OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

GALAX GeForce RTX 2060 Super review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£440VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):175 W

GALAX GeForce RTX 2060 Super Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 15 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

7.0/10

Overall score

Score
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components

40%

6.1

Technical score

25%

8.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

6.1

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 67% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

▼Worse than 62%
6.1

Technical score

Technical score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Score components

44%

4.7

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

8.7

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

8.0

Connectivity

▼Worse than 70%
8.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 69% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.8

Popularity

Grades by review (15)
13 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▲Better than 69%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £440
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the GALAX GeForce RTX 2060 Super

Based on 13 · 2

Reviewers praise its quiet fans, cool running and overclocking headroom, but find ray tracing weak and are split on its looks.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the GALAX GeForce RTX 2060 Super

Based on 215 owners sharing their experience in online comments

62%positive22%mixed16%negative

Owners value its lasting gaming performance, while high temperatures and demanding ray tracing are the clearest drawbacks.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report the card running hot, often 80 to 90 degrees C under load, and some saw crashes linked to hot spot temperatures and old thermal paste.17
  • Owners report frame rates falling short in demanding games like GTA V, Final Fantasy 16 and Minecraft with shaders, often around 20 to 60 fps.11
  • Owners report stutters and sudden frame drops, especially when ray tracing and DLSS are on, and some games feel laggy.4
  • Owners say ray tracing cuts frame rates too much, so it is only worth using in a few games or at lower resolutions.4
  • Owners say ray tracing effects can look blurry or pixelated in some games, with little visible difference in shadows.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card GALAX GeForce RTX 2060 Super

Technical score
Technical score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Score components:

44%

4.7

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

8.7

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

8.0

Connectivity

6.1
Reviews score
8.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
8,828 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 8,828 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 75.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
5,200 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 5,200 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 71.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
25,406 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 25,406 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 58.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
28,059 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 28,059 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 91.8% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
7.18 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 7.18 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 79.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
448 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 448 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 41.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
14,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 14,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 69.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 78.3% of graphics cards and equal to 9.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
32.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32.4 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
175 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 175 W, which is lower than that of 62.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
175 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 175 W under peak load, which is lower than 65.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
550 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 550 W PSU, which is lower than that of 61.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.3% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
200 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 200 W, which is lower than that of 55.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
175 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
285x 127x 52 mm
Length
285 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 285 mm long, which is longer than 50.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Height
134 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 134 mm tall, which is taller than 68.4% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,010 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,010 g, which is lighter than 50.3% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

GALAX GeForce RTX 2060 Super vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 128 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (272 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    272 vs 144
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (15)
    13 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 18.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (175 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    175 W vs 215 W
  • 6 °C higher thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a higher thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (89 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    89 °C vs 95 °C
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (15)
    13 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • 128 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (272 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    272 vs 144
  • 2.32x higher compute score
    This graphics card has a higher compute score than the average graphics card (28,059 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    28,059 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 18.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (175 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    175 W vs 215 W
  • 6 °C higher thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a higher thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (89 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    89 °C vs 95 °C
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 32.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,695 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,695 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 23.4% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,470 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,470 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 40.6% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (224.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    224.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 21.8% lower sentiment score
    6.1 vs 7.8
  • 32.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,695 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,695 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 23.4% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,470 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,470 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 40.6% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (224.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    224.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 34.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (105.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    105.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 68.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (7.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    7.18 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 48 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (136 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    136 vs 184
  • 6 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (34 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    34 vs 40
  • 4 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2019 vs 2023).
    July 2019
    2019 vs 2023
  • 6 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (34 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    34 vs 40
  • 40.3% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (8,828 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    8,828 points vs 14,779 points
  • 43.2% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (5,200 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    5,200 points vs 9,148 points
  • 54.2% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.22 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 97.1% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (7 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    7 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 2,176 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (2,176 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    2,176 vs 4,352
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Lower VRS tier
    This graphics card supports a lower VRS tier than the average graphics card (Tier 1 vs Tier 2).
    Tier 1 vs Tier 2
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 51.4% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (445 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    445 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 52.8% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (10,800 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    10,800 million vs 22,900 million
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • No 3D output
    This graphics card does not support 3D output, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 9 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (134 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    134 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Vimal Chintapatla
≈ estimated
20/07/2019
Unboxing and gaming tests · 1080p and ray tracing benchmarks
Verdict
GALAX GeForce RTX 2060 Super is good value, though Nvidia should have priced it lower.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
24/07/2019
Product review · Overclocked card
Verdict
The Galax GeForce RTX 2060 Super EX is a Founders Edition-level card with a better cooler, idle fan stop and an overclock built in.
9.0
techsyndrome.in
≈ estimated
23/07/2019
Hands-on test · Quiet gaming card
Verdict
The Galax GeForce RTX 2060 Super EX is quiet and cool, runs most games above 100 fps at 1080p Ultra, but sags without a bracket.
8.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
13/09/2019
Lab test · Benchmark comparison
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2060 Super (1-Click-OC) sits within a few percent of the reference card, but falls behind the RTX 2070 Super in some tests.
7.0
igorslab.de
≈ estimated
11/04/2020
Teardown review · Long card
Verdict
The KFA2 RTX 2060 Super EX suits Full HD and 1440p gaming, but at 29.7 cm long and 986 g it needs a roomy case.
8.0
igorslab.de
≈ estimated
11/04/2020
Teardown review · Thick RGB card
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2060 Super EX is a bulky 2.5-slot card weighing 986 g, with RGB-lit fans that suit showy builds.
8.0
notebookcheck.com
≈ estimated
13/09/2019
Benchmark review · Custom RTX 2060 Super
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2060 Super 1-Click OC lands close to Nvidia's reference RTX 2060 Super and clearly ahead of the RTX 2060, but trails the RTX 2070 Super.
7.6
hardzone.es
✓ explicit
03/10/2019
Benchmark review · Quiet 1080p card
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2060 Super 1-Click OC is quiet and fast, beating the standard RTX 2060 and trailing only the RTX 2070 Super, though its look is plain.
8.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
10/06/2020
Lab test · Compact silent card
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2060 Super 1-Click OC is compact and silent at idle, runs about 3°C cooler than the Founders Edition, but looks plain.
6.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
07/08/2020
Lab test · Large cooler model
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2060 Super EX 1-Click OC runs about 5°C cooler than its smaller sibling, but at 295 mm long and nearly 1 kg, it suits roomy cases.
8.0
tomshw.it
✓ explicit
25/06/2020
Benchmark review · Mid-range card
Verdict
The KFA2 RTX 2060 Super 1-Click OC is a solid pick for Full HD gaming, with a one-click overclock, but 4K ray tracing needs DLSS.
8.0
tech.everyeye.it
≈ estimated
06/07/2020
Hands-on test · Compact card
Verdict
The KFA2 RTX 2060 Super 1-Click OC is a compact, quiet card that performs like the Founders Edition, suited to Full HD and 1440p gaming.
8.6
multiplayer.it
✓ explicit
11/08/2020
Hands-on review · Slim card
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2060 Super 1-Click-OC V2 is a slimmer, quiet card for 1440p gaming, though its fans get louder when the overclock is on.
7.0
notebookcheck.it
≈ estimated
20/09/2019
Lab test · Workstation benchmarks
Verdict
The KFA2 RTX 2060 Super tracks Nvidia's reference RTX 2060 Super closely across benchmarks, though it trails the RTX 2070 Super in some tests.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about GALAX GeForce RTX 2060 Super

  • Competitive pricing often matching the NVIDIA Founders Edition
  • Effective 1440p gaming performance and significant upgrade over the standard RTX 2060
  • Idle-fan-stop feature for silent operation during low-load tasks
  • Good thermal performance, often peaking around 61-72°C under load
  • Factory overclocked out of the box with easy '1-Click OC' software
  • Solid build quality featuring metal backplates on EX models

What customers don't like about GALAX GeForce RTX 2060 Super

  • Fan noise can be audible and slightly higher than some competitors during heavy gaming
  • Power limit is not increased, which can limit the ceiling for manual overclocking
  • Struggles to maintain high frame rates in modern AAA games at 4K resolution
  • Budget variants (1-Click OC model) may lack premium features like RGB or a backplate
  • Occasional reports of coil whine or fan vibration under extreme stress

Verdict

The Galax GeForce RTX 2060 Super is a high-performance mid-range graphics card featuring the NVIDIA Turing architecture with 2,176 CUDA cores, 272 Tensor cores, and 34 RT cores. It is equipped with 8GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit interface, delivering a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s and a boost clock speed of up to 1,650 MHz (extendable via its 1-Click OC feature). Main characteristics include a dual-slot cooling system with twin 90mm or 100mm fans, a metal backplate for structural rigidity, and connectivity options like HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4. Key pros are its excellent 1440p gaming performance, effective idle fan-stop technology for silent operation, and real-time ray tracing and DLSS support. Cons include slightly higher noise levels compared to some premium competitors and its lack of support for newer AI-driven features like frame generation found in the RTX 40 series.

Compare GALAX GeForce RTX 2060 Super with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of GALAX GeForce RTX 2060 Super and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found