Exploring 2560×1440 Results
We explore 1440p gaming performance and overclocking results
In part one of our review of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 graphics card we looked at gaming performance using only 1920×1080 and 3840×2160 results, and while UHD is the current standard for consumer televisions (and an easy way to ensure GPU-bound performance) more than twice as many gamers play on a 2560×1440 display (3.89% vs. 1.42% for 3840×2160) according to Steam hardware survey results.
Adding these 1440p results was planned from the beginning, but time constraints made testing at three resolutions before getting on a plane for CES impossible (though in retrospect UHD should have been the one excluded from part one, and in future I'll approach it that way). Regardless, we now have those 1440p results to share, having concluded testing using the same list of games and synthetic benchmarks we saw in the previous installment.
On to the benchmarks!
|PC Perspective GPU Test Platform|
|Processor||Intel Core i7-8700K|
|Motherboard||ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-H Gaming|
|Memory||Corsair Vengeance LED 16GB (8GBx2) DDR4-3000|
|Storage||Samsung 850 EVO 1TB|
|Power Supply||CORSAIR RM1000x 1000W|
|Operating System||Windows 10 64-bit (Version 1803)|
NVIDIA: 417.54, 417.71 (OC Results)
We will begin with Unigine Superposition, which was run with the high preset settings.
Here we see the RTX 2060 with slightly higher performance than the GTX 1070 Ti, right in the middle of GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 performance levels. As expected so far.
Continue reading part two of our NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 review.
Next we'll have a look at performance using World of Tanks enCore, a standalone benchmark showcasing the upcoming graphics engine upgrade for World of Tanks. This was run at the "ultra" preset. First we'll look at the average FPS numbers, and then check out frame times for more context.
Here the RTX 2060 is 1.2 FPS behind the GTX 1070 Ti, but comfortably ahead of the GTX 1070. Frame times, on the other hand, are all over the place when you look at the relationship between average and 99th percentile times. The RTX 2080 is buttery smooth at the top of the chart, and the Vega 64 offers a pretty smooth experience as well, but almost every other card exibited some stuttering, with the RTX 2060 virtually tied with the GTX 1070 Ti.
Final Fantasy XV will bridge the gap between benchmarking application and actual games, as this is a standalone program. Of note is the fact that by default the high preset enables GameWorks features, so I am only testing this at the "standard" quality setting going forward.
In this benchmark the RTX 2060 is neck and neck with the Vega 64, and 4 FPS ahead of the GTX 1070 Ti. All cards provided very smooth performance looking at the frame time chart, with only minor variance between average and 99th percentile all the way down the list.
Next up is F1 2018, and while a DX12 beta was made available in November, this game is a DX11 test as this is how it currently ships. Here we are using the high preset, and default TAA (on) and AF (16x) settings.
While close, RTX 2060 performance is a little behind the GTX 1070 Ti, though still easily passes the GTX 1070 in average FPS. The RTX 2060 also offered smooth performance, though most of the cards tested provided a great experience with F1 2018 – with the outliers being the AMD cards, which have some some major problems in the game with frame time spikes. Hopefully some driver optimization can help here – though that switch to DX12 could very well be the answer here.
Next up is Far Cry 5, another DX11 game. High preset, all defaults again.
The RTX 2060 is nearly tied with the GTX 1070 Ti here, and the Vega 64 does very well in this test nearly matching the GTX 1080. Moving on to the frame times the gameplay was pretty smooth with no major spikes in the 99th percentile from any of the cards.
Middle Earth: Shadow of War is next, and the final DX11 title of the group. Same story as previous games: high preset, default settings.
The RTX 2060 comes really close to the GTX 1080 here, finishing less than 1 FPS behind and 10 FPS ahead of the GTX 1070 Ti. Frame times were not as universally smooth here, and gameplay was a little rough in certain moments which is reflected by a greater disparity in average and 99th percentile numbers, with the AMD cards suffering a little more in this area, but not by a lot.
Moving on to Ashes of the Singularity, run using DX12 (the game offers DX11 and Vulkan support as well), again with default high settings.
Two big takeaways here: the cards all scaled pretty much exactly how you would expect based on their price and potential performance levels, but oh those frame time spikes. 99th percentile numbers are much higher than average, which is very obvious in the game and results in some jumpy visuals – and the RTX 2080 sits alone with really, really smooth gameplay with this benchmark.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider is next, also run using DX12 and the default high preset settings:
The RTX 2060 eclipses the GTX 1070 Ti once again here in average FPS, though it was not as smooth when you look at the frame times. Even the RTX 2080 struggled with consistent frame times, with the GTX 1070 and 1080 doing better than the rest of the group.
Next we'll check out overclocked performance and see just how far the RTX 2060 can be pushed without voltage adjustments.
|Review Terms and Disclosure
All Information as of the Date of Publication
|How product was obtained:||The product is on loan from NVIDIA for the purpose of this review.|
|What happens to product after review:||The product remains the property of NVIDIA but is on extended loan for future testing and product comparisons.|
|Company involvement:||NVIDIA had no control over the content of the review and was not consulted prior to publication.|
|PC Perspective Compensation:||Neither PC Perspective nor any of its staff were paid or compensated in any way by NVIDIA for this review.|
|Advertising Disclosure:||NVIDIA has not purchased advertising at PC Perspective during the past twelve months.|
|Affiliate Links:||This article contains affiliate links to online retailers. PC Perspective may receive compensation for purchases through those links.|
You might want to re-check
You might want to re-check that World of Tanks frame time/frame rate math.
9.8 ms average frame time does NOT work out to 50.7 fps average frame rate.The rest of the graphs seem fine.
You’re right – those are the
You're right – those are the 2160 numbers. Wrong chart, will be fixed shortly. Thanks!
What monitors did you test
What monitors did you test with? If they support adaptive sync/freesync, did you notice any issues?
Standard 60Hz UHD monitor
Standard 60Hz UHD monitor from Samsung (this one I believe) – nothing special, no VRR. AS/FS testing will have to be a separate project.
no matter how you try to
no matter how you try to justify it, prices at all tiers of RTX have been raised SIGNIFICANTLY over previous generations.
Also, have you guys given up on the in depth graphs that Ryan and Ken used to do?
also, f@#k this @#$##ing catcha and all of those f#^%ing ridiculous “click the pictures with ‘x’ in them”
Obviously prices for the RTX
Obviously prices for the RTX cards are higher compared directly to the GTX 10 series. I made observations about relative performance and price for the RTX 2060 alone, which in my opinion is priced fairly based on its performance. I don't expect everyone to agree with that, and I welcome your opinions.
I have not given up on the graphs. For this review I have started from scratch with all new benchmarks, all of which I have personally conducted, and I have amassed a lot of OCAT data which can be graphed in a similar way to the previous results. The main difference is that FCAT is no longer used, and without it the path to those graphs involves creating a different workflow. OCAT does have a built-in visualizer with the same type of frame time graph we were used to, but only for one result at a time. I was going to make charts from frame time data in Excel but with the number of cards I used in this review it would be a visual mess. Once I have a viable solution I'll work it in to future reviews. A smaller test group is going to be important (at least on a per-chart basis) for frame time analysis.
Good review and summary. The
Good review and summary. The RTX cards are all great performers, no question. It’s the VALUE associated with that performance that has people swallowing hard. $1200 and $800 US for the 2080Ti and 2080 made them extremely unaffordable for most people. The RTX 2060 is the first card in the RTX series that actually has an affordable price tag and great value for it. This easily going to be their best selling card.
The 2060 lacks the
The 2060 lacks the performance to back up the value RTX value option. 2080 and 2080ti struggle to run ray tracing even at lower resolutions, why would you want to get a lower tier card to try and do the same thing? It’s pretty much a useless feature on a lower tier card. that is until more content comes out and bugs get worked out and optimized, but by then next gen *60 cards will come out that do rtx much better, so rtx 2060 is not a great option. It might be the best selling RTX card, but not nvidia’s best selling turing card.
What will be their best selling card(s) are the gtx 1660ti or the gtx1660(and lower tier cards like 1650 or 1650ti if naming stays intact). Just like AMD and previous nvidia generations, the best selling cards are almost always $250 or under.
what do you
what do you think about graphs like this:
I really like having a hover over to see the power of different cards in relation to the one I am interested in. Would be great to get a quick idea about the price performance.
Do you think those graphs would make sense? Would your workflow be compatible with doing such graphs?
I think interactive charts
I think interactive charts are great, and when we are running a new site design we will be able to do much better things with charts than our current static images.
A very thorough review. Good
A very thorough review. Good work, Sebastian!
Thanks for the review very
Thanks for the review very well done thank you.
If you look at this card as just a Graphics card and do not intend run games that support ray tracing turned on this card is a mighty little performer for sure. I really think Nvidia should have just removed RT cores left the tenser cores for DLSS only and priced it $25-$50 lower and released it that way.
Also this DLSS option is it true that it only works while in 4K res? If so can this card even handle 4K very well. I guess I should go and check out the other review you did that has the 4K numbers for this card. My own opinion is that the 6GB frame buffer would limit the cards ability to run the most current games at high settings and get a lot worse when the new games roll out through out 2019.
I guess the question is still this does or will DLSS support 1440p res which would really enhance this cards performance even more at that res if DLSS is only supported in 4K then I think DLSS should be unchecked form the list of features since the cards limited 6GB memory would become the limiting factor.
DLSS works at 1440p too; you
DLSS works at 1440p too; you just wouldn’t want to use it because for that output resolution it renders the game at 1708×960.
It should work decently well to enable “4K” on the 2060, though, because at 4K DLSS renders at 1440p. In games that support DLSS you’ll get 1440p performance and visual quality that’s… a bit better than up-scaling 1440p to 4K. It’s not a miracle by any means, but this card is actually likely to need it more than something like a 2080Ti.
Appreciate the benchmarks but
Appreciate the benchmarks but for the millions of Sim Racers such as myself could you toss in another SIM racer? Assetto Corsa has it’s own benchmark and without checking, I believe Project Cars 2 may as well.
Anyway, it would be great and thanks.
I thought about adding more
I thought about adding more racing titles, but with F1 already there I held off. Going forward we can look at it, and if I expand the list of games in later reviews I'll make sure racing games are represented.
Since this card was my first attempt at a GPU review since taking over as EiC I was going with games that are kind of consensus picks in wide use on review sites, not trying to reinvent the wheel (pun intended).
I might have missed why but I
I might have missed why but I would have want to see how the rtx2060 goes against the Vega 64 vs the RX590.
If you put just those three
If you put just those three cards together it makes no sense. But I'm pretty sure I benchmarked more than just those cards.
I am an idiot and did not see
I am an idiot and did not see VEGA 64 on the charts somehow. Sorry.
Very nice follow-up review
Very nice follow-up review here. Having both the average FPS as well as the frame time graphs is great for comparison. Thanks.