If you’re looking for a mid-range graphics card and have around $300 to spend then there are two compelling new options from Nvidia and AMD. The former has the RTX 2060 – the cheapest card able to offer RTX features such as ray tracing and DLSS, which retails for $349. AMD meanwhile has the RX 590, which is a fair bit cheaper and in-stock examples I’ve seen can be had for as little as $259.
Today I’ll be pitching these two graphics cards against each other to see which one you should buy if your decision is between these two new additions to the current crop of graphics cards. As usual, a direct comparison of each card’s specifications won’t reveal too much about whether Nvidia or AMD will win here as under the hood they’re both very different. Nvidia wins on frequencies, but AMD’s option has more memory, but that won’t tell you how each performs in games. To that end, I’ve benchmarked each card in a variety of games at both 1,920 x 1,080 and 2,560 x 1,440 resolutions using the latest drivers to see one is the best option depending on your gaming resolution.
My test system includes an Intel Core i9-7900X, 32GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 3,200MHz memory, an Asus ROG Strix X299 Gaming motherboard, a 500GB Samsung 960 Pro SSD, NZXT Kraken X42 cooler and Corsair RM850i PSU. I’m also using a fully up-to-date install of Windows 10 with all security patches including those for Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities. I used Nvidia driver version 418.81 to test the RTX 2060 Founders Edition and AMD driver 19.2.1 to test the RX 590, provided by Sapphire.
| Nvidia | RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition | RTX 2080 Ti | RTX 2080 Founders Edition | RTX 2080 | RTX 2070 Founders Edition | RTX 2070 | RTX 2060 |
| Base Freq | 1,350MHz | 1,350MHz | 1,515MHz | 1,515MHz | 1,410MHz | 1,410MHz | 1,365MHz |
| Boost Freq | 1,635MHz | 1,545MHz | 1,800MHz | 1,710MHz | 1,710MHz | 1,620MHz | 1,680MHz |
| CUDA Cores | 4,352 | 4,352 | 2,944 | 2,944 | 2,304 | 2,304 | 1,920 |
| Tensor Cores | 544 | 544 | 368 | 368 | 288 | 288 | 240 |
| GigaRays/sec | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| Memory | 11GB GDDR6 | 11GB GDDR6 | 8GB GDDR6 | 8GB GDDR6 | 8GB GDDR6 | 8GB GDDR6 | 6GB GDDR6 |
| TDP | 250W | 250W | 215W | 215W | 175W | 175W | 160W |
| Price | $1,199 | $999 | $799 | $699 | $599 | $499 | $349 |
| AMD | Vega 64 | Vega 56 | RX 590 | RX 580 |
| Base Freq | 1,247 | 1,156 | 1,469 | 1,257 |
| Boost Freq | 1,546 | 1,471 | 1,545 | 1,340 |
| Compute Units | 64 | 56 | 36 | 36 |
| Stream Processors | 4,096 | 3,584 | 2304 | 2304 |
| Memory | 8GB HBM2 | 8GB HBM2 | 8GB GDDR5 | 8GB GDDR5 |
| TDP | 295W | 210W | 185W | 185W |
| Price | $499 | $399 | $259 | $199 |
Test system
Samsung 960 Pro SSD, NZXT Kraken X42 cooler and Corsair RM850i PSU. I’m also using a fully up-to-date install of Windows 10 with all security patches including those for Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities. I used Nvidia driver version 418.81 to test the RTX 2060 and AMD driver 19.2.1 to test the RX 590.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Neither resolution sees either card get close to worrying low performance levels with the RX 590 dipping to 35fps minimum at 2560 x 1440, which is still perfectly smooth, while the average sits at 46fps. However, the RTX 2060 does offer significantly more headroom with a minimum of 47fps and average of 61fps – the latter is 33% quicker than the AMD card.
Deus Ex: Mankind divided
Deus Ex is still a tough customer and once again the RX 590 dipped to a minimum of 35fps and average of 42fps – even lower than Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 2560 x 1440 but was plenty playable at both resolutions. The Nvidia card was 26% and 25% quicker on average at 2560 x 1440 and 1920 x 1080 respectively.
World of Tanks
One of the easiest games out there to run, World of Tanks didn’t present much of a challenge at either resolution, but if you need a consistent 100fps+ at 1920 x 1080 then the RTX 2060 is the best. For the casual gamer the RX 590 is more than adequate.
Forza Horizon 4
Another relatively easy title, Forza Horizon 4 only dipped to 63fps which was on the RX 590 at 2560 x 1440, but interestingly, the RTX 2060 only offered 17% more performance here with equally meager gains at 1920 x 1080 too.
Far Cry 5
It was back to performance gains in the 30% region with Far Cry 5, though, where the RTX 2060 managed at least 66fps, while it recorded average frame rates of 74fps and 95fps at 2560 x 1440 and 1920 x 1080 respectively, which were 30% and 21% quicker than the RX 590.
UL Benchmarks VRMark
System power consumption
Power consumption isn’t usually a major consideration for gamers, but it was interesting to see the faster RTX 2060 draw noticeably less power under load at 325W compared to 369W, although this isn’t likely to allow you to invest in a cheaper power supply, nor save you wads of cash on your electricity bill.
Conclusion
If you have a choice between these two cards then there a couple of reasons for you to consider either one. The AMD Radeon RX 590 is an excellent choice for 1080p gaming – one of the best at the moment and if this is your gaming resolution, then you should look no further, even in demanding titles at high settings. The only exception is if dipping down below 60fps isn’t an option – only the Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 managed this in the games I tested.
If you simply need the most performance for below $350 then the RTX 2060 is also a great buy and the future holds the possibility of more performance courtesy of Nvidia’s DLSS technology too, when more games support it. It’s also a better choice if you’ll be gaming at 2560 x 1440 where it rarely dipped below 50fps minimum and offers far more headroom than the RX 590. For $90 more, the Nvidia card is absolutely worth it with those points in mind if you can stretch that far, but if $300 is your limit, the RX 590 gets my vote.
