“2060 super can’t deliver a playable experience”

well, if you turn on DLSS Balanced or Performance it probably is real close to 60fps. If you are willing to take the image quality hit from FSR2 Quality mode, the DLSS Balanced or Performance mode probably is about the same, but it gets you over the top on framerate.

Dunno why there’s a lecture about “how NVIDIA fans shouldn’t want DLSS in benchmarks”, the relevant comparisons at iso-image-quality are still FSR2 Native vs DLSS quality and FSR2 Quality vs DLSS Performance these days. HUB studiously ignores the requests for normalizing visual quality and just delivers lectures instead lol.

“5700XT wouldn’t deliver a playable framerate even if it had mesh shaders”

umm considering 5700XT normally performs around 2070 Super performance levels, and the 2070 Super does fine, I don’t see why the 5700XT wouldn’t be delivering playable framerates if it had mesh shader support. Take those 2060S numbers and add another 20-30% (for the step to 2070S performance) and that’s where the 5700XT-MESH would land. You really think that wouldn’t be over 60fps?

I dunno why reviewers still have a stick up their butt about early cards NEVER being able to do relevant things with DX12U or RTX, even the 2060 and 3050 can very much do useful things, it just seems like either editorial bias or a personal inability to admit that the data doesn’t support your thesis.

Like yeah if you bought the lowest-end RTX cards you’re gonna have a low-end experience in graphics showcase titles, but we’re still talking about the 2060S most likely hitting over 60fps with DLSS Performance, at no greater visual quality hit than people are willing to accept with FSR2 quality, in a title where even “low” settings is pretty fantastic. And the enthusiast cards, the 2070S and so on, certainly the 2080 Ti, definitely do deliver relevant experiences even today.

I like HU’s trivial tests like this squeezing to production.

5700XT is sliding down from its 2070 Super comparisons to rtx 2060