So still no upgrade worth it for us 1080ti users, unless we go RTX 2080 ti :-(

TIME SPY GTX 1080Ti Stock https://ibb.co/T8tRksX https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2019/07/a15e60a911210c0327c653d9102d0007.jpg

Navi 5700 and 5700XT will offer similiar performance as these super cards. It all comes down to pricing and features. Somehow whatever nvidia do rtx cards are still not interesting. Gtx turing cards are even worse.

2070S looks a bit better now, same price/aka improved price/performance which was by far the biggest issue with that card. Kinda ruined the 2060 with the S variant tho, lower price performance for their entry level card doesn't seem like a wise choice.

A wise move by Nvidia but still not that appealing, pricing could’ve been better. Hopefully the 2080 Super will come relatively close to the 2080 TI, now that would be interesting.

schmidtbag:

Kinda weird how they seem to be cannibalizing their own sales. The 2070 Super is pretty damn good compared to the 2080. If they had a GTX 1770 (or whatever it'd be called) that was basically the 2070 Super without RTX for a $100 price drop, I'd be very enticed to get that.

What sales?

NVIDIA Reports 45% Revenue Drop in Gaming Sales, Cites Lower Than Expected Sales of GeForce RTX 2080 and GeForce RTX 2070 Graphics Cards In the details shared by NVIDIA, the market to market revenue chart shows that Gaming was able to make $954 million in Q4 FY19 compared to $1764 million in the previous quarter. Not only does that make it a 46% decline from the previous quarter, but looking at Year-To-Year results, NVIDIA also saw a 45% decline.

They are loosing sales to their ridiculous pricing scheme. And will continue to loose them (imho) until something mainstream like 2060 gets back to ~250$ range instead of trying to be the 400$ part. No one cares for ray tracing, especially on card like 2060 that can't even do it properly. PS. We as customers SHOULD NOT CARE about how much money nVidia (or anyone else for that matter) invested into the tech. That's their problem.

If only the 2070's was like 50-70$ less, they'd be in the right spot imo. I know they probably have have to charge this price due to RD/production cost of the (currently) rather fluff Tensor/RT cores, which i think they should have kept as a premium choice only aka. on the 2080+ cards until it matured and becomes mainstream. As it is, i'll likely (praying to the AMD gods) be going with 5700xt/5800 depending on the price/performance it settles at. And then a question to those that are tech-savvy: the TDP... what would happen to the 'normal' 2070 if it was allowed +40 watt ?. I assume the architecture of the 2 cards are similar, or is it the extra transistors that calls for that extra TDP (maybe a silly question, NOT that technical minded... )

Webhiker:

So still no upgrade worth it for us 1080ti users, unless we go RTX 2080 ti :-(

Ampere! that's what i am waiting for.

Kinda makes me upset. I purchased my 2070 a lil b4 the Supers where popping up in rumors. So now a 2060S is faster(in most cases) than my 2070 and cheaper???? I feel raped!!! 😱

blitz72:

Kinda makes me upset. I purchased my 2070 a lil b4 the Supers where popping up in rumors. So now a 2060S is faster(in most cases) than my 2070 and cheaper???? I feel raped!!! 😱

Did you felt the presence of a leather jacket behind you???Then you were... Anyway in my opinion 2070 Super is a great deal. And by looking at the RTX On Metro Exodus WQHD 49 fps is not bad at all.

This has been a disappointing year for GPU's all around. The only card that has any interest for current 1080Ti owners who haven't already upgraded to a 2080Ti due to pricing is the 2080 Super. I'm not jumping on that ship this late in the product life cycle and will wait it out until next gen. These cards should have had these prices at the beginning of the RTX launch, but it feels way too little and too late at this point. Just my opinion. I'm sure the super release will make some folks happy.

Dazz:

Well thats depressing that the RTX270 Super is almost as fast as my RTX2080 at like nearly 40% less in less than 6 months.

People always say this, yet people who actually buy the cards almost never say this, why would anyone want progress to not...progress? Either way it's not "less than 6 months" RTX 2080 was released 9 and a half months ago, and by the time the RTX 2080 super is released (since it's not yet, releases on the 23rd according to the article) it'd be just over 10 months.

gx-x:

PS. We as customers SHOULD NOT CARE about how much money nVidia (or anyone else for that matter) invested into the tech. That's their problem.

That makes zero sense. Basically you're saying: We as customers want it all, better performance, better technology, innovation, BUT! we don't want to pay for it! As consumers we ALWAYS care about how much it takes to make a product because it determines what the price is, that IS for us to care for. And if we don't like the price, then we don't buy it, but if a company gives you something that is far beyond what other companies are giving you but costs more, it's your decision. It's always the customers decision to decide if a company made the right call or not, and to buy or not. What's next, are you going to go to Tesla and say "Hey this car that costs $60,000 to make, let alone R&D, yeah you're going to give it to me for $25,000, because i don't care about your costs".........right...... Companies have resource costs and R&D costs, and you can either deal with that fact, or live in some LaLa land.

SniperX:

These cards are now what they should have been from the start 😉

Totally agreed.

Pretty good here, 2070 super on same level or higher then the 1080ti and at a cheaper price, Not bad at all.

gx-x:

What sales? They are loosing sales to their ridiculous pricing scheme. And will continue to loose them (imho) until something mainstream like 2060 gets back to ~250$ range instead of trying to be the 400$ part. No one cares for ray tracing, especially on card like 2060 that can't even do it properly.

Touche.

PS. We as customers SHOULD NOT CARE about how much money nVidia (or anyone else for that matter) invested into the tech. That's their problem.

Well, I don't fully agree with that. Generally speaking, a company that invests a lot in a product is trying to make a legitimately good product. That doesn't necessarily mean the consumer should be paying extra for it (especially if we never asked for it) and that also doesn't mean the investment will yield the results they/we were hoping. But, the investment is very much worth our interest, because it shows a push for progress. Take Intel for example: they hardly put any investment in the CPUs they've been putting out on the market for the past 5 years, and it shows. They are, however, dumping a lot of money into other products, and which are very much worth caring about.

These cards are fine example of why competition is good for this industry. Faced with Navi Nvidia finally produced some good value cards. Now let's see AMD answer and we customers will be the ones winning.

;)

Aura89:

People always say this, yet people who actually buy the cards almost never say this, why would anyone want progress to not...progress? Either way it's not "less than 6 months" RTX 2080 was released 9 and a half months ago, and by the time the RTX 2080 super is released (since it's not yet, releases on the 23rd according to the article) it'd be just over 10 months. That makes zero sense. Basically you're saying: We as customers want it all, better performance, better technology, innovation, BUT! we don't want to pay for it! As consumers we ALWAYS care about how much it takes to make a product because it determines what the price is, that IS for us to care for. And if we don't like the price, then we don't buy it, but if a company gives you something that is far beyond what other companies are giving you but costs more, it's your decision. It's always the customers decision to decide if a company made the right call or not, and to buy or not. What's next, are you going to go to Tesla and say "Hey this car that costs $60,000 to make, let alone R&D, yeah you're going to give it to me for $25,000, because i don't care about your costs".........right...... Companies have resource costs and R&D costs, and you can either deal with that fact, or live in some LaLa land.

Tesla is probably one of the worst examples one could think of. It took them about 15 years to make a reasonable profit on their latest cars... But up to this day they're in at a loss 😉

FatBoyNL:

;) Tesla is probably one of the worst examples one could think of. It took them about 15 years to make a reasonable profit on their latest cars... But up to this day they're in at a loss 😉

Which is why it's a perfect example. People are not willing to buy their cars, specifically, people are not willing to pay what tesla wants them to pay based off their R&D. This is DIRECTLY caring about how much a company pays on its R&D and costs. You can dislike how much R&D went into a product and therefore how much it costs to you, the consumer, in the end because of it, specifically if it doesn't bring you anything you care about. But that's you CARING how much R&D went into it. Hence my original statement: Saying consumers shouldn't care how much R&D goes into a product makes zero sense. If you wish they put less and brought out more mediocre products, then thats what you care about, if you wish they'd be more innovative, and bring out more high end, high cost products, then that's what you care about. Everyone cares about the R&D that goes into products.

FatBoyNL:

Tesla is probably one of the worst examples one could think of. It took them about 15 years to make a reasonable profit on their latest cars... But up to this day they're in at a loss 😉

Aura89:

Which is why it's a perfect example. People are not willing to buy their cars, specifically, people are not willing to pay what tesla wants them to pay based off their R&D. This is DIRECTLY caring about how much a company pays on its R&D and costs.

I don't think Tesla's profit margins have much at all to do with the discussion at hand. Despite their debts, their products are clearly in high demand, enough so that they've pretty much single-handedly re-introduced the personal EV industry. Not to mention the waiting lists. The reason they're in so much debt is because they went all-out in anticipation of a profitable future. They designed or are in the process of designing almost everything in-house. They don't use/support 3rd parties for anything, whether that be dealerships, repair centers, or parts suppliers. They built most of their facilities. All of this is absurdly expensive, way beyond what most people would probably assume. The only reason they're able to do any of this is because Musk already had enough money to throw into this project due to stuff like eBay and PayPal. They're still investing more of their own technology and building more of their own facilities, so their profit margins are still going to be crap. But eventually, the dust will settle. When that happens, that doesn't necessarily mean it'll work in Tesla's favor. After all, competition is growing, and fast. My point is their spending sprees won't last forever, which obviously affects profits. In the case of Nvidia, they're already a well-established brand with huge profits to begin with. They can dump billions of dollars into something and although they expect their customers to foot that bill, they're probably going to be fine if it doesn't pan out that way. But, I highly doubt Nvidia spent billions working on RT cores. So as far as I'm concerned, their prices aren't based on R&D costs but rather having an edge over the competition. Of course, an edge that they overestimated.

Price & Performance getting better here from NVidia, but not game changers for Pascal owners - just a somewhat subtle rebalancing of price/performance to compete with upcoming AMD products.