Nvidia RX20xx much better than 10xx series?

Off-Topic Games, Gaming and Hardware
1

Is the nvidia RX2060 much better than the 1060 series?

Thanks!

2

2060 is about equalish to a 1070ti, so basically moving from a 1080p card to a 1440p card.

It’s one of the few 20xx cards worth the money, the 2060 and 2080 basically.

2 Likes
3

Not worth it to me since I have a 1080TI.

4

Then you’d have to compare to the RTX 2080/2080 Ti.

5

$700 vs $1200

6

True and I’ve done it, the cost definitely outweighs the benefit for the games I am playing currently. :joy:

1 Like
7

It’s never really been a great idea to upgrade to the very next generation, if you got a decent card to begin with.

Usually people skip one or two.

The ones who buy every generation are the people who buy the lowest end cards every time.

Got a 70 or 80 series? Probably better to wait.

1 Like
8

I did a side grade from a 1080ti to a 2080. Older games its slightly slower but newer ones are as much as 30% depending on how it was coded. BUT the ones that perform better that is where future games are going. Optimized DX12, async compute, etc the performance is way better.

9

Depends on what you want to do with it. The gtx 1660 or rtx 2060 would both be better than a 1060 but how much depends on the title.

Turing is starting to mirror AMD and Intel’s GPU architecture more to fit into next gen games. Maxwell has some serious problems with the GPU, unless you’re going to want high image quality, compute or multi-engine you’ll be fine.

If you had a choice I’d say get a good priced Turning. Sadly this gen of cards is pretty bad all around.

10

Turning doesn’t fully support async compute but that doesn’t matter. Async compute is mostly valuable on the console and helps some on PC. Turning has fixed some of the image quality hardware problems on previous Nvidia cards, F16 problems are finally fixed and we’ve got some resemblance of multi-engine working on Turning. It’s a wonderful piece of engineering but at a piss poor price.

At this time I’m guessing Intel is gonna bum run AMD and Nvidia if they pull of their multi-GPU chip strategy at the cost of your left lung though…

11

Pascal supported async compute. Turing certainly does as well. We can argue that Pascal’s was sub optimal, but nevertheless, it’s there.

12

Nvidia and AMD tackle the problem differently. Both with good results depending on the situation.

AMD GCN -> fully runs Graphics, Compute and Copy in parallel

Nvidia Maxwell -> Serially run by drivers - async compute ‘disabled’ but cards quickly have requests come in and go out

Nvidia Pascal -> Async compute not fully supported -> Tasks are saved off allowing for other tasks to run, old tasks can be reawaken (concurrent not parallel)

Nvidia Turning -> RT and non-RT cores can run in parallel but incapable of running Graphics, Compute and Copy in parallel

All async compute does is to use, unused hardware. Nvidia is pretty good at keeping their cards busy in DX11. In DX12 their drivers hurt CPU cycles on low CPU machines depending on how badly games are optimized. AMD is the opposite with DX11 issues and better utilization in DX12. None of this necessarily translates to better performance per se. That generally comes down to how well the titles themselves use resources. Generally, someone well written runs good on both vendors.