With AMD set to launch their new 1080p-focused Radeon RX 5600 XT next Tuesday, NVIDIA isn’t wasting any time in shifting their own position to prepare for AMD’s latest video card. Just in time for next week’s launch, the company and its partners have begun cutting the prices of their GeForce RTX 2060 cards. This includes NVIDIA’s own Founders Edition card as well, with the company cutting the price of that benchmark card to $299.

The timing, of course, is anything but coincidental. AMD’s Radeon RX 5600 XT announcement back at CES already revealed a significant portion of AMD’s hand, particularly that the card would launch at $279, and that the company is expecting the card to outperform NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 1660 Ti, their own $279 card. Assuming AMD’s performance claims hold true, then NVIDIA would need to act; either the GTX 1660 Ti or RTX 2060 would need to come down in price for NVIDIA to maintain a competitive edge, and the latter is the direction NVIDIA has decided to take.

Even at $299, the RTX 2060 is not going to be a precise counter to the $279 RX 5600 XT. But the junior TU106 card packs more performance than the GTX 1660 Ti, as well as the complete Turing architecture feature set, making it the strongest hand NVIDIA can play. As always, we’ll see where things land on Tuesday for both AMD and NVIDIA, but it should make for an interesting fight.

On the whole, price adjustments for NVIDIA are quite rare. While prices of NVIDIA cards do tend to fall over time, the company seldom adjusts official pricing in any capacity. Even this week’s cuts aren’t wholly official; NVIDIA hasn’t announced a price cut so much as sent out a reminder that RTX 2060 cards can be found for $299. But regardless, where NVIDIA leads on pricing their board partners will follow, and EVGA, Gigabyte, and others have already begun releasing new cards and shifting the pricing of other cards to reach the new $299 level.

Q1 2020 GPU Pricing Comparison
AMD Price NVIDIA
Radeon RX 5700 $329  
  $299 GeForce RTX 2060
Radeon RX 5600 XT $279 GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
  $229 GeForce GTX 1660 Super
Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB $199/$209 GeForce GTX 1660
Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB $169/$159 GeForce GTX 1650 Super
  $149 GeForce GTX 1650
POST A COMMENT

59 Comments

View All Comments

  • Alistair - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link

    Your link is proof, not debunking. You can't make this up (I don't know about you, but I like to pay $400 to play shooter games at 900p...). Reply
  • Daironhorse - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link

    People just dont understand that new technology takes time to be implemented and probably think it's the same as it was at release Reply
  • eek2121 - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link

    Especially considering there are 3 additional Navi models rumored to be remaining to be released (based on multiple sources, as well as AMD themselves stating that we will see 'Big Navi'.)

    I expect the GPU market to see at least a brief shakeup this year.
    Reply
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link

    Big Navi will add some life, but the GPU market will see a big shakeup this year because NVIDIA will be launching a new architecture during the second half of the year. Reply
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link

    It should be $50 if you ask me.

    But who says Turing sales are bad? How can their latest quarterly (Q3) gaming revenue be higher than it was in Q3 2 years ago and 3 years ago if Turing is doing so badly? And that while 2 years ago there was appreciable crypto demand unlike now, in addition to there now being a slowdown in the China gaming market due to the government choosing to slow down the approval of new titles.

    I'm guessing the idea that Turing is not selling well is just something that people have been repeating over and over so people assume it must be true.
    Reply
  • Beaver M. - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link

    Check the Steam surveys. Compare their numbers to last generations.
    They are selling horribly.
    Reply
  • Yojimbo - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link

    Company financial results are much more accurate measures than the Steam survey.

    Firstly, there's no SEC penalty or shareholder/creditor lawsuit at stake over the Steam survey, unlike financial results.

    Secondly, Steam is a usage survey and not a sales survey. We are talking about sales, not usage, so the Steam survey is not really the appropriate tool.

    Thirdly, the Pascal roll-out was much faster than the Turing roll-out, likely due to the crypto hangover.

    Fourthly, Steam has a problem with how it counts gaming cafe systems. They know about this problem and have tried to mitigate it recently, but that only makes the comparisons with Pascal era surveys more problematic because it was during that era where the problem wasn't mitigated. Chinese gaming cafes are filled with GTX 1060s and GTX 1050 Tis.

    Fifthly, also related to the way survey counts, any miscounting that is still happening from the gaming cafes (notice how the last results jumped with respect to Windows 7 systems, again) are likely to lead to inaccurate comparisons of Pascal and Turing because of the Chinese slowdown I mentioned in my previous post.

    Sixthly, There are many more cards in the Turing lineup than the Pascal lineup, so it's possible that people are not properly adding up all the SUPER variants when making comparisons. Similarly, you must go back and compare Pascal percentages X months after launch with Turing percentages X months after launch, not Pascal now with Turing now.

    Seventhly, there are most certainly more total cards in the survey now than during the Pascal launch, so percentages must be considered accordingly when comparing historical Pascal percentages with today's Turing percentages.
    Reply
  • Beaver M. - Sunday, January 19, 2020 - link

    1) Financial results can be tampered with are are tampered with and cant be detailed like a Steam survey. They never cared about lawsuits in the past. They lied many times to their customers and continue to do so.

    2) It shows what the gamers use. Plain and simple. Its compared to previous generations (plural, not just Pascal like you think) and thus it says quite a lot.

    3) The Pascal rollout wasnt faster. It also had more problems, like the Micron issue, 3 GB versions and DPC latency issues, which held back sales. Also I am talking about Maxwell as well (which also had its issues, like the 3.5 GB 970 scandal - and yet the 970 still became the most sold GPU).

    4) Irrelevant, because I talked about other generations that were there before the Chinese influx.

    5) Irrelevant, because I talked about other generations that were there before the Chinese influx and the same issues where present then, too.

    6) They are all there. A few of them didnt show up early (also much worse than other generations before), but they are all there now. If you cant even read statistics, then you shouldnt try to argue about them.

    7) I did. Doesnt change anything about how quickly the cards were adapted by Steam users (GAMERS) and how the numbers and percentage were after and during 1+ years. Turing looks bad compared to the last 2 generations. And I am not even talking about the total numbers right now, like you claim I do, but about the numbers WHEN IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. AKA the times when Maxwell and Pascal were released and compare those time frames (1+ year starting from their release) to Turing. That data is still available, if you know how to use the Internet and put one and one together.

    And its no wonder, because in every tech forum you can read how experts say all day long how crappy Turing really is. Its too overpriced, its too slow, it doesnt have enough VRAM, its RTX features are mostly useless.

    But we talked about this before and you chose to ignore it and just repeat your crap.
    You didnt learn anything.
    Reply
  • Gastec - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link

    Nvidia's revenue is higher and will get higher and higher for at least 10 more years because they are selling their expensive products less to the "traditional" North-American and European Consumer and more to the East-Asian Consumer. Reply
  • maroon1 - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link

    If these prices are expensive then that means 5600XT and 5500XT 8GB are also expensive. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now