• 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.

RTX2060 spotted

Nasher said:
None of them really fit anywhere. The rx590 is only around £240 and comes with 8gb.

You can't do much with only 3gb vram these days. Some games will use more than that and VR is probably out of the question. For £320 you can have a Vega56 which is a tier up.
Click to expand...

The 2060 is much faster than the 590 though. 3gb is almost pointless, true, but maybe it holds up as a good option at 1080p. It becomes a bit pointless for a sensible build because you're probably going to need 16gb of ram to overcompensate for the 3gb of VRAM. In which case a 6gb card would cost about the same and perform better when paired with 8gb of ram.

It's an interesting price point and AMD are going to have to price the Navi 3070 at £200 to compete and the 3080 probably will match the 2060 6gb price. So we get 1070/Vega performance for £200 and 1080 performance for £300 (fingers crossed)
 
Nasher said:
£239 for a 3gb, mid-range card lol. In fact it's probably low end with only 3gb since performance will tank on a few modern games.
Click to expand...

Oh dear how wrongfully you are! You obviously never watched any of GTX 1060 3GB benchmarks on youtube with few modern games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Battlefield V. You will be really very surprised how well it ran on 3GB, performance is not far behind GTX 1060 6GB.

RTX 2060 3GB will follow the same footstep as GTX 1060 3GB did.



I have no doubts RTX 2060 3GB GDDR5X with Ray Tracing cores and Tensor cores for DLSS at bargain £239 will sell like hotcakes.
 
Yea great when your only testing games which won't use more than 3gb. Try Shadow of Mordor for example which will eat 6gb at 1080 with everything cranked up. Elite Dangerous will also use more than 3gb while on planets...

ANDREW GREEN said:
The 2060 is much faster than the 590 though. 3gb is almost pointless, true, but maybe it holds up as a good option at 1080p. It becomes a bit pointless for a sensible build because you're probably going to need 16gb of ram to overcompensate for the 3gb of VRAM. In which case a 6gb card would cost about the same and perform better when paired with 8gb of ram.

It's an interesting price point and AMD are going to have to price the Navi 3070 at £200 to compete and the 3080 probably will match the 2060 6gb price. So we get 1070/Vega performance for £200 and 1080 performance for £300 (fingers crossed)
Click to expand...

That isn't how it works, if vram runs out it will dump it in to virtual memory (hard disk) and FPS will drop off a cliff.
 
Last edited:
AthlonXP1800 said:
Oh dear how wrongfully you are! You obviously never watched any of GTX 1060 3GB benchmarks on youtube with few modern games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Battlefield V. You will be really very surprised how well it ran on 3GB, performance is not far behind GTX 1060 6GB.

RTX 2060 3GB will follow the same footstep as GTX 1060 3GB did.



I have no doubts RTX 2060 3GB GDDR5X with Ray Tracing cores and Tensor cores for DLSS at bargain £239 will sell like hotcakes.
Click to expand...

Shadow of The Tomb Raider isn't on the highest setting there. Here's AC Odyssey on Ultra with 3gb and 6gb and the difference is drastic. As texture qualities increase and increase this will get more common.


Not to mention a card as fast as 2070 should be expected to do 1440p, which 3gb is going to stutter with. You can hit good FPS by toning down the detail but why are we buying a brand new card again to run in medium detail?
 
Yep, then throw in things like RTX (lol), AA, supersamping etc and that memory usage is only going to go up.

If your fine with paying £230-350 to play the latest games in low or medium settings, then buy a 3-6gb 2060.
 
Nasher said:
That isn't how it works, if vram runs out it will dump it in to virtual memory (hard disk) and FPS will drop off a cliff.
Click to expand...

It uses available RAM first, which will be slower, if it's a bit over 3gb you get away with it a little.

So the first AC Odyssey vid on Ultra the game required 5gb of Vram and the 3gb card performed at only about 45% of the 6gb model. Here is the same game on Medium and High. When it requires sub-3gb there is only about 2fps difference, it's essentially the same card despite the 6gbs extra shaders. At 3.6gb requirement you start to lose about 10-12%


When games need 4-5gb the 2060 3gb will indeed tank and settings will have to be dropped down.

The card you buy today should run games on high settings for a few years and I can't see a 3gb card doing that in 2020.
 
Nasher said:
Yea great when your only testing games which won't use more than 3gb. Try Shadow of Mordor for example which will eat 6gb at 1080 with everything cranked up. Elite Dangerous will also use more than 3gb while on planets...



