Nvidia GeForce RTX 2070 Founders Edition Review: Replacing GeForce GTX 1080

By published

Results: Ashes of the Singularity and Battlefield 1

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation (DX12)

Pushing Ashes of the Singularity as hard as possible requires the Crazy quality preset, which adds 4x MSAA and several Ultra-level options. Although the game supports multiple graphics APIs, we use DirectX 12 for our benchmarks.

Image 1 of 3
Image 1 of 3

GeForce RTX 2070 makes its first appearance ahead of the Pascal-based GeForce GTX 1080.

Nvidia does try positioning the RTX 2070 against its previous-generation GTX 1070. However, the new card’s $600 tag blows past the 1070’s ~$400 price point, exceeds the ~$500 you’d expect to pay for a GTX 1080, and lands $100 under the cost of a GTX 1080 Ti.

Image 1 of 3
Image 1 of 3

Nvidia is also clear that GeForce RTX 2070 best serves gamers playing at 2560x1440 with detail settings maxed out. However, relaxing the quality preset in Ashes of the Singularity to Extreme yields playable performance at 4K, too. Again, the 2070 offers a similar experience as the GeForce GTX 1080.

Battlefield 1 (DX12)

Image 1 of 3
Image 1 of 3

Averaging more than 100 FPS in Battlefield 1 at 2560x1440 using Ultra settings, the GeForce RTX 2070 Founders Edition looks like a great match-up for high-refresh QHD monitors.

Moreover, a 14% advantage over GeForce GTX 1080 is quite a bit larger than the slim victory RTX 2070 enjoyed in Ashes of the Singularity at this resolution.

Image 1 of 3
Image 1 of 3

GeForce RTX 2070 Founders Edition’s lead over GTX 1080 grows to 20% in Battlefield 1 at 3840x2160. In fact, it averages just a couple of percentage points behind GTX 1080 Ti and keeps its nose above 60 FPS in our bar graph. A peek at the frame time chart reveals very few spikes, and as a result, a plot of FPS by percentile indicates exceptionally smooth performance through our 80-second sequence.


MORE: Best Graphics Cards


MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table


MORE: All Graphics Content

Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
63 Comments Comment from the forums
  • coolio0103
    200$ more expensive a rtx 2070 than a gtx 1080 Strix or msi which is the same perfomance than the FE 2070. Bye bye 1080? Really? This page is dropped to the lowest part of the internet news pages. Bye bye Tom's hardware
    Reply
  • 80-watt Hamster
    Frustrating how, in two generations, Nvidia's *70-class offering has gone from $330 to $500 (est). Granted, we're talking more than double the performance, so it can be considered a good value from a strict perf/$ perpsective. But it also feels like NV is moving the goalposts for what "upper mid-range" means.
    Reply
  • TCA_ChinChin
    gtx 1080 - 470$
    rtx 2070 - 600$

    130$ increase for less than 10% fps improvement on average. Disappointing, especially with increased TDP, which means efficiency didn't really increase so even for mini ITX builds, the heat generated is gonna be pretty much the same for the same performance.
    Reply
  • jaexyr
    What a flop
    Reply
  • cangelini
    21406199 said:
    200$ more expensive a rtx 2070 than a gtx 1080 Strix or msi which is the same perfomance than the FE 2070. Bye bye 1080? Really? This page is dropped to the lowest part of the internet news pages. Bye bye Tom's hardware

    This quite literally will replace 1080 once those cards are gone. The conclusion sums up what we think of 2070 FE's value, though.
    Reply
  • bloodroses
    21406199 said:
    200$ more expensive a rtx 2070 than a gtx 1080 Strix or msi which is the same perfomance than the FE 2070. Bye bye 1080? Really? This page is dropped to the lowest part of the internet news pages. Bye bye Tom's hardware

    Prices will come down on the RTX 2070's. GTX 1080's wont be available sooner or later. Tom's Hardware is correct on the assessment of the RTX 2070. Blame Nvidia for the price gouging on early adopters; and AMD for not having proper competition.
    Reply
  • demonhorde665
    wow seriously sick of the elitism at tom's . seems every few years they push up what they deem "playable frame rates" . just 3 years ago they were saying 40 + was playable. 8 years ago they were saying 35+ and 12+ years ago they were saying 25+ was playable. now they are saying in this test that only 50 + is playable? . serilously read the article not just the frame scores , the author is saying at several points that the test fall below 50 fps "the playable frame rate". it's like they are just trying to get gamers to rush out and buy overpriced video cards. granted 25 fps is a bit eye soreish on today's lcd/led screens , but come on. 35 is definitely playable with little visual difference. 45+ is smooth as butter
    yeah it would be awesome if we could get 60 fps on every game at 4k. it would be awesome just to hit 50 @ 4k, but ffs you don't have to try to sell the cards so hard. admit it gamers on a less-than-top-cost budget will still enjoy 4k gaming at 35 , 40 or 45 fps. hell it's not like the cards doing 40-50 fps are cheap them selves… gf 1070's still obliterate most consumer's pockets at $420-450 bucks a card. the fact is top end video card prices have gone nutso in the past year or two... 600 -800 dollars for just a video card is f---king insane and detrimental to the PC gaming industry as a whole. just 6 years ago you could build a decent mid tier gaming rig for 600-700 bucks , now that same rig (in performance terms) would run you 1000-1200 , because of this blatant price gouging by both AMD and nvidia (but definitely worse on nvidia's side). 5-10 years from now ever one will being saying that 120 fps is ideal and that any thing below 100 fps is unplayable. it's getting ridiculous.
    Reply
  • jeffunit
    With its fan shroud disconnected, GeForce RTX 2070’s heat sink stretches from one end of the card, past the 90cm-long PCB...

    That is pretty big, as 90cm is 35 inches, just one inch short of 3 feet.
    I suspect it is a typo.
    Reply
  • tejayd
    Last line in the 3rd paragraph "If not, third-party GeForce RTX 2070s should start in the $500 range, making RTX 2080 a natural replacement for GeForce GTX 1080." Shouldn't that say "making RTX 2070 a natural replacement". Or am I misinterpreting "natural"?
    Reply
  • Brian_R170
    The 20-series have been a huge let-down . Yes, the 2070 is a little faster than the 1080 and the 2080 is a little faster than the 1080Ti, but they're both are more expensive and consume more power than the cards they supplant. Shifting the card names to a higher performance bar is just a marketing strategy.
    Reply