vram for the current gen i.e. 770 2gb.
I would've bought a 1070 2-3 years ago if I wanted a 25%~ performance increase at £350~. Vega 64/1080/2070 or higher is a better performance jump, although only the Vega is reasonably priced atm in the new market.
Definitely not considering you also play at 3440x1440p. The 6gb of vram is simply puny and a huge downside. Give it a few more months imo, Navi will be a better value & performance proposition at this tier and we pretty much know it's coming out this year. That's assuming you want to stay under £400, otherwise the options immediately open up (as is usually the case with more £). Though the current Nitro Vega 64 is a killer deal at £410 (and V56 at £300-320 was an even better one), and I am skeptical of future cards being any better priced for the performance until 2020. V64 would be 50%+ performance boost over a 980. For Navi I think best case scenario would be V64 performance for £300. Up to you if waiting 6-8 months for perhaps a £100 savings is worth it.
It feels strange when 4 years later I'm looking to upgrade and for £350 I'm being offered a card that's barely any faster than the one I have in real terms.
To be fair the 980 was $550 at launch - so your not really comparing apples with apples here, not that im defending NV price hikes (2080 should be around 600 mark and would have been logical progression from 1080/980) - as has been said above V64 would give a nice boost and is within that price bracket
You're right in that it's not directly fair comparing an xx60 card vs and xx80 model. I guess the exchange rate played a part as well since I'm sure I paid closer to £450 for my Geforce 980 at launch. I think that's why it's so jarring to see a card for not much less offer such a small performance jump 4 years later.
Typically £350 would have gotten you a x70 class GPU which would have been a significant increase in performance, especially after skipping a generation.
Ordinarily the x60 class would typically be about £250 but the 20 series has skewed the prices.
A 2060 will be an upgrade as such but to pay £350 for a x60 class GPU just doesn't sit right with me personally
I would still buy GTX 1070 or 1070Ti over this new card.
Was a 980 really $550 at launch? I only paid £500 for a 980ti close to launch and we know $ = £ generally.
Would this card be good for 1080p ultra and 1440p high settings for couple of years ? Currently have very old 680 4gb version which is really struggling with modern games. What pulls me towards 2060 is low temps and power consumption, but that 6gb vram ....
The rumoured 1160 will do the same at a cheaper price but without RTX. That’s assuming Nvidia don’t gimp it in some way.
You can get away with 6gb of vram in most games just fine, with some exceptions where the game is vram heavy (Wolfenstein 2 etc). 2 years from now, with new consoles launched? It's hard to for me to see that 6gb vram will be enough for optimal performance. And ofc, forget heavy modding or HD textures. Heck in some instances the 6gb is only enough because the devs end up nerfing the crap out of the game so it can run on people's potatoes. Ass' C Origins e.g. got its LOD reduced severely, which helped alleviate vram concerns (and not only) but now you're left with a stinking pile of doo doo which you can't change so easily. Now if we look at Odyssey, they also have poor LOD from base and hence it uses little vram, but there's fixes you can apply so that it more properly runs as it should on PC (Kaldaien's fix). When I did that all of a sudden my vram usage nearly doubled.
So in my view, if you want just the console experience, you can safely do with just 6gb of vram. If you want on the other hand all the goodies of PC, and the free image quality of higher textures and the like (to say nothing of LOD, texture streaming etc) then why would you choose this ****** gimped card? The 1070ti is still better imo (if you don't want Vega) - until the remaining stock dwindles & prices get jacked, anyway.
Thanks guys, you confirmed my thoughts.
Might wait it out and see what happens with 1160, and hopefully ...meaby...rtx 2070 prices might drop a bit.
Also looked at 1070ti, at current prices don't want to pay for old tech and Vega...too much power and heat, plus AMD drivers are not the best.
I can see more and more people moving towards consoles come ps5 cause of these crazy GPU prices.
I remember seeing Assassin's Creed Syndicate using 5.5GB all maxed out at 1200p.
That's my feeling. I suspect that even if AMD decides to join Nvidia with mental GPU prices a new wave of consoles in 2020 will quickly give them some alternative competition to worry about finally.
It's looking like comedy GPU prices are here to stay for 2019 though........
Unless something radical changes I guess I'll be sticking with my 980 for the foreseeable future. After that a PS5/XB2 is probably a more sensible upgrade path!
I don't get nvidias lack of ram on new cards, even Xbox one X has 9gb that's just used as vram. Most games are console ports so future games will need even more ram.
If new consoles can achieve 60fps I will jump on it. Pc will be mainly for low and high end gaming while mid range will be taken over my consoles.
In long run Nvidias greed will hurt them just for the sake of current profit they are making.
To increase profit margins, it's not even the expensive stuff like AMD are using.
Some games will automatically start culling detail to keep it within the vram limit.
Separate names with a comma.