That isn't how it works, if vram runs out it will dump it in to virtual memory (hard disk) and FPS will drop off a cliff.
Click to expand...

Well if you want to run certain games at 1080p with everything cranked up as you put it I suggest you don't buy a 8th tier graphics card then.

2080ti
2080
2070
2060 6GB GDDR6
2060 6GB GDDR5x
2060 4GB GDDR6
2060 4GB GDDR5x
2060 3GB GDDR6

Vega 64
Vega 56
590 8GB
580 8GB
580 4GB
570 8GB
570 4GB
560 4GB <-AMD equivalent.

Good luck running the same games with everything cranked up. :rolleyes:
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
Shadow of The Tomb Raider isn't on the highest setting there. Here's AC Odyssey on Ultra with 3gb and 6gb and the difference is drastic. As texture qualities increase and increase this will get more common.


Not to mention a card as fast as 2070 should be expected to do 1440p, which 3gb is going to stutter with. You can hit good FPS by toning down the detail but why are we buying a brand new card again to run in medium detail?
Click to expand...
Only the 2080 and 2080ti are 1440p cards. 2070 needs details to be toned down no matter how much vram it has. It can max games only at 1080p for which vram is sufficient
 
Nasher said:
I don't like rip-offs.
Click to expand...
You don't like NVidia, which is quite apparent. This thread has consisted of you having a bit of a strop over something you won't be getting, which is odd. I have no intention of buying a 2060 either but can see a decent market for it, so would consider it for a new build if someone asks me for one.
 
bru said:
Well if you want to run certain games at 1080p with everything cranked up as you put it I suggest you don't buy a 8th tier graphics card then.

2080ti
2080
2070
2060 6GB GDDR6
2060 6GB GDDR5x
2060 4GB GDDR6
2060 4GB GDDR5x
2060 3GB GDDR6

Vega 64
Vega 56
590 8GB
580 8GB
580 4GB
570 8GB
570 4GB
560 4GB <-AMD equivalent.

Good luck running the same games with everything cranked up. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

AMD equivalent would surely be the card that cost the same and not the card that cost 1/3 of the price. IE the 590 and the 3070 when it's released. Both of which would run 1080p with everything cranked up
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
AMD equivalent would surely be the card that cost the same and not the card that cost 1/3 of the price. IE the 590 and the 3070 when it's released. Both of which would run 1080p with everything cranked up
Click to expand...
There isn't really an AMD equivalent, as AMD are not even competing. When AMD release gaming 7nm, it might be worth a look but as we are now, AMD have nothing.
 
AMD competes pretty well in the mid to upper range. The 2080ti is kind of irrelevant as 99% of people aren't going to pay those prices.

The equivalent of the 2060 3gb is the 590, yet the 590 has more than double the ram. For 6gb your probably going to be looking at Vega56 prices, but Vega is a tier up. So you can see how Nvidia pricing doesn't match up.
 
Last edited:
Don't be misled about the VRAM thing. Even when the performance doesn't completely tank with 3gb what you notice instead is even more streaming/pop-in etc, so a huge visual hit. Also, considering the huge visual impact of higher res textures, it seems like sacrificing on vram is perhaps the dumbest decision one can make when buying a GPU. When you look at how cheap great cards are with large amounts of vram (Polaris), it seems very strange to see people so eager not just to defend these ****** 3gb cards, but also buy them.

Same story since Kepler, but alas some people never learn.
 
Gregster said:
There isn't really an AMD equivalent, as AMD are not even competing. When AMD release gaming 7nm, it might be worth a look but as we are now, AMD have nothing.
Click to expand...
While I do think AMD needs to step up their game, looks like £400 RTX2060 is gonna be worse than a £400 Vega 64, so not quite nothing.
 
Poneros said:
Don't be misled about the VRAM thing. Even when the performance doesn't completely tank with 3gb what you notice instead is even more streaming/pop-in etc, so a huge visual hit. Also, considering the huge visual impact of higher res textures, it seems like sacrificing on vram is perhaps the dumbest decision one can make when buying a GPU. When you look at how cheap great cards are with large amounts of vram (Polaris), it seems very strange to see people so eager not just to defend these ****** 3gb cards, but also buy them.

Same story since Kepler, but alas some people never learn.
Click to expand...
The other thing to bear in mind is that the game engine can render the game with reduced settings, overriding the higher settings in the menu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom