In February, I recounted how AMD and Nvidia collectively launched the refreshment cycle of the least-popular high-end GPUs in the history of the video game industry. After the launch of the AMD Navi 5700 and 5700 XT and the Nvidia replica with the RTX 2060 Super and 2070 Super, it makes sense to come back to this conclusion. How did things improve a little over six months later?
In fact, they have improved a lot if you buy at the top of the market. Before reviewing the details of the changes, let me clarify some of the terms. Historically, GPU price ranges look like this:
Budget: $ 150 or less.
Mid-range: $ 150 – $ 300
High end: $ 300 – $ 500
Ultra-high: $ 500 +.
When Nvidia introduced the RTX family, prices went up considerably. Instead of the GTX 1070 around $ 370 and the GTX 1080 between $ 500 and $ 550, the RTX 2070 was a $ 500 GPU, the RTX 2080 was $ 700, and the 2080 Ti actually worked between 1,100 and 1,200 dollars ($ 1,000 technically, but nobody ever got them, as far as I know).
A publication like ours has two basic ways: manage your own price band and insert the new cards, or change our price bands and increase them to meet the needs of the manufacturer. If you take the latter approach, AMD's Navi graphics cards are now "mid-range" cards, despite price tags of $ 350 and $ 400. It's also the way you end up with articles referring to the iPhone XR as "entry-level" or "budget" at $ 750, as if Apple did not just kill the only pseudo-budget device proposed, the iPhone SE at 350 USD.
Adjusting price brackets to reflect what businesses are selling is not wrong, as long as it matches what customers purchase The next quarterly Nvidia figures should provide further confirmation here, but the available data suggests that Turing's sales were way behind Pascal at launch and that they may not have recovered since. If Nvidia really thought they had established ray tracing as a feature that players were willing to pay, the RTX 2060, 2070, and 2080 GPUs would not have been reduced.
As far as ExtremeTech is concerned, at least for the moment, the Navi 5700 and 5700 XT cards are high-end cards, as are the RTX 2060, 2060 Super, 2070 and 2070 Super. The RTX 2080, 2080 Super and 2080 Ti belong to their own distinct category of ultra-high-end devices.
We have recently measured the long-term performance evolution with various graphics processors, but we can use this dataset for different purposes. Keep in mind that in the graphics series below, the GeForce RTX 2080 (non-Super) delivers nearly the same performance as the RTX 2070 Super. (The 2070S is typically between 95 and 105% of the performance of RTX 2080).
Comparing RTX 2070S / 2080 to GTX 1080, we find that the minimum frame rates are 1.18 times higher at 1080p, 1.28 times higher at 1440p and 1.4x higher at 4K. The average frame rates of our entire game range are 1.3 times higher at 1080p, 1.4 times higher at 1440p and 1.44x higher at 4K.
I do not have the same level of data on the GTX 1070 as the RTX 2060 Super, but we know that the 2060S also improves performance by about 1.15, as it almost works out of the same way as the RTX 2070 of origin. The new $ 400 GPU award brings it closer to the original GTX 1070 than the OG 1080.
As for AMD, the 5700 and 5700 XT effectively replace Vega 56 and 64. The slideshow below contains the results of our RX 5700 and 5700 XT tests. The Radeon RX 5700 matches the Vega 64 in almost every test, but costs $ 350 instead of $ 500. It consumes 74% of the power of Vega 64 while outperforming the RTX 2060.
ace upgrades for the current owners of Vega 56 and Vega 64, the best case will be between Vega 56 and RX 5700 XT. In this case, I value my earnings, but I'm pretty sure they are not as important as the improvements between Turing's Turing prices and Pascal and Turing. Vega 56 was typically 1.08x to 1.12x slower than Vega 64, but the 5700 XT's lead over Vega 64 varies significantly depending on the game. In some cases, both GPUs are linked.
AMD players with older cards or Nvidia players wishing to change sides are the most likely customers to use the RX 5700 and RX 5700 XT, and the performance offered by these cards make it a potentially interesting upgrade to these markets.
The new AMD launches have restored a better, more consumer-friendly balance in the upper end of the GPU market. The market of very high-end remains less friendly. The RTX 2080 Super offers the smallest performance improvement of all "Super" cards and does not do a very good job justifying its $ 200 price premium over the RTX 2070 Super. The Radeon VII and the RTX 2080 Super are only justifiable if you play in 4K and, honestly, they are not so convincing even in this situation.
AMD has not yet announced plans for the midrange market, but the company also needs to work on maps to refresh this space as well. Let's hope it will not be long before we have much more efficient and powerful chips ready to replace the RX 570, 580 and 590.
As for whether Navi or Turing is a better way to upgrade, it will depend a bit on what you want: A little more speed (compared to the competition), or features such as ray tracing? Some users may not think that even these gains are enough, which I understand. But we can at least say that it are performance / dollar gains over the previous generation. Six months ago, it was not possible.
It's no secret that high-end GPU prices have recently dropped, thanks to AMD's recent launch of its RX 5700 and RX 5700 XT. AMD has now stirred the pot a little, claiming that she had managed to bluff Nvidia to reduce costs, only to get the rug out from under and reduce the price even more
This data is included in Hot Hardware's interview / podcast with Scott Herkelman, vice president of Radeon at AMD. Scott then explains how AMD carefully planned, assessing the capabilities of RTX cards in terms of Nvidia's clock speeds, chip sizes, revenue targets and expected margins, and more again. AMD's initial prices for the RX 5700 and 5700 XT were $ 500 and $ 379, but after Nvidia unveiled its Super family, the company reduced them to $ 350 and $ 400. According to AMD, this has always been the plan.
Herkelman explains how AMD carefully analyzed the family of RTX graphics processors, including their prices, chip sizes, and the margin of safety they had left. He chose his initial prices for the RX series while waiting for Nvidia to subcontract them, which allowed him to offer his own price improvements:
The prices we originally published we waited to see what they published, then we took the appropriate step: not only to dislodge their Super series, but also to block their 2060 and 2070 series. Because we knew that they were having a slower success and we wanted to do a double jebait, not only block their super strategy, but also slow down the 2060s and 2070s.
First of all, let me say that everything AMD has said about the analysis of Turing's safety margin, its price level and other market factors, seems to me quite worthy of note. the outset. We perform similar analyzes ourselves and AMD is in a better position than us to understand some aspects of Nvidia's manufacturing situation. Nvidia has maintained very high margins on its GPUs; the company wide margin last year was about 60%. When he raised prices with Turing, we argued that Nvidia was doing so in part because it did not have any real competition from AMD.
Similarly, it makes perfect sense that AMD brings to the market a part that gives it an advantage. The sizes of Navi matrices are much smaller than Turing. The RX 5700 and 5700 XT are 251mm2, while the RTX 2060 and RTX 2070 are 445 mm2. The RTX 2070S, 2080 and 2080S are even bigger, at 545 mm2However, AMD does not compete directly with the RTX 2070S.
Without information on platelet performance and cost, however, we can not directly compare what Nvidia and AMD are likely to pay for the final chips. It is true that AMD has a decisive advantage in terms of chip size, but AMD also supports a new node and should pay at least a little more for wafers. The way all this is played out, in the end, is uncertain. But obviously, AMD felt it had a usable advantage.
Nevertheless, once Nvidia announced the launch of the "Super" family, AMD was in danger of reducing its prices. At $ 500 and $ 379, the RX 5700 and 5700 XT would have clashed against the RTX 2060S and RTX 2070S instead of RTX 2060 and RTX 2060S. This represents a more difficult challenge for both cards, at higher prices. He would also have been forced to repeat almost the beginnings of Radeon VII, in which AMD could have matched the RTX 2080 in terms of performance, price, new features and not receiving a warm welcome. Yes, Navi made include new features, and we still want to talk about it in more detail, but there are no revolutionary new features to discuss that could have changed the equation.
At equal prices, the 5700 and 5700 XT would have been less well positioned than today compared to the RTX 2060S and 2070S. AMD has made the decision to position its GPUs more advantageously by reducing prices. Do I think that they planned this? Absolutely Do I think that AMD would have kept its prices higher if the 5700 and 5700 XT cards had been faster? Yes I can hardly argue otherwise. I spent six months writing articles on how AMD would not give its processors if it achieved performance equal to Intel's, simply because some fanboys thought that it would not work. was a good idea. There is no reason to think that the company wants to improve its processor margins, but it agrees to give GPUs a fraction of what it might ask. Our slide show, with the results of our reviews RX 5700 XT and 5700 compared to the RTX 2060, 2070 and 2080 (the 2080 replacing the 2070S) is presented below:
If Nvidia had not lowered prices with its Super cards, I doubt very much that AMD would have canceled its own higher prices. That's not to say that AMD did not have a plan in advance, but it was a fairly predictable and simple plan.
The biggest and most important delivery here is that companies absolutely will be raise prices when there is no competition. Nvidia did not magically find a way to reduce Turing costs the same month that AMD launched new GPUs. They raised prices with Turing partly because there was no competition with AMD to stop them.
As soon as AMD re-entered the market with a competitive part, GPU prices went down again. Had AMD been able to export competing parts last year, Nvidia may not have been able to raise its prices. If Nvidia had not been focused on player compression like juicero fruit juice (and could not misinterpreted the crypto market new games sales), it would not have increased the prices anyway. AMD's attempt to establish a relatively prosaic price cut against Team Green is not really a success, but high-end GPUs are undeniably cheaper than today. It's a win for everyone, no matter what material you prefer.
The GPU market has changed a lot in the last month, thanks to the launch of AMD Navi and the reaction of Nvidia. As soon as AMD announced the prices of the RX 5700 and 5700 XT at $ 379 and $ 500, Nvidia announced the launch of a new family of RTX "Super" cards. These Turing updates for the RTX 2060 and RTX 2070 have substantially improved the performance of these two cards. In response, AMD cut its own GPU prices, repositioning the 5700 and 5700 XT at $ 350 and $ 400.
We now have the RTX 2080 Super coming in, with a smaller improvement at the top than the one already introduced by Nvidia with the RTX 2060 Super and the RTX 2070 Super. As a reminder, here's how the new cards fit into their replacements:
The RTX 2080 Super brings some improvements, including a fully activated TU104 GPU, higher base and boost clocks than the RTX 2080 and, for the first time, a slightly longer memory bandwidth. The graphics processor TDP also reached 250W, but tests showed that the increase in actual power consumption was lower than this.
The increase in performance over RTX 2080 is about 8%. This will not blow up all the doors and will not improve the upgrades, but it is still an 8% improvement over the previous year at the same price as the RTX 2080 of origin. Gains are lower than RTX 2060 Super or RTX 2070 Super. delivered, and the RTX 2080 Ti is still the distant leader.
Both PCMag and Anandtech We welcome the performance improvement at the same price of $ 699 as the original RTX 2080, although both also recognize that the gains are less than those of high-end cards. At the moment, the RTX 2080 Super and mostly the RTX 2080 Ti represent a lower value in terms of performance / dollar than their lower-end counterparts. It is therefore possible to make a strong case for buying at a more reasonable price around the RTX 2060S or the RTX 2070S. The AMD RX 5700 XT is another option for players who want to save $ 300 on a new GPU.
Chris Stobing of PCMag writes:
We think that the price of Super cards matches that of the RTX line. Anyone who bought RTX in 2018 certainly paid an early adoption fee. AMD's lack of competition in elite 4K gaming spaces has allowed Nvidia to free itself from the pricing of much of GeForce RTX's life so far.
Anandtech's feelings are similar. The RTX 2080 Super is not "a card that dramatically changes the calculation of the video card. Instead, this is exactly what is written: a slightly faster 2080, offering a bit more performance (and performance per dollar) than before. "
One of the areas in which exams are sometimes inadequate is to give insight into the evolution of component performance over time. While the annual launch of new hardware provides periodic opportunities to review how older components overlap, launches focus on the processor or graphics processor be launched, not the previous cards. Title-specific coverage, on the other hand, is usually measured and written at the time of a game or product review. Combine these two trends and it may be more difficult than it should be for players to understand the evolution of performance over time and determine which GPUs retain their value better than others.
With this in mind, we have completed the analysis of the datasets we collected during our recent review of AMD data. Radeon RX 5700 and Radeon RX 5700 XTas well as the Gigabyte Aorus RTX 2080 Xtreme 8 GB. We have updated all of our GPU datasets in late June / early July 2019, which is a good time to revisit the evolution of Pascal, Turing and GCN's performance over the past nine months.
We are looking for two trends. First, players were concerned about the impact of the Meltdown and Specter patches on game performance. Secondly, some circles have the impression that Nvidia GPUs lose performance faster than their AMD counterparts, Nvidia GPUs were designed for or because the company deliberately prevents old maps from making newer GPUs look better by comparison.
If I am honest, I have never believed the most sinister version of this argument. Nvidia and AMD pursued somewhat different optimization strategies in the pre-DX12 wasand it is reasonable to assume that Nvidia is focusing its optimization efforts on the new GPUs rather than the old ones. This is not unique to Nvidia, however. Now that AMD has put the RDNA on the market, it may also need to decide how to prioritize its time when optimizing its different architectures. There is a difference between saying that Nvidia can focus more on optimizing for the new cards and saying that Nvidia is deliberately handicapping the old GPUs. In any case, the objective here is to measure the evolution of performances over time in the same series of titles. We will see where the results will lead us.
All our tests were done on an Asus Prime Z370-A motherboard, with 32 GB of DDR4-3200 using an Intel Core i7-8086K processor. The Nvidia GPUs of September 2018 were tested with the help of the Turing 411.63 launch pilot, while the June tests used the Nvidia 430.86 driver. The AMD Radeon 64 and VII processors used the Adrenaline 19.5.2 driver. A Samsung 1TB 970 EVO was used for storage. The September 2018 tests were run on Windows 10 1803, while the June 2019 tests ran on Windows 10 1903. All Meltdown, Specter, and related patches were left in default states.
Although the date of comparison is September 2018 and June 2019, it is clearly a small foundation in the case of Radeon VII (the Radeon VII was not launched until February). The performance of the Radeon VII in June is compared to that of its launch in this case.
Two games showed a drop in performance on Radeon and GeForce hardware: Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation and Warhammer II. Both games showed declines in all APIs, although AotS: Escalation lost more performance. This is theorized as the result of the protections of Specter et al. No other game has seen a decline in performance, and the declines in these specific titles were not large enough to change the overall trend of our game line.
We measured the performance in Ashes of the Singularity: Climbing, Deus Ex: Divided Humanity, Hitman, Metro Redux Redux, Middle Earth: Shadow of War, Tomb Rising, Warhammer, The Bear's Tomb, Assassin's Creed: Origins, and Far Cry 5. The performances shown for each GPU in each resolution reflect the geometric mean of our results. We used a geometric mean of an arithmetic mean to calculate the averages in order to take into account that the minimum frame rates can vary considerably depending on the games – Hitman, for example, the minimum frame rates of regular returns for all GPUs between 4 – 12fps.
Our September coverage used a standard GeForce RTX 2080, while June 2019 data is based on the Gigabyte Aorus RTX 2080 Xtreme, which has slightly higher clock rates. This may have had a slight impact on performance (1 to 2%), but the difference is not large enough to cause a problem.
The slideshow below contains our results, represented graphically by resolution and by minimum and average rates.
The minimum frame rate enhancements at 1080p and 1440p have been optimally resolved for Vega 64, RTX 2080 and GTX 1080 Ti. The average improvement level is lower in all cards, but this is not necessarily surprising. Vega 64 and Radeon VII are both based on GCN, and GCN has been AMD's main architecture for a number of years, enough to be optimized at this stage. The Nvidia RTX 2080 records the most consistent gains in all resolutions, probably due to the small clock tick or the fact that Turing is the most recent architecture and offers the greatest performance yet on the table. Even the GTX 1080 takes some pictures in 1080p.
There is nothing to indicate that Nvidia has taken steps to hinder Pascal's performance or to make his older 2016 GPUs less attractive than the newer ones. There is no Pascal performance regression or cadence problem in any game that does not affect all GPU (that's why we think that the decline in performance of Ashes and Warhammer II is related to the processor and not to the GPU). The performance of Vega 64 is perhaps the most advanced, but Vega 64 has been on the market for less time than the Pascal family. Despite these improvements, the GTX 1080 is only slightly equal to or slightly less than all resolutions and at the minimum and average rates. The relative performance of these AMD and NV cards relative to each other has changed little.
The implication of these results is only beneficial, whatever the GPU you have. The AMD or Nvidia, Vega, and Pascal cards both show the expected performance, while the slightly larger improvements in Turing correspond to what we expected from a relatively newer architecture. Obviously, the details of how the GPU architecture ages will be specific to each architecture, and since this review does not focus on the older maps of the Maxwell or Kepler era, we can not talk about situations with these GPUs. But for Pascal, Nvidia's latest generation architecture seems to age well, while AMD has also improved Vega's performance.
The AMD RX 5700 and AMD RX 5700 XT processors are the latest Red brand products in the GPU market and a major attempt to improve its competitiveness over Nvidia. Although these new GPUs do not support Nvidia ray tracing is a major RTX feature, AMD hopes that its own performance improvements, additional capabilities and new card designs will attract new buyers.
Before diving into the data, we need to update you on prices. When AMD announced the 5700 and 5700 XT models, it set retail prices for both cards at $ 379 and $ 450. On Friday, AMD announced an adjusted price – 350 USD for the 5700 and only 400 USD for the RX 5700 XT.
The AMD price cuts were motivated by the need. Nvidia has recently refreshed its own GPU RTX family with the 2060 Super, 2070 Super and 2080 Super models. Both GPUs These would have had a significant performance in the pile, but no better prices. The RTX 2060S is virtually identical to the old RTX 2070 (but costs 400 USD instead of 500 USD), while the RTX 2070S is about 96% faster than the RTX 2080. The references we want to compare in this Examination are presented below:
The Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT will harmonize with the RTX 2060 and RTX 2060S / RTX 2070. Pay attention to the correspondence between Radeon RX 5700 and Vega 64. On paper, Vega 64 has a considerable advantage in terms of texture, almost identical pixel fill and even larger memory bandwidth. You expect him to win any fight.
You would be wrong.
The 5700 and 5700 XT models reflect the sober, almost industrial design that the Radeon VII debuted earlier this year. The reference RX 5700 is a squared rectangular model, while the 5700 XT adds a small variation with an irregular depression in the GPU fairing.
Even before the Navi launch, it had already had an impact on the graphics market. Nvidia has not reduced Turing's prices by goodness of heart.
The big question for AMD here is whether it can create momentum around its GPUs. It's been six years since AMD decided to grab the crown of Nvidia's performance with Hawaii. The GPU families that followed – Fury, Polaris, Vega – have been struggling, to one degree or another. AMD has often had its architectures as far as possible to match or almost match Nvidia's performance. Turning smart at the end of its clock curve tends to hug tremendously at energy efficiency, and AMD's GPUs have not been particularly competitive with Nvidia in terms of power global since the beginning of Pascal.
In presenting its RDNA architecture to E3, AMD discussed efficiency gains, instruction execution rates, and power consumption for the 5700 and 5700 XT systems. Now that it has reached the 7-nm mark, customers expect significantly improved performance and efficiency compared to the 14-nm version delivered three years ago.
AMD also decided not to include tracing support in its current range of PC products, despite the fact that Nvidia has strongly pushed this feature over the last year. This introduces another gap in the value comparison between the two companies. GPU manufacturers do not have to compare each feature, but customers generally want to see equivalent value We will have to see if the RX 5700 and 5700 XT are up to par.
We will compare the efficiency and overall performance of the 5700 XT with those of the Radeon Vega 64 and Radeon VII. The Vega 64 is the 14 nm AMD GPU closest to the 5700 XT in terms of expected performance, while the Radeon VII is AMD's first 7 nm GPU design, but built on the older GCN architecture. We do not expect the 5700 XT to beat the Radeon VII, but the fact that they are close in terms of overall performance will tell us some interesting things about the RDNA versus GCN.
All of our test results were generated using a Core i7-8086K processor and an Asus Prime Z370-A motherboard with 32GB of DDR4-3200 and 2201 UEFI version. The 430.86 WHQL driver from Nvidia was used to test all NV cards. The AMD graphics processors were tested using the 19.30.01.09-Adrenaline launch driver provided by AMD, with the exception of the Radeon VII, tested with the help of the Adrenaline 19.5.2 driver. (06.03.2019). A 1TB Samsung 970 EVO supported storage needs.
Our Windows 10 benchmark used the Windows update of May 2019 and all additional security patches were installed. Specter, Meltdown, and similar security patches have all been left in their default state.
All power measurements were performed using a wall-mounted Kill-A-Watt meter and a Thermaltake RGB 1250 80 Plus Titanium power supply. Measured power in Metro Last Light Redux at 1080p Very high details with SSAA enabled. Power measurements were taken during the third baseline analysis to allow the system to warm up.
All test results from this review, including power measurements, were analyzed for this series of reviews. We also kept the previous versions of GTX 1080 and 1080 in this suite of exams, to measure Pascal's ability to keep up with this new generation of cards.
The RTX 2060 is the direct comparison of the Radeon RX 5700, but the RTX 2070 should be considered a replacement for the RTX 2060S. This is the GPU that the RX 5700 XT will face. The Gigabyte Aorus RTX 2080 is a replacement for the RTX 2070S, But keep in mind that this GPU still costs $ 100 more than the RX 5700 XT. The nearly equivalent 1080 Ti and RTX 2080 / 2070S are included here for reference, not because they represent the direct competitors of these two GPUs.
Our results are included in the slideshow below. Each slide can be clicked to open it in a separate window.
Although I do not have a sufficiently sensitive dBmeter to measure GPU fans reliably, I do not do it. need One to make the difference between the RX 5700 and the RX 5700 XT and virtually all other AMD reference cards manufactured since 2013.
The 5700 and 5700 XT are silent. No they are not inaudible But they are better than any other high-end reference card launched by AMD for a long time in this approximate price range. When we met AMD at E3, we were told that the fans were locked at a maximum noise level of 42 dBa. This sounds (no pun intended) on the right of us.
Thus, the RX 5700 and RX 5700 XT offer relatively better performance than the RTX 2060 and RTX 2070, respectively. They are a lot calmer than the Vega 64 or Radeon VII. How do they compare to power?
There are different ways to look at these data. First of all, let's take the RX 5700 over the Vega 64. The RX 5700 matches the performance of Vega 64 in almost every case, but consumes almost a third less power. The Radeon RX 5700 and RX 5700 XT cards consume more power than the RTX 2060 and RTX 2070, but they are also faster cards. Adapt to this difference and the slightly higher power consumption of the two AMD cards is in line with their performance advantage.
Of course, in this case, the elephant that baffles in the room is due to the fact that the AMD GPUs are based on a new process at 7 nm, while those of Nvidia remain blocked at 12 nm. This is a very fair point, and this implies that AMD still catches global energy efficiency compared to Nvidia.
This is not surprising. More than five years passed between the hiring of Jim Keller by AMD and the launch of Ryzen. When Vega debuted on disappointing reviews in August 2017, Scuttlebutt hinted that the GPU development cycle had been hampered by the rush to bridge Ryzen and kick him out. Although AMD has devoted additional technical resources to improving the GPU aspect of your business, these changes have not been as long. The time scales are different, as is the reasonable degree of relative improvement expected.
Navi does not close energy efficiency at one time, but it is far more efficient than anything delivered by AMD recently and its competitive efficiency compared to what Nvidia has to offer, even though AMD relies heavily on a node advance to make. Your utility company does not care about the process on which your devices are built, but the amount of energy they use.
I have more to say about Navi, the current state of the graphics market, and the wisdom of investing in ray tracing now that Nvidia has reduced GPU prices. With two processors and two graphics processors running on the same day, I'll have to ask for some time to gather my ideas.
All in all, though, I would say that Navi is without a doubt the most impressive AMD GPU since at least the HD 7970. This may seem surprising, as it is not in a leading position and is not is not up to expectations. Nvidia's stack of products – although we write a very different conclusion it point if Nvidia did not come to cut their own prices.
AMD has been playing with Nvidia for two years on the GPU market. He needed a GPU capable of competing in power and the performance It needed an architecture able to respect its target clock frequency. Since Fury, we had the impression that AMD and GCN were fighting against a wall of efficiency and scaling, recovering all the performances they could find. With Navi, the company has the feeling of being able to breathe again.
I'll say more about features, positioning, ray tracing, etc. But I'll leave you with this: more than a particular feature, AMD had to prove that it could still create competitive and well-positioned cards. The RX 5700 and 5700 XT respect this promise. They are faster than the RTX 2060 and RTX 2070 and the price cuts introduced by AMD are going keep Eliminate them against the RTX 2060 / RTX 2060S. If the company can continue to improve its designs and increase its overall efficiency, the famous "Grand Navi" (expected in 2020) should be something to see.
When AMD announced its GPU Navi architecture and publicly showed that the chip exceeded Nvidia's RTX 2060 and 20X at slightly lower prices, it was inevitable that Team Green would react. In the opinion of all, this response is being developed and will debut in the very near future.
The Nvidia RTX 2060 Super, the RTX 2070 Super and the RTX 2080 Super are all expected to debut next week, but the rollout will be staggered. Embargoes for the 2060S and 2070S magazines will be lifted the same day, the 2080S will follow later in July. Supposedly, each GPU will use the GPU at the "above" level, but that does not make much sense for the RTX 2060/2070 – these two cards are based on the same physical GPU (TU106). The Inquirer reports that there can also be a 2070 Ti Super and 2080 Ti Super, with their own new GPUs.
We do not know certain things, especially what happens to RTX products when launching new Super cards. However, Nvidia had two fundamental ways to play this situation: the price to be paid by the RTX family to align it more with Navi, or the performance of RTX to try to widen the gap between them.
It's not hard to see why Nvidia would go in the direction of improving current performance, and we expected Super Cards to arrive above RTX price in effect, not below. When Nvidia built his current RTX family, he decided to dramatically increase prices at all price levels. The introduction of new cards at higher prices, but with increased performance, gives Nvidia the opportunity to improve its price / positioning ratio without reducing its costs.
Imagine, for example, that the next AMD RX 5700XT is 5% faster than the RTX 2070 but that it costs 50 dollars cheaper. Nvidia could lower the price of the RTX 2070 to match that of the RX 5700XT in terms of performance, while consuming the reduction – or keep the RTX 2070 on the market at the same or slightly lower level and introduce RTX more efficient 2070S to a better quality / price ratio. All Nvidia needs to improve the price / performance ratio of the RTX family if its price is increased by less than the amount it improves its performance.
The other reason why Nvidia may well prefer to raise prices rather than reduce them with Navi matrix size. As shown in the screenshot above, the AMD Navi is 251 mm2 part. The RTX 2060 and 2070 measure 445 mm2 parts. RTX 2080 is even bigger, at 545 mm2. We know nothing about the relative performance of 12nm chips versus 7nm chips, but AMD has at least one potential benefit, in terms of absorption at a lower price. However, neither company will likely be interested in triggering a major price war. Having been forced into a less-than-ideal price range with its current products and with its poorly positioned Vega family, AMD probably wants to improve its price range and overall margins, as well as regain market share.