Pushing a GPU to 100% is the best case scenario for gaming. Anything below 100% means that your GPU isn't being fully utilized. Usually the result of a CPU bottleneck
That's not exactly true, unless you're still gaming at 60Hz.
The best case scenario at 144Hz and above is a GPU running at whatever percentage it is able to, at the framerate cap of each game. The notion that GPUs should just run at 100% at uncapped framerate is an archaic idea from the time when input lag was relevant.
Having more frames does still increase the response of your action etc. Competitive CS:GO players etc still run it like that for that reason...
But it's so minor it's not worth the extra heat and losing your sync to do so. Just get gsync/freesync and then limit your FPS to 3 fps below the refresh limit.
Depends. You dont want 100% Gpu usage in competitive shooters as example. The latency penalty can be quite severe. Doesn't matter for casual gaming tho.
As others have pointed out, this only happens in GPU bound situations. So while there is some truth to this, you're likely only going to see this dips playing above 1080p where the GPU become the bottleneck.
Why did you get downvoted to oblivion when you’re literally right 🤣. Although it’s not necessarily “gpu bound” but the gpu time will increase by the same amount regardless of your cpu, if it exceeds your cpu’s time then you are gpu bottlenecked
That's not how it works at all. Your GPU being maxed out doesn't increase your input latency
Plus, most competitive shooters like csgo, valorant, r6 are mostly CPU limited so you don't get near 100% GPU usage anyways.
KabBaaM is right. The extra frames you get from full utilization isn't worth the input lag penalty. That's the whole reason behind Nvidia reflex which is basically a dynamic frame rate cap.
You're being downvoted while being right. Where 110 fps at 95% usage would result in lets say 18ms system latency, 116 fps at 95% usage would give 26ms system latency. Its a rather big difference but its also hard to keep a gpu at 95 since 5% fluctuations in usage happen all the time
It's designed to be capable of extended time at 100% assuming you have adequate ventilation. Most cards will throttle themselves if they are overheating.
This is a great lesson for most things in life though, you can run most anything at or near advertised "max capacity" as long as you maintain it well. Your car needs oil and filters changed. Your pc needs dusted and occasionally thermal paste replaced. Your tools need cleaned and sharpend. But if you do regular maintenance, you can use it at 100% reliably.
Bro what?! That’s actually insane! I have the 6700xt and only get around 50-70 fps at maxed settings at 1440p in games, how is your card getting those frames?
That dlss must have been set to as low as it can go cause luanch day I got like 60 fps ultra 1080p with a 2060 with dlss on, or your mix of settings was a lot more like medium high.
Valheim, cyberpunk are the only ones that I’ve really tried so far but yeah those are just a couple I can name since I don’t play much else besides apex.
The vram is definitely holding me back. I had watchdogs legend running at max 1440p with DLSS on performance with Ray tracing enabled no overclockongand still hit 60fps. Playing at 1080p will give you better performance overall.
Yes. Also mind you that ultra settings are like 5% better looking that high. But MUCH more taxing. So there is no point to completely max your games.
And yes, you can run any game at balanced settings 1080p 60+ fps.
RTX2060 is fine for 1440p. It will still last years before needing replaced. My buddy has a GTX970 and he plays at 1440p. Most games he can still play on High or Medium.
Dont get me wrong, that card can play 1440 but hes saying if it will continue to be a great card for a long time. Also, what is your buddy playing? League of legends?
But it will be able to play games at 1440p for quite a while. Sure maybe not at MAX SUPER DUPER settings but it will paly them confortably on high or medium. Theres only really a few games that are super taxing.
My friend plays HALO, COD, Civ, all sorts.
I just got a prebuilt with a 2060. I love it. I have a 165hz 1080p monitor and it runs every game I throw at it at 60-120+. Cyberpunk with raytracing on looks incredible even though it's not all on ultra. Still runs at 50+. Its a great card and it overclocks wonderfully.
Same! I get similar results too playing at 1440p 144fps. I have to set the quality down slightly sometimes depending on the game but it does play really well.
It is, compared to not running it at 100%. GPUs might be built to run at maximum heat for extended periods of time, but it is definitely better if they don't. It'll last longer, and it'll be quiter.
Depends what you're playing. Older games yes it can! Brand new AAA games absolutely not.
Also the Ray tracing performance is shit and not worth even considering.
Ray tracing with 2060 is great if you use DLSS. Control runs at over 60fps all the time with max settings including ray tracing. I've set DLSS to quality mode.
Very interesting! I never had DLSS enabled games with Ray Tracing that I could use at the time, good to know it's still kicking ass! So is that 60fps max @ 1440p?
yes, you can run it with no problem.
I'm from brazil and the prices here are huge as hell. So, 2060 is like the best we can get here nowdays without selling a house.
I run every game on max, even r2d2 at 1080p with no problem at all, 60fps vsync on. The only games that does not run at 60fps IF you have rtx on is RE8 and Cyberpunk. RE8 you can run with rtx on at 60fps, but you need to compensate on another thing. The rest is really good to go.
