• 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?

TheRealDeal

TheRealDeal

TheRealDeal

Soldato
Joined
28 May 2007
Posts
10,071
D.P. said:
No, some games allocate more VRAm and don;t bother gargabge collecting if there is enough VRAm available.

As problem multiple times, the 2060 runs out of grunt a long way before it runs out of VRAM.
Click to expand...

The problem here is the 2060 most likely won't be running out of grunt before it becomes a problem. It's a card that has around gtx1080 levels of grunt with 2gb less Vram. Nvidia are not known for giving excess Vram and they thought the gtx1080 years back needed 8gb. You might be right and 6gb vram will just about do it for a while but why gamble when there are models as fast or faster for less or a bit more.
 

TheRealDeal

TheRealDeal

TheRealDeal

Soldato
Joined
28 May 2007
Posts
10,071
Angel_Rex said:
From a business perspective I understand that. EOL product, push it out now before Navi later in the year. There are far fewer Vega's available now, heck the price will probably creep back up to £330 in the coming months, then cut again around Navi in October.

Unless you game at Ultra settings and need that extra Vram, I don't see how at medium settings two identical speed cards (one with 6gb and one with 8gb) would be that different. When things slow down - like my gtx970 did - Pubg medium settings were 70-80fps. Now its 170fps all medium. If my GTX970 had 8gb ram, not the silly 3.5gb it had, I wouldn't see a massive improvement. If I tweaked a Vega 56 and ran the same settings - I don't think it would be faster just because of the vram - at the same settings. Sure when it kicks into higher textures they are needed!

As long as everyone is happy, that's great. I'm pleased we still have AMD for the competition and can't wait to see what navi brings!
Click to expand...

If you only plan on running medium settings then the 2060 should last a good while. So in your case it ain't going to be a problem. It might never be a problem even at the higher settings but to me it's a gamble i would have avoided. I just like a balanced Gpu and the 6gb would have put me off. I bought last summer so the 2060 was not even around for me to even make that decision. I am pretty sure the 2060 performance wise would keep the majority of buyers happy and it seems like the case with you.
 
Last edited:

D.P.

D.P.

D.P.

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,618
TheRealDeal said:
The problem here is the 2060 most likely won't be running out of grunt before it becomes a problem. It's a card that has around gtx1080 levels of grunt with 2gb less Vram. Nvidia are not known for giving excess Vram and they thought the gtx1080 years back needed 8gb. You might be right and 6gb vram will just about do it for a while but why gamble when there are models as fast or faster for less or a bit more.
Click to expand...


But this has already been proven false, because there is no game that can push over 6GB VRAM and still be playable on the 2060.

You also missing the fact the 2060 uses less VRAM than the 1080 due to better compression, relative to pascal it is more like a 6.5GB Card, relative to Vega more like 7GB.


The other aspect is the 1080 was only given 8Gb of memory because it required a 256bit member interface. The 2060 only has a 192bit interface but higher clocked GDDR6.

Nvidia never gave the 2060 6GB instead of 8GB just to be cheap, it was a choice of 3GB, 6GB or 12GB. 6GB provides sufficient VRAM at this price point for games in the next 4-5 years.

Remember the 970, Nvidia got in a lot of trouble by having different memory speeds. The only way the 2060 could have 8GB would be if some some memory shared pins at half data rate. then the question becomes do you want more memory that is slower, or do you want faster memory? Slower memory absolutely will slow down performance, more memory makes no difference until you run out. The 2060 doesn't run out of memory a4K ultra + RTX even although FPS is too low to be playable. More VRAm woudln't help at all
 

TheRealDeal

TheRealDeal

TheRealDeal

Soldato
Joined
28 May 2007
Posts
10,071
D.P. said:
But this has already been proven false, because there is no game that can push over 6GB VRAM and still be playable on the 2060.

You also missing the fact the 2060 uses less VRAM than the 1080 due to better compression, relative to pascal it is more like a 6.5GB Card, relative to Vega more like 7GB.


The other aspect is the 1080 was only given 8Gb of memory because it required a 256bit member interface. The 2060 only has a 192bit interface but higher clocked GDDR6.

Nvidia never gave the 2060 6GB instead of 8GB just to be cheap, it was a choice of 3GB, 6GB or 12GB. 6GB provides sufficient VRAM at this price point for games in the next 4-5 years.

Remember the 970, Nvidia got in a lot of trouble by having different memory speeds. The only way the 2060 could have 8GB would be if some some memory shared pins at half data rate. then the question becomes do you want more memory that is slower, or do you want faster memory? Slower memory absolutely will slow down performance, more memory makes no difference until you run out. The 2060 doesn't run out of memory a4K ultra + RTX even although FPS is too low to be playable. More VRAm woudln't help at all
Click to expand...

Nobody said it's running out of memory atm but 6gb is a bit of a kick in the teeth at this stage. Paying around £350 for a 6gb card just does not make sense to me when there is 8gb cards as fast or faster. None of us can predict the future but 6gb is a gamble imo when there was no need to gamble. Nvidia chose that 192bit bus so that's irrelevant as they chose to lock the card into 6gb as they won't be giving out 12gb cards at this range. The original question from the op was to why so many are negative about the 2060 gb and it is mainly due to the 6gb Vram along with a cheaper Vega 56 having 8gb. Along with that when tweaked the Vega 56 will be mainly faster. Had Nvidia opted for a 256bit bus and 8gb vram we would not be having this conversation.
 

Angel_Rex

Angel_Rex

Angel_Rex

Associate
OP
Joined
8 Dec 2004
Posts
878
Location
Brighton - East Sussex
MyBrains said:
Who pays £350+ for a GPU to only play at medium settings? :confused:
Click to expand...

In FPS games high frames is key.

In pubg I can run everything maxed out and I get 100fps odd

I have a 144hz monitor so that's more important than the pretty flowers 100 yards away. Lower settings also allows better spotted enemy.

That aside, it's now obvious that the main gripe is the vram, which isn't so important to me and a few others here, but as a general consensus seems to be.

If I could afford and I wanted to game at ultra settings and 144fps, the 2080/ti would have been the way forward.

The overclocked 2060 is almost as fast as a stock 1080/v64/2070 so seems good bang for the buck at high textures 1440p at 80-100fps.

As discussed the Vega cards, now they are £100 cheaper are a good option too. Maybe if it had been that price a year ago, I too would have bought a 56 or 1080.

Let's keep this friendly, no one is right or wrong, I just found it interesting that the 970 was such a hit in the day and this to me seems the new 970. It's also a bonus that the 2060 is twice the speed of my 970!

Thanks to all for taking the time to share thoughts and opinions
 

Nasher

Nasher

Nasher

Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,390
D.P. said:
You also missing the fact the 2060 uses less VRAM than the 1080 due to better compression, relative to pascal it is more like a 6.5GB Card, relative to Vega more like 7GB.
Click to expand...

This is a fact is it? :p

More likely it uses less because detail is quietly being cut from the game to use less. To avoid filling the vram and grinding to a halt.

People are going to QQ when Doom Eternal comes out and wants more than 6gb to even select max settings (previous one needed 5gb or you couldn't even see "nightmare" level options).
 
Last edited:

Chrisc

Chrisc

Chrisc

Associate
Joined
29 Jun 2016
Posts
2,152
Location
Up Norf
Angel_Rex said:
In FPS games high frames is key.

In pubg I can run everything maxed out and I get 100fps odd

I have a 144hz monitor so that's more important than the pretty flowers 100 yards away. Lower settings also allows better spotted enemy.
Click to expand...

Eugh, were you one of them that used to play CS 800x600? :p

On a serious note, i think the 2060 is a very capable card. It appears the 6gb vram is a bit of a slap in the face for a card over the £300 mark.
 

Angel_Rex

Angel_Rex

Angel_Rex

Associate
OP
Joined
8 Dec 2004
Posts
878
Location
Brighton - East Sussex
easyrider said:
2060 rubbish card for the price.
Click to expand...

I love comments like this. Forget Vram for 2 minutes, as that's debatable because we already established that right now and the next 12 months on ultra settings, 6gb is enough. Come 2-3 years, yes you MAY need to drop to medium settings.

So, the rubbish card is cheaper and faster at stock than a 1070/1070ti/vega56 (vega 56 have only just come down to £300 - they were £330) and factory overclocked it comes up to 1080/vega64, all for circa £100 cheaper. It runs cooler (60-66C), quieter and uses less power.

RTX is a joke on this card, if you're buying this card to use RTX you're a mug :D

Sure - it's a rubbish card^^
 

veelog

veelog

veelog

Associate
Joined
12 May 2015
Posts
4
Angel_Rex said:
So, the rubbish card is cheaper and faster at stock than a 1070/1070ti/vega56 (vega 56 have only just come down to £300 - they were £330) and factory overclocked it comes up to 1080/vega64, all for circa £100 cheaper. It runs cooler (60-66C), quieter and uses less power.
Click to expand...

my stock 56 pulse is as fast or faster than 64 strix in reviews

https://imagescdn.tweaktown.com/content/8/3/8383_41_asus-rog-strix-vega-64-review-refined-kinda.png 22000
https://3dnews.ru/assets/external/illustrations/2017/12/13/962864/3dmark_firestrike.png 21400
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_radeon_rog_rx_vega_64_strix_8gb_review,29.html 22400
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/18369327 22200
 

Ian Evey

Ian Evey

Ian Evey

Soldato
Joined
4 Jan 2009
Posts
2,682
Location
Derby
Angel_Rex said:
I love comments like this. Forget Vram for 2 minutes, as that's debatable because we already established that right now and the next 12 months on ultra settings, 6gb is enough. Come 2-3 years, yes you MAY need to drop to medium settings.

So, the rubbish card is cheaper and faster at stock than a 1070/1070ti/vega56 (vega 56 have only just come down to £300 - they were £330) and factory overclocked it comes up to 1080/vega64, all for circa £100 cheaper. It runs cooler (60-66C), quieter and uses less power.

RTX is a joke on this card, if you're buying this card to use RTX you're a mug :D

Sure - it's a rubbish card^^
Click to expand...

Dont mind him, he bought a 1080ti for £579 so he thinks every rtx card is rubbish.
 

easyrider

easyrider

easyrider

Caporegime
Joined
24 Dec 2005
Posts
40,065
Location
Autonomy
Ian Evey said:
Dont mind him, he bought a 1080ti for £579 so he thinks every rtx card is rubbish.
Click to expand...

The 2060 is ram gimped with unusable feature set
The 2070 is my overpriced with unusable feature set
The 2080 is overpriced with unuseable feature set
The 2080ti offers 30 % increase of a 1080ti and costs £750 more

I don't think RTX cards are rubbbish...I damn well know it !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom