Closing Thoughts

All things considered, it’s been a while since we’ve had anything approaching a complete mid-generation refresh from NVIDIA. After doing 2-year cycles with the GeForce 900 and GeForce 10 series, the company could seemingly do it again with the 20/16 series – and certainly, that’s where their GPU development cadence lies. However the launch of AMD’s capable Radeon RX 5700 series of cards, not to mention the slugging sales of the original GeForce 20 series cards, has changed all of this just enough to give NVIDIA a good reason to release a refreshed line of cards. And of the three Super cards, today we’re finally seeing the fastest of them all, the GeForce RTX 2080 Super.

None of the Super cards are meant to dramatically change NVIDIA’s product stack, and for the RTX 2080 Super, this is especially the case. The RTX 2060 Super and RTX 2070 Super are NVIDIA’s answer to the new Radeon cards, so the RTX 2080 Super isn’t strictly necessary. However because NVIDIA used what amounts to a slightly scaled-back RTX 2080 for the new RTX 2070 Super, in the process they made the original RTX 2080 redundant; at $200 cheaper, it’s the clear choice if compared to that original card. Which means that if NVIDIA is going to even offer a card between the RTX 2070 Super and RTX 2080 Ti – and specifically, to keep the $699 price point viable – they needed something at least a bit faster than the RTX 2080. And they’ve delivered just that in the RTX 2080 Super.

To be sure, the RTX 2080 Super is the smallest performance jump of any of the Super cards. While the other cards delivered around 15% better performance per dollar than their vanilla predecessors, the RTX 2080 Super is only about half that, at 8%. Which is enough to be meaningful and enough to justify a new SKU (especially with the hardware changes), but it’s not a card that changes the video card calculus significantly. Instead, it’s exactly what it says on the tin: a slightly faster 2080 delivering a bit more performance (and performance per dollar) than before.

Buried inside of this – and making an otherwise by-the-books launch into something a bit more interesting – is NVIDIA’s choice of VRAM. 16Gbps GDDR6 has been on the development roadmaps for quite some time, and now we finally have a video card using it. Bumping up their memory frequency – even if it’s just to 15.5Gbps – was a good choice to ensure that the card remained well-fed after NVIDIA turned up the clocks on the fully-enabled TU104 GPU.

And looking at the broader picture, this is one of those small but important steps in ensuring that video card performance continues to grow over the coming years. With everyone seemingly done launching cards for now, I’m not sure we’ll see 16Gbps memory show up anywhere else, but it’s a good sign that come 2020, Samsung and the other memory manufacturers will be ready to deliver much-needed higher capacity memory at the same 16Gbps speeds.

Meanwhile, if there is a downside to the RTX 2080 Super from a technical perspective, it’s power consumption. The 250W TDP card actually struggles a bit to chow down on all 250 Watts, so in the real-world the card isn’t always as thirsty as the paper specs say. However it’s still requires more power than the RTX 2080 vanilla, and the increase is more than the associated 8% performance increase. So NVIDIA’s overall power efficiency on this card, while still reasonably good, is lower than other high-end Turing cards.

Performance Summary (4K)
  Price Relative Performance Relative
Perf-Per-Dollar
RTX 2080 Super vs. RTX 2080 $699 +8% +8%
RTX 2080 Super vs. RTX 2070 Super $499 +13% -19%
RTX 2080 Super vs. RTX 2080 Ti $1150 -15% +39%
RTX 2080 Super vs. GTX 1080 $499 +60% +14%
RTX 2080 Super vs. Radeon RX 5700 XT $399 +24% -29%

As for what all of this means for video card buyers then, the situation remains relatively straightforward. AMD’s Radeon VII never really got traction in this space, and the RTX 2080 Super will clear the field. At $699, it’s the best option by far, and as a result it’s really the only option.

Instead, the lingering question is the cards below and above the RTX 2080 Super, namely the RTX 2080 Ti, RTX 2070 Super, and AMD’s Radeon RX 5700 XT. As far as the RTX 2080 Ti is concerned, it’s still a distinctly faster card, delivering around 18% better performance at 4K, and all at the same power consumption, no less. It’s also $450 more expensive, which was hard to justify before the RTX 2080 Super launched, and is even harder to justify post-Super. That card has its place in the world – it is after all the fastest GeForce – but it’s definitely a card you buy only if you can truly part with the money. Otherwise, the RTX 2080 Super is a bit of a spoiler, which its much better performance-per-dollar ratio.

Equally spoiling matters from the other end, however, are the RTX 2070 Super and Radeon RX 5700 XT. These cards are distinctly slower than the RTX 2080 Super – the 2080 leads the 2070 by 14%, for example – but then they’re $200 and $300 cheaper respectively. As a result, while they aren’t in the same performance tier, they offer even better performance for the money than the RTX 2080 Super. Spoilers are always hard to assign an absolute value to, but I will say that the RTX 2080 Super is almost overpowered for 1440p; at least unless you’re using a high refresh rate display.

As for gamers looking for an upgrade, the limited performance bump on the RTX 2080 Super means that things haven’t really changed here. GeForce 10 series owners who are looking to spend no more than they did last time can easily stay put. Meanwhile the original RTX 2080 was already a solid upgrade for the GTX 980 (Ti), and the RTX 2080 Super improves on that a bit. The GTX 980 Ti launched at almost the same price point, and with the RTX 2080 Super offering almost 2x the performance, it fits the usual upgrade cadence well. The same goes for upgrades from AMD’s Radeon Fury cards, for that matter.

Past that, it seems like after two months of tit-for-tat, the video card industry may be ready to take its own summer vacation. AMD has made their big move, and NVIDIA hasn’t announced any more Super cards. I don’t expect that we’re going to be done for the year – there still needs to be lower-end AMD Navi cards at some point – but barring any more surprises, it looks like the high-end of the market has fallen into place for the next several months. It’s still very much NVIDIA’s market, but the fact that we’re even talking about a refreshed RTX 2080 card means that things have changed, and that they’ve changed for the better.

Power, Temperatures, & Noise
Comments Locked

111 Comments

View All Comments

  • Cellar Door - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    The delta compression used by Nvidia is loseless.
  • notashill - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    If memory bandwidth was "the" bottleneck then the Radeon VII would be the fastest consumer level GPU on the market by an enormous margin.
  • Samus - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    Sadly I think you are right. While commendable AMD has always pushed higher memory capacities to the mainstream, their focus on memory bandwidth has never really paid off, and at a huge expense to die area for the larger memory controller, and obviously an energy efficiency deficit. This is why 3-channel memory was dropped in favor of reversion back to two channel with the Intel X58 chipset. It would be years before we would move beyond two channel again, and even then - quad channel never became mainstream.

    The reason is simple. Even on single channel, Intel CPU’s especially show extraordinary memory performance. The controller is well optimized and cache hit rates are high. Likewise, Nvidia using excellent compression with optimized caches makes high memory bandwidth unnecessary.
  • willis936 - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    SISD benefits greatly from caching and ILP. SIMD doesn’t need to run ILP to keep execution units busy so it chews through memory bandwidth by comparison. There is also quick diminishing returns on GPU cache size. GPUs have 20x the memory bandwidth of CPUs for a good reason: they use it.
  • flyingpants265 - Monday, July 29, 2019 - link

    Somewhat related to the subject of compression... adaptive resolution is by far the best graphics technology I have ever seen. Render at 1800p, drop down to 1400p when below the target framerate, and upscale everything to 4k. No need to buy the highest-end graphics card anymore. If we had adaptive resolution when Far Cry 1 came out, there would have been no market for the 6800, just use a 6600.

    Combine with checkerboarding for console, which is impressive in its own right by NEAR-HALVING the workload. So render at half 1800p every other frame (equivalent of about 2300*1300 pixels, so 1.44x 1080p, not 4.0x) and get a generated 4k image.
  • notashill - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    Radeon VII has double the bandwidth for the same price but it doesn't really help performance at least in games. I think there has been more focus on effectively utilizing bandwidth because making the buses wider can get really expensive.
  • Smell This - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    Hard to say . . .
    GDDR6 has a good deal of *theoretical* bandwidth on the table, there is the economical 'ghetto-HBM2' from Sammy, and HBM3 in the short-term.

    We are likely to hear about Radeon **Navi-Instinct** pro cards this quarter, in addition to a Titan/Ampere 7nm HPC update. I'm thinking the trend will continue toward more efficient 'wider' bandwidth and advances in compression algorhtms, too.
  • wr3zzz - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    How are these new cards draw so much more power than GTX980 under load yet have lower load temperature and noise? Are the new fans that good?
  • Ryan Smith - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    Blower versus open air (axial) cooler.
  • Betonmischer - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    Absolutely, if you compare against the reference blower that Nvidia used prior to RTX 20.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now