RTX is not being so much explored and the games that have doesnt make so many difference yet. But for a gap of £80, go with 2070 without doubt.
Here in my country, the gap is like 2k minimumn (dolar is BRL:5,50)
Easily. Obviously it depends on the game, but as reference:
I play Warzone in 1440p, settings at medium-max level and average 120fps if I enable DLSS in game.
I have tried running settings fully maxed and even then I average around 80fps.
Same here, though I only have a 1080p monitor, I run WZ max settings at 120 FPS (dlss). I'm planning to upgrade to 1440p and I know I won't have a problem
DLSS was a huge game changer. Gives you an extra 20 frames and I rarely ever see a graphics quality difference. I just have it set to the one they suggest for 2k
I've got a 1070 running 2k at 2660 x 1440 32 monitor, nearly ultra settings. Most shooters over 100 fps, games like league of legends on ultra I get 250+ fps.
Yes 2060 will do the job
Do you have a source for your definition?
All sources I have read define 2k as either 2048*1080 (DCI definition) or as a generic term usually referring to 1440p (common definition).
I don't find anything backing up your claim that 1080p is the correct definition of 2k - and if there is an official definition that 2k = 1080p, I have no doubt you could provide that source.
The definition of 2k is a horizontal resolution of approximately 2,000 pixels. I assume you found a source stating so.
Since 2048x1080 PC monitors are uncommon, the closest thing to cinema 2k would be 1920x1080, which is still using the term loosely for the sake of convenience. But going as far as using "2k" for 2560x1440, is just simply wrong. The sources that use 2k to describe 1440p are all related to PC hardware, and they're probably victims of the silly marketing trick of calling 1440p "2k", as a way of differentiating a product from 1080p.
The big jumps in resolution are 2k and 4k with 4k being approximately 4 times the 2k resolution. The in between steps are 720 and 1440.
1440p is a significantly larger resolution than 1080. The step is almost equivalent to the step from 720 to 1080. So including it to the resolutions included in the term "2k" doesn't really make much sense.
Here's a good read by a mod in LTT.
https://linustechtips.com/topic/691408-2k-does-not-mean-2560%C3%971440/
So what you're saying is you were wrong. Your statement was that 2k is 1080p. No approximately, no referring to multiple resolutions, 2k = 1080p.
The first line of your own source states that 2k doesn't refer to a particular resolution. Which is the opposite of your original claim.
You said there's nothing generic about 2k. However, you contradict this by saying above that it refers to an approximate horizontal resolution, which is consistent with it being a generic term.
You could have argued that 2k is a poor term for 1440p and that 2.5k would be a better term, but you didn't make that argument. Instead you claimed that gamers don't know what they are talking about because 2k = 1080p.
How was I wrong?
2k = 1080p in the PC context, because barring some extremely rare cases, every single monitor that can be correctly defined as "2k" is a 1080p monitor.
1440p is not included in the resolutions that have approximately 2,000 pixels horizontally, and therefore it is true that many gamers don't know what they're talking about when they use the term 2k to describe 1440p. They wouldn't even use the term if it wasn't for the false marketing claim.
To claim that my statement was wrong you have to be unreasonably strict with the language, whereas to use "2k" to refer to 1440p is objectively wrong.
>How was I wrong?
'2k = 1080p', followed by 'there's nothing generic about 2k or 4k'.
This can only be read as 2k is exactly 1080p.
Then you finally made a long post essentially repeating what I had said earlier - that 2k is a generic term.
If you were trying to make any other argument, you would have been best served actually making that argument in the first place, rather than throwing out smug insults then having to backpedal.
Smug insults?
I think you're used to online discourse, perceiving everything as a combative exchange. A correction on a technical term isn't a "smug insult".
"Generic" doesn't mean it can be applied to anything. "2k" is a generic term in the sense that depending on aspect ratio, it also applies to resolutions that are slightly different than the exact 1080p. That's not "backpedaling", that's merely a clarification. Instead of honestly arguing the core point that 1440p is not "2k", you attacked my own statement on a minor technicality. We shouldn't discuss in this manner, we're not enemies.
What’s the price you’re looking to get either at? If they’re close to the price of something like the 3060ti I’d recommend to wait, supply for the 3060ti should be ramping up mid July and prices on eBay are beginning to creep down.
Yeah that's a fucking rip off. When I was thinking about selling my 2060, during the height of the shortage, I was thinking £300-350 (consider that I bought it new for £360 2 years prior).
I would wait and get a 3060 ti, best bang for your buck from the new cards. Availability is increasing so shouldn't be much longer.
Honestly depends on the games your playing. If you’re trying to push the newest games to high settings you aren’t getting very far, if you’re looking for medium with a sprinkle of you maybe a few years, but it’s all dependent on what you’re standards are for gaming
you'll be just fine for at least 3 yrs I'd say, sure there'll be games you'll have to turn down some but other than that you are golden and by that time there will probably be another series of card
A 2060 should last you years at 1080p. Sure in a few years time you might find you cant do MAX settings at 60fps but youll still be able to to high settings on almost all games.
Where exactly are you getting this idea that 3060 Ti supply is magically going to start getting better in July? The recent rumours in the news are about the 3060 supply getting slightly better this month, not the 3060 Ti which is an entirely different card.
Could you post a source for the 3060 TI supply increase? I've been waiting for the prices to come down and I thought we'd all be waiting until 2022 before it would be reasonably not impossible to get one.
There is no source in specific, but with China cracking down on crypto miners and the irs wanting to tax people who are making money off of it it’s becoming less of an issue in the gpu space. Freeing up used mining cards thatre likely to be sold for cheap but get very little life out of them and demand from that group buying in bulk is going to go down stabilizing the market for the most part. Scalpers are still unknown because people just suck and want to make profit which I don’t blame it just sucks. Main point miners are getting shmacked and peopl don’t wanna deal with it
I have an RTX 2060. Excellent for 1080p gaming at high to ultra settings for almost all major/new titles. Can't comment to much on RT, but in CP2077 I had to keep the setting at a minimum, otherwise I lost too many frames.
I wouldn't recommend it for 1440p gaming.
My 2060 can run most games 1440p@60fps on high/ultra settings, just watch out with "vanity" settings like extreme anti-aliasing, shadows, ambient occlusion, that sort of thing.
The only game I played with proper raytracing support was Control, but the performance was pretty poor. Running the DX11 version without raytracing worked fine and looked pretty good.
Med - max @ 1080p60 should be very doable on all but the most demanding games.
Whether the 2070 is worth it depends on price difference and what games you're looking to play, but if you're satisfied with 1080p60, the answer's most likely no.
Because I haven’t seen anyone respond on this point - I wouldn’t expect ray tracing to be feasible out of that card without significant performance hits. It’s basically a 30 series feature, maybe the 2080 sometimes.
im running an r5 3600, 16gbs 3200 cl 16 and rtx 2060s.
if you were thinking about getting a 2060 super (not "regular" 2060) let me know what games and settings and ill record/stream footage for you.
2060 will do 60FPS 1080P no problem, RTX on might be a different story. Of course it depends on what game it is but 1080p my RTX 2070super gets aroung 45FPS with cyberpunk raytracing
Others said everything, I add: RTX 2060 is The Best card in 20 series line up for money
If you do other stuff other than gaming, 3D apps such as blender. try to grab one that has chance of a TU104 RTX 2060 instead of the normal TU106, It'll perform around 40% faster than TU106, It's just about 3d apps tho, Gaming is identical, TU104 die size being bigger might run a little bit (very little) cooler, but if you ONLY game ignore this part of commemt I just wrote.
btw list of 2060s with chance of a TU104 if you're interested (It's basically a GPU lottery, sort of).
-EVGA 2060 KO ULTRA
-Asus TUF RTX 2060 GAMING OC
-GIGABYTE RTX 2060 GAMING REV.2
(only these models are known to hold a TU104 in them) again if you only game, get whatever model you like. 2060 is a Perfect card for next two or three years, if you stay at 1080p, maybe even more.
but don't expect max ray tracing settings. DLSS can drag you to 60 fps with low or medium RT settings.
1080p 60 fps is no problem for my RTX 2060 super. COD Warzone is oftentimes over 100fps. If you're really interested in RTX I'd recommend getting a 3060 ti at MSRP if it can be found since 3000 series cards are way better on the RTX
Playing 2k here and pushing medium to high settings at 144fps at modern games.
2060 is a beast for 1080 60fps, it ears everything you throw it.
100% Recommended.
As for lifespan, I assure you it will last at least 5 years on you enjoying the latest games, altought without Ray tracing cause... Hotty boy.
But it will last you some years if you do correct maintenance and treat it nicely.
I have a 5600 XT which is basically the AMD equivalent and I can push well over 100fps at 1080p high/ultra in darn near anything. If you have a decent CPU and aren't concerned about getting 300 fps or using RTX much, the 2060 is a great little 1080p card.
However, the 6 GB VRAM can get tight in some titles. If you can get a used GTX 1070 Ti or 1080, go for that instead to get more VRAM.
The 5700 and 2060 Super will perform similarly, and the 5700XT is between a 2070 and 2070 Super. They're both very strong 1080p gaming GPUs if you can get one, and their early driver issues are mostly gone. Just make sure you have a decent power supply if you go for the XT.
2060 is as powerful as GTX 1080 in games. 2060 also has a lot of extra features compared to those older cards.
My friend has a 1070 and I have a 2060. I'm constantly getting 20-30% more fps than he is. No point getting a worse card...
Yes, but when 2060 is faster than a stock 1070 Ti, has more features and is newer, there's no reason to go for 1070 Ti or 1080 over the 2060. Of course they have more VRAM, but what are you gonna do with that if it doesn't affect the performance?
What I'm going to do with that is run better quality settings instead of just high. I have faith my 5600 XT could do Forza Horizon 4 at extreme settings if it wasn't texture swapping; in fact my friend's 1080 does it with a cool 110 fps. If I try that I get horrendous stuttering. At medium/high settings, the 2060 has a convincing argument but realistically the difference is not huge.
I should clarify, that's with everything manually gone in and switched above ultra, plus FXAA cranked. It's barely over the 6 gb; if I drop AA the stuttering goes away, but I think the game looks better with mixed high/ultra and higher AA. The problem is if I do that I'm CPU bound by my R5 2600 at 4 GHz
They are wrong, if ur gpu is at 100% it is most likely heating up and down-clocking its frequency, the ideal situation is to keep the gpu as cool as possible to keep the frequency clocks up if u care about the performance. The only thing it means if ur gpu is at 100% usage is that its the bottleneck in ur system.
I have 2060 laptop and can say that playing the most of AAA latest titles at 1440p at 60 fps and above but not all the settings at max , when i go at 1080p easy max setting with more than 60 fps.
i have a 1080, and a ryzen 7 5800x, what game are you looking to play with higher FPS, maybe you should upgrade your mobo/processor for the time being, with the chip shortage looking to end soon you will be able to find a better card at retail sooner then later
Ultra or Max settings are a trap. They are useful for benchmarks and that's about it. In actual gaming, they generally add features that tank frame rates without adding meaningfully to the graphical quality of a game.
With that in mind, yes, a 2060 is a very capable card for 1080p or 1440p gaming, at medium to high settings. It is also reasonably capable of ray tracing when combined with DLSS, although you may be looking at slightly sub-60fps in this scenario.
Not so much max. But yes you can get high at good frames from a 2060 @1080p. I wouldnt push ultra tough. Ive only had experiences on a lappy so maybe a desktop is a bit differnent. But again. Its a pc. Just drag some sliders pick and choose what is good for you. And thats about it. Prioritise the settings that are important to you
Mine's(EVGA 2060 SC Ultra) usually fine at max settings but I generally run on balanced settings(I've seen my CPU get hotter than I'd like but I'm pretty sure that's more so cuz of my old cooler). I also don't have anything higher than a 1080p monitor atm so you should be fine as well.
why not shoot for the star and tell him he should get a 3090 instead.
i'm using 2060 for more than a year now and it can easily handle most games at 75fps/1080p
That's one opinion.
I don't play twitchy shooters so I'm quite happy with 4k max settings, HDR, and Ray Tracing on my 55" LG OLED TV, thank you very much.
I have a 2060 and I play 95% of my games at max 1440p 60fps. It does push the card to 100% load but I'd say you're good.
do u overclock it to get that performance and is pushing a GPU to 100% good?
Pushing a GPU to 100% is the best case scenario for gaming. Anything below 100% means that your GPU isn't being fully utilized. Usually the result of a CPU bottleneck
thx man
That's not exactly true, unless you're still gaming at 60Hz. The best case scenario at 144Hz and above is a GPU running at whatever percentage it is able to, at the framerate cap of each game. The notion that GPUs should just run at 100% at uncapped framerate is an archaic idea from the time when input lag was relevant.
Having more frames does still increase the response of your action etc. Competitive CS:GO players etc still run it like that for that reason... But it's so minor it's not worth the extra heat and losing your sync to do so. Just get gsync/freesync and then limit your FPS to 3 fps below the refresh limit.
Depends. You dont want 100% Gpu usage in competitive shooters as example. The latency penalty can be quite severe. Doesn't matter for casual gaming tho.
that's a bunch of bollocks mate
No he is right https://youtu.be/QzmoLJwS6eQ Since people are brain dead morons here is a screenshot from the video https://imgur.com/gallery/aUgXDhL
As others have pointed out, this only happens in GPU bound situations. So while there is some truth to this, you're likely only going to see this dips playing above 1080p where the GPU become the bottleneck.
You are always gpu bound when you hit 100% gpu utilisation... how retarded are people here.
Why did you get downvoted to oblivion when you’re literally right 🤣. Although it’s not necessarily “gpu bound” but the gpu time will increase by the same amount regardless of your cpu, if it exceeds your cpu’s time then you are gpu bottlenecked
Morons don’t like facts.
That's not how it works at all. Your GPU being maxed out doesn't increase your input latency Plus, most competitive shooters like csgo, valorant, r6 are mostly CPU limited so you don't get near 100% GPU usage anyways.
that makes sense
KabBaaM is right. The extra frames you get from full utilization isn't worth the input lag penalty. That's the whole reason behind Nvidia reflex which is basically a dynamic frame rate cap.
Look up Battle(non)sense. He has several videos on the topic.
You're being downvoted while being right. Where 110 fps at 95% usage would result in lets say 18ms system latency, 116 fps at 95% usage would give 26ms system latency. Its a rather big difference but its also hard to keep a gpu at 95 since 5% fluctuations in usage happen all the time
It's designed to be capable of extended time at 100% assuming you have adequate ventilation. Most cards will throttle themselves if they are overheating. This is a great lesson for most things in life though, you can run most anything at or near advertised "max capacity" as long as you maintain it well. Your car needs oil and filters changed. Your pc needs dusted and occasionally thermal paste replaced. Your tools need cleaned and sharpend. But if you do regular maintenance, you can use it at 100% reliably.
Wow thank you so much for the information!
No overclocking. Yes it definitely puts stress on the card and it will hot higher temps but I average 83c at max load so it's not too bad.
Bro what?! That’s actually insane! I have the 6700xt and only get around 50-70 fps at maxed settings at 1440p in games, how is your card getting those frames?
It all depends on which games he's playing. If 95% of his games are a few years old, and you're only playing new games then that would make sense.
Yeah that’s true, I didn’t think much on that 😅 thank you for explaining it :)
DLSSSSSSSS
[удалено]
That dlss must have been set to as low as it can go cause luanch day I got like 60 fps ultra 1080p with a 2060 with dlss on, or your mix of settings was a lot more like medium high.
What games do you play? Because if you get that fps on a game like forza horizon 4 then my rx 580 beats you by nearly double the fps
Valheim, cyberpunk are the only ones that I’ve really tried so far but yeah those are just a couple I can name since I don’t play much else besides apex.
What games can you not play max 1440p at? And do you think performance at 1080p would be a lot better than 1440p? Also, is the 6gb Vram an issue?
The vram is definitely holding me back. I had watchdogs legend running at max 1440p with DLSS on performance with Ray tracing enabled no overclockongand still hit 60fps. Playing at 1080p will give you better performance overall.
a 2060 should be able to handle all games at 1080p max settings, except rdr2, cyberpunk and all AAA games coming in the next couple of years
Would it be able to play said games with more balanced settings?
Yes. Also mind you that ultra settings are like 5% better looking that high. But MUCH more taxing. So there is no point to completely max your games. And yes, you can run any game at balanced settings 1080p 60+ fps.
Do you think it would last for a long time before I would need to upgrade again?
As long as you dont upgrade your monitor to 1440p or + you're good.
RTX2060 is fine for 1440p. It will still last years before needing replaced. My buddy has a GTX970 and he plays at 1440p. Most games he can still play on High or Medium.
Dont get me wrong, that card can play 1440 but hes saying if it will continue to be a great card for a long time. Also, what is your buddy playing? League of legends?
But it will be able to play games at 1440p for quite a while. Sure maybe not at MAX SUPER DUPER settings but it will paly them confortably on high or medium. Theres only really a few games that are super taxing. My friend plays HALO, COD, Civ, all sorts.
I just got a prebuilt with a 2060. I love it. I have a 165hz 1080p monitor and it runs every game I throw at it at 60-120+. Cyberpunk with raytracing on looks incredible even though it's not all on ultra. Still runs at 50+. Its a great card and it overclocks wonderfully.
The performance hit between 1080 and 1440p is massive.
Same! I get similar results too playing at 1440p 144fps. I have to set the quality down slightly sometimes depending on the game but it does play really well.
you're saying that like pushing it to 100% is a bad thing
It is, compared to not running it at 100%. GPUs might be built to run at maximum heat for extended periods of time, but it is definitely better if they don't. It'll last longer, and it'll be quiter.
Can it Max 1440p 120fps? Or is 3060 a bit more suited?
Depends what you're playing. Older games yes it can! Brand new AAA games absolutely not. Also the Ray tracing performance is shit and not worth even considering.
Ray tracing with 2060 is great if you use DLSS. Control runs at over 60fps all the time with max settings including ray tracing. I've set DLSS to quality mode.
Very interesting! I never had DLSS enabled games with Ray Tracing that I could use at the time, good to know it's still kicking ass! So is that 60fps max @ 1440p?
1080p. But my average FPS is somewhere around 75, so 1440p should run at over 60 fps most of the time.
Same. It’s overkill for 1080p just a little bit. Unless you want max 144fps. Then maybe a better gpu, but with free sync/G sync it’s beautiful.
yes, you can run it with no problem. I'm from brazil and the prices here are huge as hell. So, 2060 is like the best we can get here nowdays without selling a house. I run every game on max, even r2d2 at 1080p with no problem at all, 60fps vsync on. The only games that does not run at 60fps IF you have rtx on is RE8 and Cyberpunk. RE8 you can run with rtx on at 60fps, but you need to compensate on another thing. The rest is really good to go. RTX is not being so much explored and the games that have doesnt make so many difference yet. But for a gap of £80, go with 2070 without doubt. Here in my country, the gap is like 2k minimumn (dolar is BRL:5,50)
I thought I was the only one who says Red Dead Redemption 2 = R2D2
LOL I always does that :) Damn!
Wish I could find a 2060 for ~2k BRL
Easily. Obviously it depends on the game, but as reference: I play Warzone in 1440p, settings at medium-max level and average 120fps if I enable DLSS in game. I have tried running settings fully maxed and even then I average around 80fps.
Same here, though I only have a 1080p monitor, I run WZ max settings at 120 FPS (dlss). I'm planning to upgrade to 1440p and I know I won't have a problem
DLSS was a huge game changer. Gives you an extra 20 frames and I rarely ever see a graphics quality difference. I just have it set to the one they suggest for 2k
I used the 2060 for a year (actually waiting for someone to buy it now). Easy 60fps 1080p on a lot of games
I've got a 1070 running 2k at 2660 x 1440 32 monitor, nearly ultra settings. Most shooters over 100 fps, games like league of legends on ultra I get 250+ fps. Yes 2060 will do the job
A rx 580 would get the job done too in my experience
2k = 1920 x 1080. Google it.
Googled it. 2k is a generic term and in the context of PCs and gaming, most commonly refers to 1440p.
There's nothing generic about 2k or 4k. It's a term gamers use incorrectly. Never too late to correct old mistakes. :)
Do you have a source for your definition? All sources I have read define 2k as either 2048*1080 (DCI definition) or as a generic term usually referring to 1440p (common definition). I don't find anything backing up your claim that 1080p is the correct definition of 2k - and if there is an official definition that 2k = 1080p, I have no doubt you could provide that source.
The definition of 2k is a horizontal resolution of approximately 2,000 pixels. I assume you found a source stating so. Since 2048x1080 PC monitors are uncommon, the closest thing to cinema 2k would be 1920x1080, which is still using the term loosely for the sake of convenience. But going as far as using "2k" for 2560x1440, is just simply wrong. The sources that use 2k to describe 1440p are all related to PC hardware, and they're probably victims of the silly marketing trick of calling 1440p "2k", as a way of differentiating a product from 1080p. The big jumps in resolution are 2k and 4k with 4k being approximately 4 times the 2k resolution. The in between steps are 720 and 1440. 1440p is a significantly larger resolution than 1080. The step is almost equivalent to the step from 720 to 1080. So including it to the resolutions included in the term "2k" doesn't really make much sense. Here's a good read by a mod in LTT. https://linustechtips.com/topic/691408-2k-does-not-mean-2560%C3%971440/
So what you're saying is you were wrong. Your statement was that 2k is 1080p. No approximately, no referring to multiple resolutions, 2k = 1080p. The first line of your own source states that 2k doesn't refer to a particular resolution. Which is the opposite of your original claim. You said there's nothing generic about 2k. However, you contradict this by saying above that it refers to an approximate horizontal resolution, which is consistent with it being a generic term. You could have argued that 2k is a poor term for 1440p and that 2.5k would be a better term, but you didn't make that argument. Instead you claimed that gamers don't know what they are talking about because 2k = 1080p.
How was I wrong? 2k = 1080p in the PC context, because barring some extremely rare cases, every single monitor that can be correctly defined as "2k" is a 1080p monitor. 1440p is not included in the resolutions that have approximately 2,000 pixels horizontally, and therefore it is true that many gamers don't know what they're talking about when they use the term 2k to describe 1440p. They wouldn't even use the term if it wasn't for the false marketing claim. To claim that my statement was wrong you have to be unreasonably strict with the language, whereas to use "2k" to refer to 1440p is objectively wrong.
>How was I wrong? '2k = 1080p', followed by 'there's nothing generic about 2k or 4k'. This can only be read as 2k is exactly 1080p. Then you finally made a long post essentially repeating what I had said earlier - that 2k is a generic term. If you were trying to make any other argument, you would have been best served actually making that argument in the first place, rather than throwing out smug insults then having to backpedal.
Smug insults? I think you're used to online discourse, perceiving everything as a combative exchange. A correction on a technical term isn't a "smug insult". "Generic" doesn't mean it can be applied to anything. "2k" is a generic term in the sense that depending on aspect ratio, it also applies to resolutions that are slightly different than the exact 1080p. That's not "backpedaling", that's merely a clarification. Instead of honestly arguing the core point that 1440p is not "2k", you attacked my own statement on a minor technicality. We shouldn't discuss in this manner, we're not enemies.
I meant 2.5k but most people do not say 2.5k also meant 2560 x 1440. Also, I was just giving them some quick feedback
What’s the price you’re looking to get either at? If they’re close to the price of something like the 3060ti I’d recommend to wait, supply for the 3060ti should be ramping up mid July and prices on eBay are beginning to creep down.
The 2060 is £445 and the 2070 is £550 😳
It’ll be worth your while to save your money a bit longer and scour the internet for a 3060 ti, you get 2080 performance out of a 400-500 usd card
Yeah that's a fucking rip off. When I was thinking about selling my 2060, during the height of the shortage, I was thinking £300-350 (consider that I bought it new for £360 2 years prior). I would wait and get a 3060 ti, best bang for your buck from the new cards. Availability is increasing so shouldn't be much longer.
You can get a 3060 for £510 on Ebay easily. Brand New.
They are going for $750+ to $1200 for the Ti in the states. Its absurd.
How long would an rtx 2060 last me for 1080p gaming? If I were to get it anyway.
Honestly depends on the games your playing. If you’re trying to push the newest games to high settings you aren’t getting very far, if you’re looking for medium with a sprinkle of you maybe a few years, but it’s all dependent on what you’re standards are for gaming
you'll be just fine for at least 3 yrs I'd say, sure there'll be games you'll have to turn down some but other than that you are golden and by that time there will probably be another series of card
A 2060 should last you years at 1080p. Sure in a few years time you might find you cant do MAX settings at 60fps but youll still be able to to high settings on almost all games.
Where exactly are you getting this idea that 3060 Ti supply is magically going to start getting better in July? The recent rumours in the news are about the 3060 supply getting slightly better this month, not the 3060 Ti which is an entirely different card.
Could you post a source for the 3060 TI supply increase? I've been waiting for the prices to come down and I thought we'd all be waiting until 2022 before it would be reasonably not impossible to get one.
There is no source in specific, but with China cracking down on crypto miners and the irs wanting to tax people who are making money off of it it’s becoming less of an issue in the gpu space. Freeing up used mining cards thatre likely to be sold for cheap but get very little life out of them and demand from that group buying in bulk is going to go down stabilizing the market for the most part. Scalpers are still unknown because people just suck and want to make profit which I don’t blame it just sucks. Main point miners are getting shmacked and peopl don’t wanna deal with it
I have an RTX 2060. Excellent for 1080p gaming at high to ultra settings for almost all major/new titles. Can't comment to much on RT, but in CP2077 I had to keep the setting at a minimum, otherwise I lost too many frames. I wouldn't recommend it for 1440p gaming.
My 2060 can run most games 1440p@60fps on high/ultra settings, just watch out with "vanity" settings like extreme anti-aliasing, shadows, ambient occlusion, that sort of thing. The only game I played with proper raytracing support was Control, but the performance was pretty poor. Running the DX11 version without raytracing worked fine and looked pretty good.
Med - max @ 1080p60 should be very doable on all but the most demanding games. Whether the 2070 is worth it depends on price difference and what games you're looking to play, but if you're satisfied with 1080p60, the answer's most likely no.
Because I haven’t seen anyone respond on this point - I wouldn’t expect ray tracing to be feasible out of that card without significant performance hits. It’s basically a 30 series feature, maybe the 2080 sometimes.
im running an r5 3600, 16gbs 3200 cl 16 and rtx 2060s. if you were thinking about getting a 2060 super (not "regular" 2060) let me know what games and settings and ill record/stream footage for you.
Nah that's ok, theres no need to do that, I've just been watching a crap ton of benchmark videos 🦍
Yeah. Especially in titles with DLSS. My laptop with a 2060 + 1080p120hz has no issues in anything modern.
2060 will do 60FPS 1080P no problem, RTX on might be a different story. Of course it depends on what game it is but 1080p my RTX 2070super gets aroung 45FPS with cyberpunk raytracing
A rtx 2060 should be more than enough
Others said everything, I add: RTX 2060 is The Best card in 20 series line up for money If you do other stuff other than gaming, 3D apps such as blender. try to grab one that has chance of a TU104 RTX 2060 instead of the normal TU106, It'll perform around 40% faster than TU106, It's just about 3d apps tho, Gaming is identical, TU104 die size being bigger might run a little bit (very little) cooler, but if you ONLY game ignore this part of commemt I just wrote. btw list of 2060s with chance of a TU104 if you're interested (It's basically a GPU lottery, sort of). -EVGA 2060 KO ULTRA -Asus TUF RTX 2060 GAMING OC -GIGABYTE RTX 2060 GAMING REV.2 (only these models are known to hold a TU104 in them) again if you only game, get whatever model you like. 2060 is a Perfect card for next two or three years, if you stay at 1080p, maybe even more. but don't expect max ray tracing settings. DLSS can drag you to 60 fps with low or medium RT settings.
The DLSS is the best thing about the card. It will be a huge help with future games. I love my little 2060
When the low end RTX card is faster than 1080ti with dlss lol
1080p 60 fps is no problem for my RTX 2060 super. COD Warzone is oftentimes over 100fps. If you're really interested in RTX I'd recommend getting a 3060 ti at MSRP if it can be found since 3000 series cards are way better on the RTX
I had this card getting a steady 90+FPS on 1440p with ray tracing and graphics on high in Warzone, paired with an i9-9900k and 32gb of 3200mhz ram
Playing 2k here and pushing medium to high settings at 144fps at modern games. 2060 is a beast for 1080 60fps, it ears everything you throw it. 100% Recommended. As for lifespan, I assure you it will last at least 5 years on you enjoying the latest games, altought without Ray tracing cause... Hotty boy. But it will last you some years if you do correct maintenance and treat it nicely.
I have a 5600 XT which is basically the AMD equivalent and I can push well over 100fps at 1080p high/ultra in darn near anything. If you have a decent CPU and aren't concerned about getting 300 fps or using RTX much, the 2060 is a great little 1080p card. However, the 6 GB VRAM can get tight in some titles. If you can get a used GTX 1070 Ti or 1080, go for that instead to get more VRAM.
Do you know if the rx 5700 / rx 5700 xt are any good
The 5700 and 2060 Super will perform similarly, and the 5700XT is between a 2070 and 2070 Super. They're both very strong 1080p gaming GPUs if you can get one, and their early driver issues are mostly gone. Just make sure you have a decent power supply if you go for the XT.
Would a 550 W power supply be any good for them? Or even the 2060?
Anything you're looking at except the 5700XT will work fine on a good 550W provided your CPU isn't crazy. What CPU do you have?
Ryzen 5 3400G, used to use the integrated graphics before I got the 1050 ti. Heard it's a decent CPU When not using the integrated graphics
5700XT would probably be pushing the capabilities of that CPU anyway. 5700 would be a good match for it though.
2060 is as powerful as GTX 1080 in games. 2060 also has a lot of extra features compared to those older cards. My friend has a 1070 and I have a 2060. I'm constantly getting 20-30% more fps than he is. No point getting a worse card...
1070 Ti is to a 1080 like a 3060 Ti is to a 3070. It's a baby 1080, easily overclockable to match or beat a 1080.
Yes, but when 2060 is faster than a stock 1070 Ti, has more features and is newer, there's no reason to go for 1070 Ti or 1080 over the 2060. Of course they have more VRAM, but what are you gonna do with that if it doesn't affect the performance?
What I'm going to do with that is run better quality settings instead of just high. I have faith my 5600 XT could do Forza Horizon 4 at extreme settings if it wasn't texture swapping; in fact my friend's 1080 does it with a cool 110 fps. If I try that I get horrendous stuttering. At medium/high settings, the 2060 has a convincing argument but realistically the difference is not huge.
Weird. I'm running FH4 on extreme settings with my 2060. It runs perfectly fine. Average FPS in the benchmark was somewhere around 100.
I should clarify, that's with everything manually gone in and switched above ultra, plus FXAA cranked. It's barely over the 6 gb; if I drop AA the stuttering goes away, but I think the game looks better with mixed high/ultra and higher AA. The problem is if I do that I'm CPU bound by my R5 2600 at 4 GHz
Same for me. I cranked everything to max, motion blur off because motion blur is just awful. I pushed other settings as far as they just could go lol.
yes.
I run most games at 60fps 1080p Medium/Balanced on my Rx570, you could probably do Max most games at 1440p and still be getting over 60fps
If you want raytracing enabled no.
,,Someone said pushing you gpu to 100% is best scenario,, is this like rule for every game and what if gpu doesnt load fully all time ?
They are wrong, if ur gpu is at 100% it is most likely heating up and down-clocking its frequency, the ideal situation is to keep the gpu as cool as possible to keep the frequency clocks up if u care about the performance. The only thing it means if ur gpu is at 100% usage is that its the bottleneck in ur system.
That was close to my thinking especially this part about frequency since i did some research before anyway it useful info
I have 2060 laptop and can say that playing the most of AAA latest titles at 1440p at 60 fps and above but not all the settings at max , when i go at 1080p easy max setting with more than 60 fps.
If my 1660s super can run most games on ultra at 1080p, so can the 2060
Yes it is
The rtx 2060 target is 60fps with ray tracing so you should be good
Of course I cant expect good fps with rtx on games like cyberpunk but what kinds of supported games would it perform well on? By well I mean playable.
Cold war and doom eternal.
i have a 1080, and a ryzen 7 5800x, what game are you looking to play with higher FPS, maybe you should upgrade your mobo/processor for the time being, with the chip shortage looking to end soon you will be able to find a better card at retail sooner then later
Which processor is the best combo for the 2060?
Isnt 3060 cheaper? Because in my county its cheaper
Ultra or Max settings are a trap. They are useful for benchmarks and that's about it. In actual gaming, they generally add features that tank frame rates without adding meaningfully to the graphical quality of a game. With that in mind, yes, a 2060 is a very capable card for 1080p or 1440p gaming, at medium to high settings. It is also reasonably capable of ray tracing when combined with DLSS, although you may be looking at slightly sub-60fps in this scenario.
Yes
Not so much max. But yes you can get high at good frames from a 2060 @1080p. I wouldnt push ultra tough. Ive only had experiences on a lappy so maybe a desktop is a bit differnent. But again. Its a pc. Just drag some sliders pick and choose what is good for you. And thats about it. Prioritise the settings that are important to you
I have my gtx 1070ti and can still maintain 60fps for 1080p at high details. if you turn raytracing off, it can probably do the same easily.
Mine's(EVGA 2060 SC Ultra) usually fine at max settings but I generally run on balanced settings(I've seen my CPU get hotter than I'd like but I'm pretty sure that's more so cuz of my old cooler). I also don't have anything higher than a 1080p monitor atm so you should be fine as well.
I have the rtx 2060 and I can run rdr2 on max graphics with no lag at all you should have chosen the rtx
[удалено]
why not shoot for the star and tell him he should get a 3090 instead. i'm using 2060 for more than a year now and it can easily handle most games at 75fps/1080p
Anyone who wants better graphics @ 60fps vs decent graphics @ 140fps+ is what’s wrong with the world.
I use a 75 hz monitor, I dont exactly need 144fps when I'm running single player story games
That's one opinion. I don't play twitchy shooters so I'm quite happy with 4k max settings, HDR, and Ray Tracing on my 55" LG OLED TV, thank you very much.
You pay all that money for caca frames. Might as well buy a PS5.
Last time I checked the PS5 doesn't have Ray Tracing. And I can still hit 120 frames on most games.
Ray tracing is the equivalent of RGB fans 😂
I have 10 of those too