• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

OcUK RTX2060 review thread

Yeah I'd expect any lower cards than 2060 to not have rtx stuff, and yeah why does there need to be all these different chips and versions... Ugh
 
CuriousTomCat said:
Yes Battlefield V at +50fps is playable but hardware requirements for the latest games tend to increase by 20% per year. So next years RTX games will be about +40fps. Well it's about 20% for old school rasterisation games anyway. RTX games could be different.
Click to expand...

Or, it might be 1080p60 in this years releases because the devs have had the time to tinker about and fine-tune the intricacies of implementing the RTX & DLSS features.
 
D.P. said:
Performance per a Dollar it beats both Vega 56 and Vega 64, it is also as fast or faster than the Vega 64.

Yet still you have people complaining just because it says nvidia on the box.
Click to expand...

Mid range cards always have better performance per dollar anyway. The fact is, the 1060 had a much higher performance per dollar than the 2060. All because the price of the 2060 includes a feature that the card can't really handle.

The 1160 would be the mid range card to go for as it should have the same non RTX performance as the 2060 but at a lower cost. However, Nvidia are taking advantage of the fact that people have very little patience and want a GPU asap so the more expensive cards will sell well.
 
CuriousTomCat said:
Mid range cards always have better performance per dollar anyway.
Click to expand...

Doesn;t stop it beating Vega 56 and 64 for performance per dollar.

The fact is, the 1060 had a much higher performance per dollar than the 2060.
Click to expand...
No, the 1060 is about 5 to 10% worse.

All because the price of the 2060 includes a feature that the card can't really handle.
Click to expand...

No, the pricing of the 2060 is entirely due to what Nvidia believe the market will pay. The 2060 can handle RTX at 66 to 77FPS in BFV 1080P depending on the reviews. While not great that is certainyl in the playable range.

The 1160 would be the mid range card to go for as it should have the same non RTX performance as the 2060 but at a lower cost. However, Nvidia are taking advantage of the fact that people have very little patience and want a GPU asap so the more expensive cards will sell well.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an 1160, and any price differences will have nothing to do with RTX.
 
Emlyn_Dewar said:
The complaints are because it's their mid-tier product at far higher pricing than normal. Not because of the brand on the box.
Click to expand...


yet despite that higher pricing it still offer better value than money thank almost allAMD cards, especially the Vega cards. In fact, AMD simply don't have a GPU comparable in terms of both performance and cost . The 580 is better value for money, but if you need the perfmance level of a Vega 64 or RTX2060, then the RTX2060 handily beats Vega 64.


Comparisons to previous generations are really not that useful because the market is totally different. It is just a hard fact that the 2060 beats anything AMD have at that level. Nvidia have undercut the competition, so prices are not liekly to go down.
 
Most benchs ive checked shows the 2060 and vega 56 trading blows. These are ones not using the reference vega 56 that is throttling like mad.
Plus with the 3 decent games + 2gb extra vram personally I'd take the 56 over the 2060 anyday.

"The 2060 can handle RTX at 66 to 77FPS in BFV 1080P" I bet that is singleplayer benchmarks, jump into multiplayer and enjoy those dips into the 40s..
 
Comparisons to previous generations are completely valid.
I am pretty desperate for a new GPU, but I'll be waiting to see what AMD do.
The Vega 56/64 will surely go down in price, and whatever is announced at CES will hopefully replace the 590.
 
greatash said:
Most benchs ive checked shows the 2060 and vega 56 trading blows. These are ones not using the reference vega 56 that is throttling like mad.
Plus with the 3 decent games + 2gb extra vram personally I'd take the 56 over the 2060 anyday.

"The 2060 can handle RTX at 66 to 77FPS in BFV 1080P" I bet that is singleplayer benchmarks, jump into multiplayer and enjoy those dips into the 40s..
Click to expand...


Multiplayer is faster as less Raytracing is used.
 
Emlyn_Dewar said:
Comparisons to previous generations are completely valid.
I am pretty desperate for a new GPU, but I'll be waiting to see what AMD do.
The Vega 56/64 will surely go down in price, and whatever is announced at CES will hopefully replace the 590.
Click to expand...


The 590 has only just been released, nothing will replace it for some time.

The V56/64 are already priced with minimal margins, I doubt AMD can afford to lower the prices further.
 
D.P. said:
Multiplayer is faster as less Raytracing is used.
Click to expand...

It's also not all ray-tracing in BFV. Some of the effects are regular effects which just turn off when you disable RTX, to make it look better than it is.

So the performance is a lie. It will be a lot worse when ray-tracing is used fully.

D.P. said:
yet despite that higher pricing it still offer better value than money thank almost allAMD cards, especially the Vega cards. In fact, AMD simply don't have a GPU comparable in terms of both performance and cost . The 580 is better value for money, but if you need the perfmance level of a Vega 64 or RTX2060, then the RTX2060 handily beats Vega 64. .
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, and it also has slower frametimes and lower minimum fps. Also as already said it's 2gb down on memory which is going to a problem.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
Performance per a Dollar it beats both Vega 56 and Vega 64, it is also as fast or faster than the Vega 64.


Yet still you have people complaining just because it says nvidia on the box.
Click to expand...

They're not, TPU unfortunately is simply useless at reviewing Vega and has severely gimped their benches, as you can evidently see by the fact that all the other reviews don't have a V64 get smacked by a 2060 in Sniper Elite 4 @ 4K. Which is obviously wrong since we know V64 goes head to head with 2070 in general, and in games like SE4 it very much wins. Even gamers nexus who has also shown themselves generally incompetent at reviewing vega doesn't have as big of a blunder. Wizzard, the guy at TPU, has been told about it multiple times on reddit but he insists nothing is wrong. If you want to trust those numbers, go ahead, but the rest of us aren't fooled.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2019/GPUs/rtx-2060/rtx-2060-review-sniper-4k.png

The performance is clear, aib V56 more or less = 2060 FE (which has better OC potential, because remember - nvidia will be selling gimped chips to aibs for them to reach a lower price point; A/non-A). So given that we know $ to £ pricing is more or less equal (e.g. EVGA 2070 $499 in US, £499 UK, 520 euros Europe), we can expect the 2060 FE to sell for around £350. You can get the V56 for £320 right now, and it has 2gb more vram & a bigger game bundle on offer, as well as better freesync compatibility (even with nvidia's gsync compatibility, freesync will work better across the board with those monitors, as we can see from certified vs non-certified examples).

So how is it better perf/£ again?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom