The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 6GB Founders Edition Review: Not Quite Mainstream
by Nate Oh on January 7, 2019 9:00 AM ESTClosing Thoughts
As we bring this to a close, we are again revisiting the central themes of the GeForce RTX 20 series across the launches: forward-looking featuresets that are not widely available, premium pricing based on those hardware features, and competition with existing Pascal products due to comparable conventional gaming performance. This time, however, the last two have played out a little differently. Pascal-based GTX 1080, 1070 Ti, and 1070s are not so readily available and/or are at higher prices. And although the price premium pushes the GeForce RTX 2060 (6GB) out of the traditional mainstream home of the x60 part, it puts it firmly in contention against the Radeon RX Vega cards and to a lesser extent the recently-launched Radeon RX 590.
As a whole, in developing Turing and the GeForce RTX 20 series, NVIDIA has invested heavily in hybrid rendering, offering less price-to-performance for conventional gaming than usual for new GPU architectures. This has been compounded by excess Pascal inventory, a result of the cryptocurrency mining demand of the past year or two. The RTX 2060 (6GB) is no exception, and while it is a better price-to-performance offering relative to its older siblings, it’s simply no longer a ‘mainstream’ video card at $350, instead occupying the ‘value-enthusiast’ space.
For conventional gaming, if the RTX 2080 is akin to the GTX 1080 Ti and the RTX 2070 like the GTX 1080, then the RTX 2060 (6GB) truly performs like the GTX 1070 Ti. By the numbers, the RTX 2060 (6GB) is 2-3% faster than the GTX 1070 Ti at 1440p and 1080p, though comparison becomes a wash at 4K. In turn, reference-to-reference the RTX 2060 (6GB) is around 11% faster than the RX Vega 56 at 1440p/1080p, narrowing to 8% at 4K. There are hints that the 6GB framebuffer might be limiting, especially with unexpectedly low 99th percentile framerates at Wolfenstein II in 4K, though nothing to the extent that older 4GB GTX 900 series cards have experienced.
Potential VRAM bottlenecks is something that needs further investigation, but more to the point, this is a $350 card featuring only 6GB VRAM. Now it is admittedly performing 14-15% ahead of the 8GB GTX 1070, a card that at MSRP was a relatively close $379, but it also means that NVIDIA has essentially regressed in VRAM capacity at this price point. In terms of the larger RTX lineup, 6GB is a bit more reasonable progression compared to the 8GB of the RTX 2070 and RTX 2080, but it is something to revisit if there are indeed lower-memory cut-down variants of the RTX 2060 on the way, or if games continue the historical path of always needing more framebuffer space. The biggest question here isn't whether it will impact the card right now, but whether 6GB will still be enough even a year down the line.
Generationally, the RTX 2060 (6GB) does bring more to the table, offering roughly 86% of the performance of the RTX 2070 for 70% of the price. Or against its direct predecessor, the GTX 1060 6GB, it’s faster by around 59%. In context, the GTX 1060 6GB was 80-85% faster than the GTX 960 (2GB) at launch, where presently that gap is more along the lines of 2X or more, with increased framebuffer the primary driver. But at $200, the GTX 960 was a true mainstream card, as was the GTX 1060 6GB at its $249 MSRP, despite the $299 Founders Edition pricing.
What makes the $350 pricing at least a bit more reasonable is its Radeon competition. Against RX Vega at its current prices the RTX 2060 (6GB) is near-lethal, so if AMD wants to keep their Vega cards as viable market competitors, they are going to have to reduce prices. Reference-to-reference, the RTX 2060 (6GB) is already bringing around 95% of RX Vega 64 performance, so card pricing will make all the difference. The same goes for the RX 590, whose position in the ‘performance gap’ between the RX Vega 56 and RX 580 is now shared. And alongside potential price changes, there are still the value-adds of game bundles and FreeSync compatibility.
At least, that would have been the straightforward case for AMD if not for yesterday’s announcement of game bundles for RTX cards, as well as ‘G-Sync Compatibility’, where NVIDIA cards will support VESA Adaptive Sync. That driver is due on the same day of the RTX 2060 (6GB) launch, and it could mean the eventual negation of AMD’s FreeSync ecosystem advantage.
Like the RTX 2070, the RTX 2060 (6GB) is less suited as an option for most high-end GTX 10 series owners, and with 6GB VRAM as it’s a little less tempting than it could be as a move up from the GTX 1060 6GB or GTX 980 Ti. The card offers known performance along the lines of the GTX 1070 Ti and at very similar power consumption, but brings better value than existing higher-end RTX 20 series models. And this time, there’s less of a spoiler effect from older Pascal models.
Compared to previous generations, it’s not breaking the price-to-performance curve, as it is still an RTX card and pulling double-duty as the new entry-point for RTX platform support. That being said, there is no mincing words about the continuing price creep of the past two GeForce series. The price-to-performance characteristics of the RTX 2070, 2080, and 2080 Ti is what renders the RTX 2060 (6GB) a better value in comparison, and not necessarily because it is great value in absolute terms. But as an upgrade from older mainstream cards, the RTX 2060 (6GB) price point is a lot more reasonable than the RTX 2070’s $500+, where there more of the price premium is from forward-looking hardware-accelerated features like realtime raytracing.
So the RTX 2060 (6GB) would be the most suitable for gamers that aren’t gung-ho early adopters or longtime enthusiasts. The caveat is on the 6GB framebuffer, keeping in mind that the 4GB GTX 980 and 970 now punch below their weight in certain games, given the trends of HDR, HD texture packs, high-refresh rates, and more. Beyond that, the RTX 2060 (6GB) and RTX 2070 comes with a choice of Anthem or Battlefield V, as part of the new bundle. For a prospective buyer, this might not justify $500 but might outweigh $350, especially as realtime raytracing can be immediately tried out with Battlefield V. In the same way, upcoming support for adaptive sync could do the same for those looking to upgrade to a monitor with variable refresh rate.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
134 Comments
View All Comments
RIFLEMAN007 - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
Those people can stick with the lower-end card, this card is in a separate class, why are people comparing them in the first place lol. This card should be compared with the Vega 56 on the AMD side....Manch - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
That's a logical fallacy.10 gallons of premium gas ($2.60) is only 00.002498438476% more than regular ($2.50) in my $40K truck.
However for my my $500 riding lawnmower that would be .1904751904762%
If we were to take your example to the extreme, then you would need to add in the cost of electricity, factor in the percentage of your heating/cooling bill, house structure, lot, cost of living, price of your birth...and anything else that's a factor in the operation of the computer, because otherwise you would be making the common mistake of calculating price/performance as though computers operate without existence...
In actuality premium being typically 10 cents more per gallon is in fact 4% more, bc like GPU's you are comparing the product to a similar product.
In the case of the 580 & 2060, a 75% increase in price for 50% more performance with the caveat of DLSS & RT are also included.
CiccioB - Wednesday, January 9, 2019 - link
Yours is a fallacy in logic.You are comparing single time purchasing cost to expendable resources. Your logic in fact is good when you buy a serve class HW where the purchase cost of the mere HW is only a fraction of the cost of the entire cost needed to male it run, with energy and cooling system taking the bigger part of the bill.
Here we are saying that you have bought a $40K truck and adding that $50 comfortable chair is not that expensive instead of buying that other bare wooden chair.
Yes with the latter you would have $50 more in your pocket but at the cost of diminished comfort which you could have enjoyed for a $50/$40K % more in the truck purchase.
And yet, about consuming, buying an AMD card to have the same performance than nvidia's is going to use more "fuel" and so cost more as much as you use it for as long as you use it.
It's like buying a $40K truck engine that AMD has to sell at $10 to have the same performance and appeal (seen the fact that is not really that "smart") of a $20 muscle car.
You can see why many go directly for the $20 car despite the AMD discount on their crap product.
Manch - Friday, January 11, 2019 - link
Wow, OK. Pick anything not consumable then. Although a GPU can be considered expendable as they tend to go obsolete in the life time of a set of tires. Hardly a one time cost or do you not upgrade? The consumability of the product isn't the point nor does it have any bearing though.His point would be fine if you were comparing an entire system DIY or prebuilt system. Lets say a Dell vs HP. All things equal except for the GPU and the price reflected that, OK fine. But were comparing only the GPUs. @ 3k it's 4.7% @ 1.5K it's 11% of total cost. Then if were comparing system price, then total system perf comes into play not just the GPU perf. Thats the trap you both are falling into.
Lets be clear. I'm not advocating the AMD card or the Nvidia card. I'm merely pointing out the trap he and yourself is falling into with such an argument.
TBF if you're looking at a card with 2060 perf, then you're not considering the 580. If you're looking to make a 1080 gaming machine, the 580 is fine, the 2060 is overkill along with your 3K system.
eva02langley - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link
And cost 75% more. Also, we are talking about FPS so it is a non-linear comparison. Anyway it is still not awesome value.If Navi is 15% faster than a Vega 64 and cost 100$ less than a RTX 2060, you understand the 2060 RTX is still fairly overpriced. There is still no value here and you might be able to grab a similar card for less if you find a good deal.
D. Lister - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
"If Navi is 15% faster than a Vega 64 and cost 100$ less than a RTX 2060..."What if it is 100% faster than Vega 64, and they give it away for free? Heck, what if they threw a big chocolate cake into the deal and Lisa Su personally came to my house to spoon-feed it to me while a hot chick cosplaying as Ruby stripped for my entertainment? C'mon, my fantasy may be slightly more unrealistic than yours but it is certainly a lot more fun.
CiccioB - Wednesday, January 9, 2019 - link
Problem is that most probably AMD has to price their high end card to that low price to have a chance to sell it.If, as it seems, Navi has not RT, DLSS, mesh shading (without speaking about multi-projection which helps a lot in VR, and Voxel effects acceleration which, alas, have not been developed up to now due to their lack of support on the crappy console HW) they will run only in the lower segment of the market.
Their possibly high frames will all be fake as the use of a single advanced effect supported by the competition will make them fall as fast as a falling lead stone.
Yet, we will have hoards of AMD fanboy crying out for the "Gameswork" tricks and bells and twists and nvidia payment to the developers an all the things we have already heard since AMD solutions have not been able to keep up with nvidia's advanced solutions that do not require simple brute force, that is since AMD acquired ATI, when the simple reality is that they have been behind in technological development and requires the market to slow down to not leave them in the dust.
zepi - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link
I don't know what mushrooms you are eating, but I want some of those as well.https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2299?vs=23...
RX580 is totally beaten by RTX 2060. Not quite double the performance, but not far from it. Not to mention perf/w, perf/money, noise, etc. characteristics, which are boatloads better than on the AMD card.
zepi - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link
Sorry, RX 580 noise levels seem to be quite reasonable. I've been watching mostly Vega since it is only thing that is actually a proper upgrade for me.sing_electric - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link
Not sure what you mean by "watching," but if you mean "waiting for a price drop," I wouldn't hold my breath. The HBM2 memory on those boards is significantly more expensive than the stuff found on Nvidia's, plus, the cards are very power hungry (which not only is a concern for the user, but also means that they need circuitry on board to deliver that large amount of power, which also adds to the cost to make the card).