Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NVIDIA Launches $349 GeForce RTX 2060, Will Support Other Adaptive Sync Monitors (hothardware.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-and-improved dept.

MojoKid writes from a report via Hot Hardware: NVIDIA launched a new, more reasonably-priced GeForce RTX card today, dubbed the GeForce RTX 2060. The new midrange graphics card will list for $349 and pack all the same features as NVIDIA's higher-end GeForce RTX 2080 and 2070 series cards. The card is also somewhat shorter than other RTX 20-series cards at only 9.5" (including the case bracket), and its GPU has a few functional blocks disabled. Although it's packing a TU106 like the 2070, six Streaming Multiprocessors (SMs) have been disabled, along with 20% of its Tensor and RT cores. All told, the RTX 2060 has 1,920 active CUDA cores, with 240 Tensor cores, and 30 RT cores. Although the GeForce RTX 2060 seems like the next-gen cousin to the 1060, the RTX 2060 is significantly more powerful and more in line with the GeForce GTX 1070 Ti and GTX 1080 in terms of raw performance in the benchmarks. It can also play ray-tracing enabled games like Battlefield V with decent frame rates at 1080p with high image quality and max ray-tracing enabled. NVIDIA has also apparently decided to support open standards-based adaptive refresh rate monitor technology and will soon begin supporting even AMD FreeSync monitors in future driver update.

145 comments

  1. Pfft, Nvidia is a badged Samsung minibrand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dumb do the $1600 early-adoptee orphans feel now lol

    1. Re: Pfft, Nvidia is a badged Samsung minibrand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It won't run games as well as the 2080, but with new driver optimizations it may be capable of 60 fps at 1080p with RTX on.

      Either way, $350 is a bit high for midrange unless you're a Loch Ness monster, and 1070 Ti / 1080 like performance puts it more into mid-high where the price is slightly more excusable. Still, Navi will probably slaughter it.

    2. Re: Pfft, Nvidia is a badged Samsung minibrand by aliquis · · Score: 1

      It's fine for mid range but it's the low end card. With a 2050/2050Ti being way worse if it happens.

    3. Re:Pfft, Nvidia is a badged Samsung minibrand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did Nvidia change their numbering scheme all of a sudden? It went through 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 and 1000 series so shouldn't the next model be 1100, not 2000?

      And yes, I knew they redid their numbering scheme once already, but you would think they would get it right this time.

  2. They're trying to figure out how by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    to get folks to upgrade. G-Sync monitors start around $400 so that's a tough sell. A 2060 can't quite do 4k at gamer framerates. It can do 1440 but that isn't enough of a bump to justify an upgrade. But 1080p/144fps with adaptive sync might be worth the money if you can get a decent monitor for $200. That's what they're up to.

    For my money I'll be happy when I can get a 1060 6gb for $200 :). And what's with folks buying used ones off ebay for $180+shipping. Another $20-$40 bucks and you can buy them new for that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice nickname. I love Radiant Silvergun :-)

    2. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still see specific models like ASUS Strix 1060 OC with over 400EUR price tags here in selected stores, range starting from 280. Lets see what January 15th or February brings. But I'm afraid that the sellers see the card's performance and price it at 400-500EUR mark with taxes since the 2070 is about 560 to over 900 in price. There is a lots of space for the Pascal overstock sales at the bottom in these market conditions.

      Sales that do not happen. Ever. --"Jensen"

    3. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The support for adaptive sync is probably geared more toward televisions, I guess. Some TVs supporting it came out this year and no doubt NVIDIA wants to make sure its equipment will work with them.

    4. Re: They're trying to figure out how by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Except the GTX 10 series will get the support too.

      So that kinda kills your theory.

    5. Re:They're trying to figure out how by mentil · · Score: 1

      The killer feature is supposed to be realtime raytracing, which is what ~half of the chip is more or less dedicated to. You're right that Nvidia had essentially been pushing new monitor tech the past several years, and few people were biting, which is probably why they decided to go in this direction. That, and they're trying to sell their raytracing hardware to Microsoft/Sony to put in their next consoles. If one console supported realtime raytracing and the other didn't, that could be turned into a decisive victory. Funny, years ago I predicted that realtime raytracing would become feasible shortly before the PS5 would come out.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    6. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The fucked up part in all of this is, you could have had 1060 for only 249 at launch. GPU companies and their board partners are extremely unwilling to drop prices from crypto boom days, so they barely came down to starting prices back three years ago. Even with 1060 6gb, that they now have warehouses full of and that nvidia apparently had to buy back chips for from board partners because they just weren't selling after crypto boom ended.

      Two and a half years later, you're paying about the same price as on launch for 1060 6gb cards. That's absurd. And their "affordable higher mid end xx60 card " is up almost 75% from basic 1060 that was launched in the same segment for 200 USD back in 2016 and priced almost as high as their 1070 high end card in 2016.

      It's no wonder that 20xx series adoption has been awful and nvidia's stock has crashed to half its price. They're desperately trying to sell mid end hardware at high end prices as if crypto boom is still ongoing and their high end hardware is at "way more than high end used to sell for". All while home consoles are still where the limiter on desktop gaming is, and those are on AMD chips for foreseeable future, meaning their ray tracing tech is going the same way that their "fur" tech went with 10xx series.

    7. Re:They're trying to figure out how by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      They just announced the 10 and 20 series cards will work with FreeSync monitors through the VESA VRR standard, so there's something.

      This card... is not a great value, it's about what I paid for a 10700 a few years ago. It's going to be a bit faster certainly but eh.

    8. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe ... but given console makers have gone all in on x86 SoC design and backwards compatibility a move to ARM seems unlikely and nvidia doesnt have an x86 license so they wont be making x86 chips any time soon. As far as supplying console makers the battle is between Intel and AMD, nvidia is firmly locked out unless they go back to a more costly dedicated CPU/GPU setup.

      More likely that AMD or Intel will produce an SoC with a DXR-capable (or Vulkan whatever-raytracing-extensions) GPU.

    9. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      GPU companies and their board partners are extremely unwilling to drop prices from crypto boom days, so they barely came down to starting prices back three years ago.

      Not true. GPU cards are now below release MSR. But NVidia's new cards have jacked up prices, including this one.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    10. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Correct, NVidia has been systematically jacking their margins. See what AMD announces Wednesday morning, and if there is no joy there than wait for 7nm Navi.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    11. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I'll be happy when I can get a 1060 6gb for $200

      You can get an RX 580 right now under $200, more or less the same power as 1060 depending on whether you believe NVidia's paid-for benchmarks or not. Pretty much the best value spot in the midrange GPU market at the moment.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    12. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Only some of them that just aren't selling and they have warehouses full of, like 1060s, and even then, many of them are still above MSRP at release. The cards they made for crypto miners basically.

      1070s for example are still overwhelmingly far above MSRP, though well down from crypto boom pricing which added far more premium than is currently asked: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=n...

    13. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Oh, you're talking NVidia. Yes, NVidia loves to screw you, but if that's your pick then it's your bed, don't complain about lying in it.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    14. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      It's not just nvidia though. They sold those chips ages ago. It's board partners and resellers too who're trying to get their share.

    15. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Board partners have much less manufacturing lead time than chip vendors, so they don't keep much inventory. NVidia is carrying the inventory, you can see it on their balance sheet (one of the reasons NVidia stock crashed so hard.) NVidia is screwing you and noone else.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    16. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Having seen price charts on the various board components, I have to disagree with that assessment.

    17. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Explain?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    18. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Between the peripherals on the board, the board itself, and the development that goes into various optimizations, the cost of the board is fairly significant. That's what's responsible for much of pricing variation between various boards with same GPU, which can go into hundreds.

      Board manufacturers did dump a lot of GPUs back on nvidia when they failed to sell them. That was in news a couple of months ago. But board manufacturers are the ones that actually put the GPUs for sale (minus the FE models). And they're the ones who decide on wholesale price. So they share blame with nvidia to a significant degree on this issue.

    19. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      All sensible, but I don't see the connection with board component prices.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    20. Re:They're trying to figure out how by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Cryptoboom's connection isn't to prices of components any more so than cryptoboom's connection to GPUs. Problem is that companies got used to getting a better premium both on GPU end and board end, and neither want to concede this premium.

      We've seen a similar problem with HDD prices after Thai floods.

  3. $349 is Mid-Range?? by CrashNBrn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since when do mid-range graphics cards cost more than a gaming console? Every mid-range graphics card I've bought has been $99 to $199. Low end cards $50+ and high-end graphics cards between $250 and $400.

    1. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      inflation and cryptomining were a bitch this decade for PC gamers

    2. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High end consumer cards go for like a grand bro. If you really wanna get fancy an Nvidia Tesla will set you back like 9 grand.

    3. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who chase the last 10% performance with 100% more resources are just math dumb.

    4. Re: $349 is Mid-Range?? by dnaumov · · Score: 1

      Several years ago. Right now 0-100$ joke, 100-200$ entry level, 200-500$ midrange and 500+ for high-end.

    5. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      been that way for quite a few years now. $50-$250 would all be classified as low end. high end is in the $500+ range with very highend in the $1000+ range.

    6. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Every mid-range graphics card I've bought has been $99 to $199. Low end cards $50+ and high-end graphics cards between $250 and $400.

      Yes, times change, back in the 90s the highend Voodoo2 went for < $300 and the TNT was < $200. Highend phones used to be priced around there too but as with inflation and the packing of huge amounts of new technology in the price goes up.

    7. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were the case then that may be true, but it's not.

    8. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's close.. In reality you can get 2x AMD cards in crossfire for less money than a single Nvidia sucker-investment that can't compete with them. If you have a single-card requirement, by all means, pay $1600 for the same fps.

    9. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And neither of those AMD cards can run CUDA code therefor rendering them completely useless.

    10. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      In reality you can get 2x AMD cards in crossfire for less money than a single Nvidia sucker-investment that can't compete with them.

      Which AMD cards in Crossfire versus which single nvidia card?

      Also AMD doesn't yet have a DXR solution so it's an apples and oranges comparison, the bits that make these new cards expensive are the tensor and RT cores, if you're not interested in those features then you wouldn't be buying a card like that anyway.

    11. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CUDA lol, what a dumbass.

    12. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're saying Nvidia pays specific game dev shops (activision) to add pseudo-RT "features" that nobody else supports, including games people want to play. (Not activision)

      Go ahead and pay twice as much, I'm fine with your decision, just realize that's exactly what you're doing in the name of "shiny, unsupported feature" - because that's exactly how they rope morons, just like that.

    13. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, being able to run accelerated neural networks is retarded! kys

    14. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      You're saying Nvidia pays specific game dev shops (activision) to add pseudo-RT "features" that nobody else supports, including games people want to play. (Not activision)

      No I'm saying these new cards have a capability that the cards you're comparing to do not have. Realtime raytracing will be huge for gaming but you have to start somewhere.

      Go ahead and pay twice as much, I'm fine with your decision, just realize that's exactly what you're doing in the name of "shiny, unsupported feature" - because that's exactly how they rope morons, just like that.

      I have a 1080 with no plan to upgrade. I'm not sure why you're calling it an "unsupported feature", these nvidia cards di already support DXR via the tensor and rt cores. More games are adding DXR features and both AMD and nvidia were in collaboration with Microsoft (and together as part of Khronos) in defining the APIs, it has a software fallback but AMD will soon have hardware support for it as well. How else do you propose to solve the chicken and egg problem that comes with new features requiring both hardware and software support?

