airbud7:

nope...but I have 5 days left to get this deal....what you think bro?...do it or wait? https://i.postimg.cc/8k0zxNyq/rtx-2060.png Thanks

I know you were being snarky:D but for realz imho you wait they have a giga vega 56 for 270 plus Div2 wwz games nothing @300us that nv has priced atm can compare ii guess give or take but that's old I know maybe like the 2060????:D i am oo this fish still is not biting its going to be a little more consumer friendly in the next month or so I think the 256 bus 2060 Is worth waiting for I have been waiting so its no biggie. I also will look at navi if they screw up the price but I just rather have rtx just saying

angelgraves13:

Pointless refresh. I feel like all the good stuff is a year away. Nvidia 7nm, PCI-Express 4.0/5.0, USB4.

MicroLED/MiniLED, HL2ep3

https://media.giphy.com/media/RHiD0K65NxxLO/giphy.gif

It will be interesting to see what the retail price of the 2060super is because the jump from the 2060 is quite significant both on the cores, the ROPS, the amount of memory and the memory bus now up to 256bit. It looks like the card nvidia should have had all along for people wanting to do 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 gaming. Looking forward to how that competes against navi and prices as finally I think my 970GTX can be replaced be a good jump at not too horrible a price... maybe.

HeavyHemi:

There are a lot of folks who pay what some consider foolish amounts on their hobbies for an extra fraction of a percent in performance...

Yep. Audiophiles would laugh at GPU price bickering 😀. http://www.msbtechnology.com/dacs/reference-pricing/

Niche crowd, audiophiles Niche crowd, Pro workload GPU's (where likely its a corporation paying for the hardware not individuals) Not Niche crowd, mainstream 3d graphics accelerator cards for vidya gamez apples and tomatoes

HeavyHemi:

Why would I buy a lesser performing GPU from AMD to send a message? Am I a charity? Over priced is in the mind of the buyer. Blaming the customer for AMD's failure to address the high end and enthusiast GPU space is a losing strategy. There are a lot of folks who pay what some consider foolish amounts on their hobbies for an extra fraction of a percent in performance. Why are GPU's any different? Does it affect you in any way besides it being more expensive in your subjective view than you would like? If you're a professional, you're in a different market. I have a slightly different take. I blame AMD for the lack of competition in the high end, the space that grabs the eyeballs for the pricing. Secondarily, I did not upgrade from a 1080 Ti because, subjectively for me, it was not worth the price. I've got a cherry one that runs all day at 2050 and 12ghz on the memory. I'm personally waiting for the next node shrink and we'll see where we are there. These are my opinions.

You can buy what you what. I was not telling folk to do anything. I am merely commenting about the comments of over pricing and how competition is needed. Thing about high end GPU's is that they are not a "Needed" commodity, is more of a "Want" item for the majority of buyers; unless your income is based on using them. This is where consumers can insert more control on prices. The Navi 20 cards will not be cheap either. They will be "competitively priced as they should be if they perform. So go ahead and buy what you want.

They clain that 2070super is faster than 1080ti. Are we there yet? possible? with 1000 cuda core less?

What makes these cards 'Super'?

Is the "Palit GeForce RTX 2070 Super JetStream" an actual "GeForce RTX 2070 Super" card? If so, it's available and in stock (for a rather high price) at a local retailer. The clerk claimed it was, but I doubt it. Sadly, he didn't want to take it out of the display behind the counter because he'd have to go fetch the key, thus I couldn't check the specs on the box. If it's just a regular RTX 2070 the naming could cause a lot of confusion.

Expected price may be lower for the Supers than thought:

....the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER will be launching on 23rd of July for a price of $699 US which is $100 lower than the GeForce RTX 2080 Founders Edition. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER will be launching on 9th of July for a price of $499 US which is also $100 US lower than the GeForce RTX 2070 Founders Edition. Lastly, the GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER will be launching at a price of $399 US which is $50 US more expensive than the GeForce RTX 2060 but the reason behind that is the higher VRAM and better core configuration which puts the graphics card on par with the GeForce RTX 2070 (non-SUPER).

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-rtx-20-super-price-leak-2080-super-699-2070-super-499-2060-super-399/

Fox2232:

No, those are not rebrands. GPU may have same number of CU/TMU/ROPs, but inside it is newer version of GCN. (Changes included doubling of geometry processing which was rather weak on Tahiti in comparison to nVidia's counterparts.)

