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

By Chris Angelini
published

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Results: Grand Theft Auto V and Metro: Last Light Redux

Grand Theft Auto V (DX11)

Image 1 of 3

While the faster cards bunch up due to a platform bottleneck, GeForce RTX 2070 seems well-paired to our Core i7-7700K at 4.2 GHz. It’s only 1% faster than GeForce GTX 1080 at Grand Theft Auto V’s Very High settings with 4x MSAA enabled. However, the Graphics Core Next architecture’s well-documented struggles in this DX11-based game result in the RTX 2070’s 35% advantage over Radeon RX Vega 64.

Image 1 of 3

Playable frame rates are still possible from the GeForce RTX 2070 at 3840x2160 with 4x MSAA turned off. For the money, though, a GeForce GTX 1080 offers far better value.

Metro: Last Light Redux (DX11)

Image 1 of 3

At 2560x1440, we like to hammer our test pool in Metro: Last Light with super-sampling. The outcome is sub-60 FPS averages from Radeon RX Vega 64, GeForce GTX 1080, GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, Radeon RX Vega 56, and GeForce GTX 1070.

Cards on the other side of that symbolic threshold include GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, GeForce RTX 2080, and the GeForce RTX 2070 we’re reviewing today.

You’ll have to decide for yourself if the 19% advantage over GeForce GTX 1080 and Radeon RX Vega 64 is worth paying an extra $100 for.

Image 1 of 3

Neither GeForce GTX 1080 nor Radeon RX Vega 64 are fast enough to handle Metro: Last Light at 3840x2160. Even with SSAA disabled, we believe GeForce RTX 2070 falls short of that mark, too. Although stepping down from the Very High quality preset would undoubtedly help improve frame rates, gamers serious about smooth performance at 3840x2160 should consider something faster.


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