    15. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Realtime raytracing will be huge for gaming" - meanwhile you recommend paying 2x as much money for an unsupported feature. You want to justify your mistake, that's fine. I'm ok with your mistakes.

    16. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you are retarded, I agree. You run zero neural networks, not even a brain.

    17. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're saying Nvidia pays specific game dev shops (activision) to add pseudo-RT "features" that nobody else supports, including games people want to play. (Not activision)

      That is how these things start. First a small amount of hardware and a small amount of software supports the feature and it grows from there. Perhaps you don't remember the advent of 3d hardware accelerators? Or the programmable graphics pipeline? We went through exactly the same process.

    18. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy your (shitty..) activision game for 2x money meanwhile, lol robbed marks. Whatever Stockholm syndrome has done for you, it hasn't made you any smarter. You could wait until that feature matters, when prices will be lower...

      But an Nvidia fool and their money are by definition soon parted, and often parted, and then re-parted because of new shiny unsupported feature 2020, lol.

      EASY MARKS!

    19. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      " CUDA lol, what a dumbass. "

      Try a GPU renderer. The majority of which seem to like Nvidia flavors moreso than AMD.
      Much more common and no one does this with low or mid range cards.

      The more CUDA cores you have at your disposal, the faster the renderer will run.

    20. Re: $349 is Mid-Range?? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Lol no

    21. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      "Realtime raytracing will be huge for gaming" - meanwhile you recommend paying 2x as much money for an unsupported feature.

      No. I don't recommend it. Nor is it an "unsupported feature", quite clearly it is supported and will become more supported over time. I'm not that interested in extreme visual fidelity so the small improvement it currently makes by augmenting rasterized games doesn't seem worth it to me.

      You want to justify your mistake, that's fine. I'm ok with your mistakes.

      What mistake? I don't think it was that complicated but here it is again anyway:
      I have a 1080 with no plan to upgrade.

      Given that was pretty unequivocal perhaps you're unaware that the 1080 is a card from the previous Geforce generation (which goes back 2 architecture revisions to "Pascal", where the current is "Turing" and before that there was "Volta" which really only had the Titan V as a consumer card) and it doesn't support hardware-based DXR because it lacks the new RT and Tensor cores.

    22. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its only unsupported on AMD and Intel hardware.

    23. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double the price if you wanted Voodoo2 SLI and didn't buy an STB Blackmagic. SLI required two identical Voodoo2 cards and the SLI cable. Some games had to be patched to support SLI, others worked out of the box. The ultimate intent of SLI was progressive scan using two parallel cards. So if RIVA TNT was $200, high end Voodoo2 SLI would have been $600.

    24. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah the 2060 is cheaper than the Vega 64 and performs the same. Id go a Vega64 over a 1080 but a 2060 over both of those because it's way better bang for your buck.

    25. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " quite clearly it is supported" - by 1-2 activision games? You're a moron, we don't require you to admit this however. Just pay twice for everything you buy, because you're so smart and savvy.

      Enjoy Battlefield 5, lol.

    26. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      and high-end graphics cards between $250 and $400

      Diamond Edge with nVidia nV1 and 4MB of VRAM: $699.

      In 1996.

    27. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Also, in the past, Coke was sold for a nickel. How dare they sell it for more today!

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    28. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Since AMD has shot itself out of the pc gaming market, and NVidia has a pseudo monpoly atm. The same happened with Intel Processors during the AMD piledriver era.

    29. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever since the fastest thing competition can muster is around the same performance and price range...
      RTX 2060 (MSRP $349) falls right into the small perf window between Vega 56 (MSRP $399) and Vega 64 (MSRP $499).

    30. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Since when do mid-range graphics cards cost more than a gaming console?

      Since mid range graphics cards became an order of magnitude more powerful than shitty gaming consoles.

      Every mid-range graphics card I've bought has been $99 to $199.

      You haven't bought mid-range graphics cards, you've bought low range graphics cards.

    31. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The cost is almost the same as 1070 at launch. They're selling mid end at high end prices.

    32. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      High end CONSUMER cards last generation started at around 375 USD MSRP. That's what 1070 entered retail for.

    33. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      High end started in 350-375 range last generation. That was the launch price of 1070.

    34. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      " quite clearly it is supported" - by 1-2 activision games?

      No.

      Just pay twice for everything you buy, because you're so smart and savvy.

      Again, I'm not sure you understand what a 1080 is.

    35. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Even years ago a 99$ card is a low end card. That said you are more less correct... Mid-range should be 150$-250$. A 350$ seems a bit rich for mid range. That said, could just be the article. It's being compared to 1070ti and 1080 which are older high-end more less. Perhaps it is more accurately being "released" at 350$, and will be on sale for 250$ in the next 6 months or whenever AMD comes out with their next thing....

      Either way, not buying a 350$ mid-range card.

    36. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Also, in the past, Coke was sold for a nickel. How dare they sell it for more today!

      Not a great example. Coke held the price at 5 cents for 70 years.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    37. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      high-end graphics cards between $250 and $400.

      Even back in the mid-2000s the highend 7800GTX was $650 at launch. It's not just a case of taking the old thing and making it faster otherwise we would just have fast fixed function 3d accelerator cards.

    38. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      launch price for the 1070 was officially $379. The reality was it was more in the $400+ range for any of the branded cards. That price crept up towards $450. Adjust for inflation and you are just below the $500 price point.

    39. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Not a great example. Coke barely improved its performance since it was invented.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    40. Re:$349 is Mid-Range?? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      BS. The price rise that followed was about crypto boom. And no, we didn't have double digit inflation in two years.

  4. Should be $149 by xack · · Score: 2

    But they’re still thinking the crypto makret is going to buy it. Ethererum dropped to less than $80 from its $1400 peak. It’s dead but Nvidia still has a whole field of tulips to sell.

    1. Re:Should be $149 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their competition from AMD at the $149 price point is not even remotely close to this, not to mention the components that make this expensive (Tensor cores and RT cores) are of no use to crypto miners yet despite that it's still priced a lower than the 1080 to which it is comparable in performance in terms of crypto mining. What you're saying makes no sense.

    2. Re:Should be $149 by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Should be $149 based on what? You have here a card that outperforms the GTX 1070 Ti and is cheaper. The benchmark here is has been show to be priced at a point the market will happily pay for.

      What's your basis for a lower cost? You just hate profits and think it's a good business decision to leave money on the table? Remember the RTX 2060 is only the bottom in the top tier. Expect a lot more cards to come to the market in the next 6 months at your price point. (Rumored GTX 1160)

  5. Competition... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    As long as AMD has a hard time competing, NVIDIA can sell their stuff at a premium and introduce "midrange" cards at non-midrange prices.
    Hopefully the next AMD generation will be a significant upgrade (especially at performance/watt where they are lagging the most).

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until someone comes out with a neural network library that can use AMD cards, Nvidia will continue to dominate. I don't know why AMD isn't pouring money into this to be honest. They don't even have to make it from scratch, just take something open source like PyTorch and modify it to work with AMD. I guess easier said than done. Either that or the AMD CEO is asleep at the wheel, which is more likely.

    2. Re:Competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cryptomining bust means Nvidia has to compete with bulk used sales of its own last gen mid-range and high end cards. That's where most the competition lies and why Nvidia is totally fucking itself over. If it thinks people are going to accept marginal performance boosts and questionable value raytracing? Yea, that's what the top end does. The mid range is precisely the people who actually don't just simply have money to burn and will delay purchases or buy used. The low range is almost a lost cause at this point with used.

    3. Re:Competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nvidia fell asleep at the wheel, actually, which is why AMD is ripping Nvidia new assholes daily. AMD stock is up like 80% because they don't need to pay people to fake benchmarks or implement shitty unsupported features for 2x money.

      And it's very clear you don't even operate half a brain, lest of all any kind of "neural" net lol. You just need to justify being assfucked, as if you enjoy it. Nvidia raped you and you feel guilty now.

    4. Re:Competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, as a developer I find it pretty awesome I can now get hardware that is capable of realtime raytracing this cheap. Same thing back when programmable graphics became a reality there were the same soft-skulled nitwits like you saying "oh why would you buy this"...well because otherwise we'd still be stuck on fixed function rasterizers you moron!

      Why do you think we even have 3D accelerated games at all? Because companies started producing them for the mass market so we could develop games that utilized that technology. They commodified the sort of features that previously you only got through spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on SGI or Evans & Sutherland equipment.

      Realtime raytracing is now affordable so we can build more and more games that take advantage of it which will eventually lead to the commodification of that this technology as well.

    5. Re:Competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A developer of what ray-tracing involving product? Exactly. You meanwhile advocate paying 2x for a technology that exists and is being re-gimmicked to make you pay 2x for the gimmick. They have done this at least 4 times.

      If you really enjoy those activision games, good for you. Just don't pretend there's any value-add beyond that yet. The card speed itself is like a 10% bump. There's no great breakthrough there on any level.

      What you're paying for is a marketing regime. Granted, there is whiz-bang and shiny. Someday it may matter. Not today. You won't develop shit for this either. Stop lying, it'll do you good.

    6. Re:Competition... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      AMD won the console wars. Both Sony and Microsoft consoles are AMD both on CPU and GPU. As a result, their development was heavily focused on those chips, which is why they're very competitive in mid end chips. But their PC high end performance has been awful.

    7. Re:Competition... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Nvidia doesn't do real time ray tracing. They do "sorta kinda semi-fake ray tracing" for cheap, that has little to nothing to do with with actual full on ray tracing.

      Success rate of which will unfortunately likely be the same as their fur tech they pushed so hard with 10xx generation. Remember that one? Yeah, no one else does either, because it's all but dead.

      Why did it die when it did look so damn awesome in games like witcher 3? Because AMD won the console wars, and few companies will invest into proprietary hack that only works on certain hardware, and only does a very limited amount of things.

    8. Re:Competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nvidia doesn't do real time ray tracing. They do "sorta kinda semi-fake ray tracing" for cheap, that has little to nothing to do with with actual full on ray tracing.

      Ray Tracing isn't that complex a topic so I'm not sure why you're so confused about it but the way API works is that you provide a few shaders that implement ray tracing. The first being a Ray Generation Shader in which you can do a variety of things but the important part is that you call the TraceRay function which casts a ray into the scene. You also provide Intersection and Any Hit shaders that are executed on potential intersection events to handle things like transparent surfaces and reflection/refraction but you also provide both Closest Hit and Miss shaders, the former of which is where you do most of your shading when it is an opaque surface.

      Success rate of which will unfortunately likely be the same as their fur tech they pushed so hard with 10xx generation.

      I think what you're referring to there is the proprietary HairWorks component of the GameWorks package. But the raytracing technology is exposed (on Windows) via a vendor neutral API called DirectX RayTracing (DXR), this is something Microsoft collaborated with both nVidia and AMD on and is not a proprietary package like GameWorks that only really works on one GPU vendor's product.

    9. Re:Competition... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Problem being that DXR implementation that exists is nvidia only at the moment, and we're not aware of any interest from AMD in implementing it on nvidia's terms any more so than any other proprietary nvidia's features in the past that they "sorta kinda" opened to others.

      Considering that essentially every single game with ray tracing had the feature essentially paid for by nvidia, and even then there's almost no one that did it, and those that did had to tone it down hard and go back to rasters because anything that was beyond half baked "sorta kinda" ray tracing simply didn't work properly.

    10. Re:Competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem being that DXR implementation that exists is nvidia only at the moment

      Of course it is. Every vendor has to do their own DXR implementation, just like they do with OpenGL or Vulkan or DirectX.

      and we're not aware of any interest from AMD in implementing it on nvidia's terms any more so than any other proprietary nvidia's features in the past that they "sorta kinda" opened to others.

      You are confusing the fact that DXR is not an nvidia technology and AMD does not have to implement it on nvdia's terms at all. Indeed AMD were involved in the specification of DXR in collaboration with Microsoft and nvidia.

      Considering that essentially every single game with ray tracing had the feature essentially paid for by nvidia, and even then there's almost no one that did it, and those that did had to tone it down hard and go back to rasters because anything that was beyond half baked "sorta kinda" ray tracing simply didn't work properly.

      Just like the first iteration of games that utilized the programmable graphics pipeline that also then had to support fixed function. They used it for minor things here and there as support for it grew.

      half baked "sorta kinda" ray tracing

      You keep saying that, can you explain what that is in comparison to what you think ray tracing is?

    11. Re:Competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying 2x more than what? The performance of the RTX2060 in traditional rasterization is on par with the more expensive GTX1080 and Vega64 GPUs.

      I really dont see why you are so upset about this. We have been through these technology shifts many times before and this is exactly how they happen. First they were ranting about 3d accelerator cards, then programmable graphics, then gpgpu, now it is raytracing.

    12. Re:Competition... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Note how you didn't debunk any of my statements, you just made it look like you did. At no point did you argue that AMD expressed significant interest in implementing ray tracing in GPUs beyond token nod to Microsoft. At no point did you debunk the fact that this is a paid feature by nvidia that no one is willing to touch with a ten foot pole without nvidia paying for it.

      And the current implementation is the "sorta kinda ray tracing" because it isn't actual ray tracing for most of the scene, and where it is present, it's severely limited and culled at every possible step in a desperate bid to make it light enough to be doable in real time. Because actual ray tracing in real time for the whole scene is simply not doable in real time without a modern supercomputer.

      Which is noted by essentially every reviewer who isn't paid by nvidia, and even many of those that are. Improvements to visual quality are minimal to non-existent in current implementation for a massive performance impact. Which is why it's highly unlikely to be adopted any time soon on any meaningful scale.

    13. Re:Competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At no point did you argue that AMD expressed significant interest in implementing ray tracing in GPUs beyond token nod to Microsoft.

      AMD helped draft the DXR specification, they will be releasing hardware when DXR becomes more widely used. If this were some nvidia-only, paid sponsorship then developers would not be using the vendor neutral DXR API, they would be using the RTX API directly which would tie them to nvidia and lock out AMD and Intel, but that is not happening. If nvidia were paying developers to use this then why would they use the vendor neutral API rather than the proprietary one?

      And the current implementation is the "sorta kinda ray tracing" because it isn't actual ray tracing for most of the scene

      Well they are indeed hybrid engines (I can speak more to UE than anything else), is that what you mean? In most cases things like reflections and shadows are raytraced and as the technology becomes commodified we can do even more. An RTX6000 naturally can do a lot more than say these new 2060s will be able to but we have to start somewhere.

      and where it is present, it's severely limited and culled at every possible step in a desperate bid to make it light enough to be doable in real time.

      Can you provide some detail on that? The beginning is hybrid engines that predominantly use rasterization but then raytrace things like shadows and reflections which is what is being done now. I'm not sure what you mean when you say it is "culled" though, can you expand on that?

      Because actual ray tracing in real time for the whole scene is simply not doable in real time without a modern supercomputer.

      Actually you're very wrong on that one, we're not that far off. That link demonstrates where we're getting to by using a single rtx 6000 GPU.

      Improvements to visual quality are minimal to non-existent in current implementation for a massive performance impact.

      Yes that is what people said about the first iteration of games that used the programmable graphics pipeline too. We do have to start somewhere, it's fantastical to just think one day we're going to flick a switch and everything is just going to magically be real-time raytraced. This is that first step just like we had with 3D accelerator cards and with programmable GPUs. Or are you trying to argue that it will just never be possible?

    14. Re:Competition... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I'll literally point you to overwhelming majority of reviews of how the new cards work in the only game that actually supports nvidia's sorta kinda ray tracing. It addresses every single one of your questions in full.

    15. Re:Competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll literally point you to overwhelming majority of reviews of how the new cards work in the only game that actually supports nvidia's sorta kinda ray tracing.

      When will you do that? You're telling me the first game to support a new hardware technology isn't particularly overwhelming and you are surprised by that? You haven't had much experience in this area have you. This how all new features come about, whether it's 3d accelerators, programmable GPUs, new shader stages, etc ...

      I've tried to explain the concept of raytracing and of hybrid renderers but you still don't seem to understand it. More to the point the great thing about developers starting to implement this and doing so via the vendor neutral DXR API rather that a proprietary one is that AMD and/or Intel can release a hardware DXR implementation and it will just work. nvidia might have to go through that trailblazing and promotion of DXR and AMD/Intel can just jump on board once there is enough application support for them to justify. I'm not sure how you can see this as a bad thing.

    16. Re:Competition... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      If you can't find any reviews right now, when literally searching for name of the card and name of technology will get you countless articles and videos, I can't help you.

    17. Re:Competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said you were going to "I'll literally point you to overwhelming majority of reviews", I thought that meant you were going to do that.

      Anyway just like all other technological advances (particularly in 3d graphics) this is going to take time to see adoption and the fact that this is not some proprietary API that will only work on one vendor's hardware but rather a collaborative effort between the vendors to define a neutral API shows that it will be more broadly supported in future. If you were expecting a flick of the switch and all games would be fully raytraced instead of rasterized then you really have no idea about this field at all.

      To your other point though, why would you care if nvidia is sponsoring companies to use DXR? When Intel and AMD come out with DXR implementations for their hardware there won't be any porting necessary and it will just work. You would have a point if they were exposing the RTX API directly but they aren't.

    18. Re:Competition... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      >You said you were going to "I'll literally point you to overwhelming majority of reviews", I thought that meant you were going to do that.

      And I have. Instructions included in previous post. If you cannot follow them, I cannot help you.

  6. What happened to /.? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    No one asking about Crysis seems that they have moved on or are looking for employment outside of Amazon.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:What happened to /.? by mentil · · Score: 1

      The last Crysis game came out 6 years ago, and Crytek has one foot in the grave.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  7. Correct price: $195 by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    nVidia is charging about twice what this card is actually worth. Wait a while.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. I wouldn't bank on this market into the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bottom-most blue segment is desktop format factor sales over time.

    It's not a bright future.

    Gaming moved to phones and consoles.

    1. Re:I wouldn't bank on this market into the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some problems with your analyst of that graph. Desktop shipments have slowed because most people already have a desktop and those that already do can upgrade their desktop computer without buying a entirely new one, furthermore there isnt much difference between an old and new desktop year to year unlike tablets and laptops. Desktops are usually aquired for their performance, tablets and latops are usually aquired for their size and battery life. Maybe gaming has moved to phones and consoles but that is not proven by your graph. Consoles are not even shown in your graph!!

  9. the same... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...The new midrange graphics card will list for $349 and pack all the same features as NVIDIA's higher-end GeForce RTX 2080 and 2070 series cards ....six Streaming Multiprocessors (SMs) have been disabled, along with 20% of its Tensor and RT cores....

    so its not the same.......

  10. 420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want some of what nvidia is smoking

    1. Re:420 by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      Given the tepid response to the 2070 and above, I'd say your analysis of the 2060 pricing is spot on. But hey, this is what you get when AMD is nowhere to be found in the marketplace. :-(

    2. Re:420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't realize you can smoke these Nvaginas with TWO AMD cards for LESS MONEY, you probably don't aren't that competitive in most games anyway lol. Derp.

    3. Re:420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two 570s don't cost less than $345 and you have to have a more expensive PSU to power them. Herp derp!

    4. Re: 420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but two 8GB 580s are $360.

      The power delta is trivial in an annual bill for a gamer. Both card brands scale way down when not in heavy use.100w, 20(1?) hours a week, ten cents a kwh, 50wks a year. It is what, ten bucks extra? $30 a year if you are in Hawaii or somewhere else with triple average mainland US pricing?

      Plus you have the extra card for when you want a second rig or to test another maonboard.

    5. Re: 420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but two 8GB 580s are $360.

      Citation pls. I'd like to buy at that price.

    6. Re:420 by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      amd is in the marketplace..

      anyhow. how well does this actually run battlefield v with the pseudotracing effects turned on?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re: 420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      test another maonboard.

      Why would I need another $200 card to test another maonboard? Can't I just test it with the foerst card? Doerp.

    8. Re: 420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA only but Newegg and Amazon have them for that every few weeks. It is $220 right now. Check camelcamelcamel for price histories. They even had the vega 56 for $350, but my 480 purchased at launch for msrp is still good enough for me.

    9. Re: 420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but two 8GB 580s are $360.

      Crossfire is shit! you end up paying double the price for 20% gain and in some cases its so shit it performs worse than the single card. The performance of crossfire is inconsistent as all hell, it's all over hte place.
      https://www.quora.com/How-do-2-RX-580s-in-crossfire-compare-with-a-GTX-1080

      If youre on a budget just get a single AMD card, if you want high performance that is consistent then spring for a single 1070ti or 1080.

    10. Re:420 by gravewax · · Score: 1

      As someone that currently runs with 2 AMD cards I would not wish this fucking pain on anyone. Games that don't work or artefact and constantly require disabling Crossfire, The heat and power draw are insane. I hate Nvidia and will do just about anything to stick with AMD for graphics but fuck they make it hard.

    11. Re: 420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you end up paying double the price for 20% gain" - 20% in an activision game? At least you admit, it's all over the place - why? Due to Nvidia paying developers to write Nvidia code that borks everyone else.

      Guess what tests show 20% gain? Nvidia crapware. Guess which show like 95%? Real ones that support multi-core and parallelization.

      If you're on a budget and considering any Nvidia bullshit, you're 3-4 years in the past living a marketing fever dream as if real. Crossfire dominates SLI, deal with it.

    12. Re:420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have two PCI-E 3.0 cards, you have two PCI-E 2.0 cards and some quasi-CF-supported motherboard like Biostar huh. I called it didn't I. What make/model of card are you running? 7950 or r-series?

    13. Re:420 by gravewax · · Score: 1

      I have 2 RX 480's with Asus Z170 pro gaming MB. regardless Crossfire is SHIT, when it works it gives a good bump in performance, but the drivers are complete ARSE and so many games misbehave with it that I actually usually run with crossfire disabled. I have suffered through SLI and Crossfire many times over the years, but this will definitely be the last and I would NEVER recommend anyone to go down this route.

    14. Re: 420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a gamer I don't give a shit why the performance is so inconsistent and terrible, I just know to avoid this garbage. That goes for SLI on Nvidia too.

    15. Re: 420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crossfire is a dead technology, even AMD have stated so. They are instead investing more into the DX12 multi GPU API support for those that want to continue the multi GPU path as simply not enough gamers and devs support it to justify the investment. Support is so sporadic and the drivers are so crap that going down the CF path or for that matter the SLI path is completely idiotic at this point, neither has sufficient vendor or Dev support to justify it.

    16. Re:420 by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Given the tepid response to the 2070 and above, I'd say your analysis of the 2060 pricing is spot on.

      I wouldn't. The 2070 and the 2080 were underwhelming in performance and priced significantly higher than there lower down competition. I.e. RTX 2070 RRP was higher than the GTX 1080 and only performed marginally better.

      By comparison the RTX 2060 is $100 cheaper than the GTX 1070 Ti and either equals or outperforms it. By all accounts this may be the only card that has hit the market at the right price point so far for its new release.

    17. Re: 420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Crossfire is garbage and you would have to be a monumental idiot to pay 2x the price for it when in many cases your performance is **worse** than a single card!!! It's complete garbage.

      "you end up paying double the price for 20% gain" - 20% in an activision game?

      nah dude not even just activision games, crossfire is rubbish across the board!

      At least you admit, it's all over the place - why?

      because it's shit. in many cases its even worse than one AMD card so what's worse that one AMD card? 2 AMD cards! lol

    18. Re:420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that two AMD cards is worthless, because sync between cards is a shit-show and almost nobody supports SLI anymore. Fact of the matter is, obviously, AMD produces shit GPU products right now. If you want to play games at 1440 or 144fps, you're not buying AMD unless you want to see more fucking pixels than edges. But yea, feel free to buy two GPUs whereby you can only use one of them at a time -- at least you can feel better about it, I guess.

  11. Nvidiots get robbed and love it, news at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey exomondo fanboi, just because you got robbed by Nvaginas for 2x money over an unsupported feature doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb with money as you are bruh. Activision games lol, enjoy that coupon!

  12. Re: I own an Nvidia 1050 Ti 4GB video card by aliquis · · Score: 1

    So?
    Any point? Except wasting time?

  13. Re:Correct price: $195 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. I'll probably upgrade my 660ti when Fry's advertises the 2060 for $250 - $50 mail in rebate about 6-9 months from now.

    (p.s. I hate the rebate scam, but it seems to be the only way to get a decent price on a video card.)

  14. Re:Correct price: $195 by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    nVidia is charging about twice what this card is actually worth. Wait a while.

    Based on what? The card outperforms the 1070Ti which has an RRP $100 higher than that and the market has shown that it happily will pay the money for cards with that price / performance.

    What is your basis for the $195 price mark?

  15. Missing the point on pricing by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    A lot of Slashdot comments here are saying the card is too expensive without justifying why. The RTX 2060 matches or significantly outperforms the GTX 1070 Ti depending on the load and is priced at about $100 lower RRP. This is quite the opposite to the ludicrous launch prices of the RTX 2070 and RTX 2080.

    At the same time it's worth remembering that this is not a low end card and rumours are the non-RTX line will continue to develop with a cheaper GTX 1160 in the works to say nothing of the even cheaper cards NVIDIA has on the market.

    Now with all that said and done, rumours also say that AMD is about to eat nvidia's lunch. AMD has confirmed that Navi won't raytrace but so far every rumour also says that it will double the price performance ratio of NVIDIA's cards, and my guess is when that happens we should actually have a justified reason to call all the NVIDIA cards overpriced including the RTX 2060.

    1. Re:Missing the point on pricing by mentil · · Score: 1

      Because 1) the X60 cards have cost $200-$250 the past several generations, and 2) the bump in performance/dollar is low, compared to what we got last generation.

      The most recent rumors I've heard are that Navi will only cover the mid-range, i.e. where the 2060 lives, but for lower cost than the Vega cards. This may lead to a price drop for the 2060 (or more likely, an 1160 reveal), but the 2070+ would remain unopposed.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:Missing the point on pricing by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      This card is priced almost the same as 1070 on launch two years ago. Linear time exists, as does moore's law.

      This is a "mid end card" with high end pricing. Ergo, it's massively overpriced. Ergo current state of nvidia stock.

    3. Re:Missing the point on pricing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Because 1) the X60 cards have cost $200-$250 the past several generations

      And? Price / performance has increased and the product mix has changed. The RTX 2060 by all accounts will not be the direct successor to the GTX 2060.

      and 2) the bump in performance/dollar is low, compared to what we got last generation.

      You subscribe to the theory of endless exponential growth?

      The most recent rumors I've heard are that Navi will only cover the mid-range, i.e. where the 2060 lives, but for lower cost than the Vega cards. This may lead to a price drop for the 2060 (or more likely, an 1160 reveal), but the 2070+ would remain unopposed.

      Quite possibly. We'll see how it turns out.

    4. Re:Missing the point on pricing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      This card is priced almost the same as 1070 on launch two years ago. Linear time exists, as does moore's law.

      This is a "mid end card" with high end pricing..

      And yet in the past 2 years there was a very non-linear behavior in pricing that prevented a massive linear time drop. And by all accounts it's not the successor to the mid-end card. The RTX 2060 will be joined by another xx60 card which will actually be the mid-end card based on NVIDIA's announcements so far.

      Ergo, it's massively overpriced.

      That will only be shown proven if it fails to sell. I presents a far better value proposition than the 2070 and 2080, and both of those cards are selling very well.

      Ergo current state of nvidia stock.

      If you think NVIDIA's stock has to do with the price of the RTX line then you really have not been paying attention to the market.

    5. Re:Missing the point on pricing by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      >I presents a far better value proposition than the 2070 and 2080, and both of those cards are selling very well.

      It's rare to see such a direct admission of being an astroturfer. Thanks. I laughed.

    6. Re:Missing the point on pricing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's rare to see such a direct admission of being an astroturfer. Thanks. I laughed.

      Well if you want to spend twice as much money for marginally incremental performance more power to you. NVIDIA's stocks could use all the help it can get right now.

      Or are you somehow delusional enough to think the xx60 series has ever not been the best in terms of value proposition? If so laugh away in your ignorance.

    7. Re:Missing the point on pricing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Low end card 50-100
      Mid range card 100-200
      High end card 200+

      People do not have unlimited amounts of money, and computer part purchases are compared to other purchases. Inflation is a thing, but people have emotional attachments to certain currency units.

      This is too expensive to call mid range based on what average people actually pay for components. It's not about the performance level so much as the price position

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Missing the point on pricing by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      GTX 1060 3 GB had 200 USD MSRP two years ago. This one is 75% more expensive while being positioned as similar mid end product this generation. We didn't have anywhere near that much inflation over two years, we had low single digits one.