I'm confused why some of these things are not considered rebrands. I mean, i guess you could call them a refresh, but AMDs lineup of GPUs with GCN got very confusing. I mean cmon there were 4 different generations of architectures on the 200 series of GPUs. Terascale 2, GCN 1, GCN 2 and GCN 3 But, many of these, for instance what was listed above as a 7970 and stated were not rebrands, were rebrands in the 200 series. There were maybe slight improvements on frequencies to make them not a "direct" rebrand, but they were still rebrands. 7970, GCN 1, core config: 2048:128:32, size: 352mm2, memory: GDDR5 384-bit 8970, GCN 1, core config: 2048:128:32, size: 352mm2, memory: GDDR5 384-bit 280X, GCN 1, core config: 2048:128:32, size: 352mm2, memory: GDDR5 384-bit Now this is just one card of many that have been rebranded multiple times in the last...what, 8 years? The fact they have so many generations of architectures in a "new" generation of video cards is why there are so many "rebrands", sometimes it's in the high end, sometimes it's in the low end. HD 6000 series: 2 Generations of architectures HD 7000 series: 3 Generations of architectures HD 8000 series: 3 Generations of architectures 200 series: 4 Generations of architectures 300 series: 3 Generations of architectures 400 series: 3 Generations of architectures 500 series: 3 Generations of architectures Every single generation of GPU in the last 9 years (did not check more) appear to have some rebrands, sometimes many, sometimes small, sometimes in their high-end and low-end, sometimes only in their low-end. Compared to nvidia in the last 9 years 400 series: 2 Generations of architectures 500 series: 1 Generation of architecture 600 series: 2 Generations of architectures 700 series: 3 Generations of architectures 900 series: 1 Generation of architecture 10 series: 1 Generation of architecture 16/20 series: 1 Generation of architecture Like others have stated, 700 series was nvidias "worst" series in regards to having rebrands, and it was confusing. It started out as a refresh of the 600 series, then fermi cards appeared in the lowerish end, and then some maxwell cards from the 900 series showed up to. It was a mess. Now, the reason i'm stating all this is that i feel it should be understandable when people look at AMDs past history of their GPUs and not being happy that they appear to be rebranding their cards a lot, as...they do, it's not always with the same tier of cards, but they rebrand, a ton, especially compared to nvidia.

Is this common practice? https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1144609300737908737

Fox2232:

@Aura89 : Rebrand is when particular GPU is used in multiple named generations. It is not rebrand if multiple GPU generations end up with same naming scheme.

I just want to point out i never said that the changes within the same generation (for instance 7970 and 7970 ghz edition or whatever) were rebrands. My point of view is any time there is a SINGLE change, it's no longer a rebrand. be that node size, memory bandwidth etc. When it comes to frequencies, that gets a little....tricky, as in some places i feel they are rebrands if they are too close to performance, AKA there's not enough of a performance gap, but if a "new" GPU in a "next-generation" naming has exactly the same architecture, node size, memory bandwidth, etc. but has 25% more performance due to a 25% higher frequency by default, i wouldn't really call that a rebrand. And no matter what view you take at it, AMD has rebranded way more products, in all tiers of their performances, then nvidia has, at least in the last 9-10 years. And the way i displayed my information is purposeful and not in my opinion worse then they are, it shows how much cross-architecture play is being done within AMDs namings vs Nvidia, which directly affects how much rebranding is going on within them. You can't have a generation of graphics cards with rebranding in it if there are only 1, new, architecture. But a generation that has 4 of them like the 200 series, or even 2 of them, shows there's likely rebranding. I mean cmon, i don't care that this is low-end, this is messed up: Radeon HD 5450, Terascale 1, 59 mm2, 80:8:4 core config, 40nm, released in 2010 Radeon R5 210, Terascale 1, 59 mm2, 80:8:4 core config, 40nm, released in 2013(maybe 2014?) And no i don't care that the 210 is for "oem" My personal wish from BOTH companies is that they would never do this. Each generation, in my opinion, should never have anything leach over from the previous generation, unless it's a refresh. I get the point of refreshes even if i don't like them. But if i buy a card out of AMDs 200 series, i should not have to worry that it might actually be a terascale 2 GPU from Radeon 5000 series multiple generations from before, no matter if it's low end, or high end, it doesn't matter, i shouldn't have to worry about that. That's realistically my one and any standpoint, is that none of us should have to dig majorly into a GPU to make certain that you're not buying a "brand new GPU" that is actually 1 or more generations old. And fact is, AMD does this far more then nvidia does.

Fox2232:

Those lower end cards would not pay for themselves. Imagine 4~5 tapeouts per generation to cover entire scale. hat would put AMD into red numbers much more than they were.

I'm not saying they should make new low-end cards every generation, i'm saying they shouldn't release "new" cards that are old cards ever, regardless if it's low-end or not. Look at nvidia, they don't release low-end cards every generation. GTX 900 series only went lowest to 950 (not talking mobile), and i highly doubt there will be a 16/20 series low-end GPU. Neither of them NEED to have a new "named" low end GPU every generation. Yet AMD makes "new" low end GPUs every single generation it seems. Radeon HD 2400 (Terascale 1) Radeon HD 3400 (Terascale 1) Radeon HD 4350 (Terascale 1) Radeon HD 5450 (Terascale 1) Radeon HD 6350 (Terascale 2) Radeon HD 7350 (Terascale 2) Radeon HD 8350 (Terascale 2) Radeon R5 210 (Terascale 2) Radeon R5 330 (GCN1) Radeon R5 430 (GCN1) Radeon 520 (GCN1) That's 12 years of "low-end GPUs" that only have 3 generations of architectures in them. If they don't have something to replace a low end card next generation, they should continue to make the same low-end card with the same naming until they do. I mean imagine with these new RX 5000 series, such as the RX 5700, which is navi, the whole thing people have been interested in, and they make an RX 5300, and it's a GCN 1 rebrand...again(Radeon 520 is GCN 1), and has nothing to do with navi. I'm not saying that'll be what happens, but again given their track record, i would say it's likely. Yes, i know, i'm focusing on low-end here, but my point is, it's not always low end, but again, the whole point is: AMD rebrands a lot, this is fact, and people being upset about it should be understandable. I'm not happy either company rebrands, but if i'm going to have an issue with any company about rebranding, it's going to be AMD. They either rebrand, or tell us a brand new generation is "new" while using old generation parts in it way too often. To me, it seems like AMD puts out a smokescreen, makes it look like they are releasing new products after new products after new products, when in reality every generation they release very little "new" products. And this is with me: An AMD fan.

$499 for the 2060 Super? Hard pass.

Picolete:

Is this common practice? https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1144609300737908737

yes amd just did it two weeks ago move on 499? is that what it said? I can get a real 2070 for 470

0blivious:

$499 for the 2060 Super? Hard pass.

Doubt it. Thats higher than current 2070 market pricing (roughly $470). Fwiw....

....the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER will be launching on 23rd of July for a price of $699 US which is $100 lower than the GeForce RTX 2080 Founders Edition. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER will be launching on 9th of July for a price of $499 US which is also $100 US lower than the GeForce RTX 2070 Founders Edition. Lastly, the GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER will be launching at a price of $399 US which is $50 US more expensive than the GeForce RTX 2060 but the reason behind that is the higher VRAM and better core configuration which puts the graphics card on par with the GeForce RTX 2070 (non-SUPER). https://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-rtx-20-super-price-leak-2080-super-699-2070-super-499-2060-super-399/

pegasus1:

What makes these cards 'Super'?

When talking about the RTX cards...the price! cause it sure isnt the performance. The RTX cards just became RTX 2080 Super Expensive editions. RTX is the most useless overpriced and unwanted "feature" ive ever seen slapped on a line of cards. I get it that they had to get the technology out but they should have ONLY had it on the titan. That is the only card that is powerful enough to sort of run it and its already stupidly expensive but atleast then it would have a reason for its price and would make is truly different. As things are now, Nvidia is out of their damn minds. $800-900 for the Ti version of the newest card, THAT IS IT for myself and most people. They are going to push alot of people to consoles with prices like this. RTX ON...FPS OFF....no thanks!

Slammy:

When talking about the RTX cards...the price! cause it sure isnt the performance. The RTX cards just became RTX 2080 Super Expensive editions. RTX is the most useless overpriced and unwanted "feature" ive ever seen slapped on a line of cards. I get it that they had to get the technology out but they should have ONLY had it on the titan. That is the only card that is powerful enough to sort of run it and its already stupidly expensive but atleast then it would have a reason for its price and would make is truly different. As things are now, Nvidia is out of their damn minds. $800-900 for the Ti version of the newest card, THAT IS IT for myself and most people. They are going to push alot of people to consoles with prices like this. RTX ON...FPS OFF....no thanks!

Sure, no argument there. But.... your Asus 7800 GTX in 2005 pricing ($560?) was just as much a rip-off as the RTX cards today, taking inflation, tech complexity and other variables into account.