    9. Re:Missing the point on pricing by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That moment when you get caught astroturfing, and try really hard to pretend you're not. Because this most certainly isn't xx60 series in anything but name. It's xx70 in terms of price and maybe, perhaps, performance.

      Except that it's 1070-ish, while pretending to be next gen, selling point being new rendering mode that isn't implemented pretty much anywhere where nvidia hasn't paid for. 1060 is still where value proposition is. 2060 sold at xx70 prices has the value proposition of xx70 series, which is significantly worse than xx60 series. Something I can say with authority as someone who bought both x60 and x70 cards depending on needs in the past.

    10. Re:Missing the point on pricing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Because this most certainly isn't xx60 series in anything but name. It's xx70 in terms of price and maybe, perhaps, performance.

      How is that fact astroturfing when it has been the arguement from the beginning including that of reviewers and including that of NVIDIA itself who say RTX are for the foreseeable future premium graphics cards? Your argument is fundamentally the same as mine right up until you got to the following line:

      1060 is still where value proposition is.

      You're having a different discussion. The topic at hand is the value proposition of the current upgrade choices. Your solution is not to upgrade. Your solution doesn't belong in this discussion. I don't disagree with it mind you. I see neither sense nor interest in upgrading to an RTX series of cards. But if you want to change the entire argument to technology isn't advancing enough then I'll happily stand by you, but that is not the discussion here.

      Something I can say with authority as someone who bought both x60 and x70 cards depending on needs in the past.

      Congrats, that puts you in the top 50th percentile of people who have made that choice. You're not an authority on it, you're a commoner, evidently one with the same tastes as me since I also have several 1060 and 1070 (including a Ti) card. And if you feel like you're best served with a previous gen card then a 6GB 1060 is definitely the sweet spot of the previous generation, though any partially serious gamer would be hard pressed considering anything lower than a 1070ti.

    11. Re:Missing the point on pricing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Low end card 50-100
      Mid range card 100-200
      High end card 200+

      Oooh cool arbitrary numbers!

      This is too expensive to call mid range

      NVIDIA agrees with you which is why it is an RTX card and why they said they intend to continue to the GTX series for the mid and low range.

      It's not about the performance level

      If you're not balancing price vs performance what is your decider? That it gets delivered in a pink box with fairy dust? That it has a RGB LED on the side?

    12. Re:Missing the point on pricing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      GTX 1060 3 GB had 200 USD MSRP two years ago.

      Cool story, when NVIDIA releases a successor you should bring this up. In the meantime the GTX 1060 6GB has an MSRP $70 higher than that, and the founders edition is $300. Then when you look at an RTX 2060 you'll see there's only a minor increase in price for performance that rivals the Ti version of the next model up previously at a price that is $50 lower than that RRP.

      If you want to talk about mid-low tier cards why are you in a discussion about a raytracing specialty product? The GTX 1160 will be released sometime soon.

    13. Re:Missing the point on pricing by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I must say, you make for a very in depth look at astroturfer's handbook on how to handle being caught astroturfing. Tacit attempt at feigning agreement, gentle attempt to guide discussion away from your astroturfing and noting that "you made the right choice to buy our product". Some serious psychology went into material that was used to train you.

      Thank you for this interesting lesson in psychology. It was quite enjoyable.

    14. Re:Missing the point on pricing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I must say, you make for a very in depth look at astroturfer's handbook on how to handle being caught astroturfing.

      Whatever man. One day you may be enlightened enough to realise that people who disagree with you aren't on the take and that you're have in fact just been talking shit all this time.

      Have a good day.

  16. Re:Correct price: $195 by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    Linear time.

  17. Re:Correct price: $195 by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    And yet we have increased performance at a lower price point, Linear time shows it's just fine. Unless you subscribe to the theory of endless growth.

  18. Re:Correct price: $195 by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    What do you think Moore's law is?

  19. 6gb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this And still only 6 GB???

  20. Re:Correct price: $195 by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Oooh I know this one. The answer is "not relevant"! What do I win?

    And if you think otherwise it would be a good idea to start looking into what has happened in technology development, performance, and dollars in the past 10 years, and then do your favorite activity: extrapolate. You may find you hit the $350 launch price.

  21. Re:Correct price: $195 by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    The ass hat. Which you will likely put on your head, being as dumb as you are in thinking that 75% price increase in a single generation for the mid end product is something you can extrapolate from historic numbers.

  22. Re:Correct price: $195 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    something that is completely irrelevant and unrelated to performance and cost. What exactly do you think it is?

  23. Re:Correct price: $195 by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    Something that is obviously relevant and related to performance and cost, which is the observable reality for those not desperately astroturfing?

  24. Re:Correct price: $195 by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    There was no 75% price increase. The RTX2060 has a 40% price decrease for similar performance, quite the same as the previous gen cards when rolled out. And while you keep using the term "mid-end" you continue to ignore the fact that just because there's a 60 in the number the product mix has changed and it is not a mid end card though it will be joined by a mid end card with a 60 after it sometime early this year.

    If you're going to call someone dumb it pays to actually have a clue first.

  25. Re:Correct price: $195 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sigh, yet another retard that doesn't actually know what Moore's law actually is.

    Moore's has nothing to do with price or performance, it is to do with the density of transistors doubling every 2 years.

  26. Re:Correct price: $195 by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    You finished that sentence early for such a purportedly smart man. Do continue. What does doubling density of transistors lead to?

  27. Re:Correct price: $195 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you think Moore's law is?

    Moore's law isn't an actual law, not legally, not physically, not mathematically. It shocks me how much people here think it is an actual law.

    Moore's "idea of what I think transistor development will be like" is not true anymore. Hasn't been for a few years now, and will never be again.