while the RTX 4060 Ti uses a 122 mm² silico

4060 Ti uses 188 mm² die. Personally I would wait for 4070 at 399 for the 12GB because too many games are allocating above 10 GB already even at low settings. No idea about the difference between allocating and actually needing, yeah I don't want stuttering.

btarunrBoth the RTX 4060 Ti and the RTX 4060 appear to be designed to withstand a great degree of price cuts, to compete against the RX 7600 XT and RX 7600.

lol, this is an exceedingly polite way of saying that the 4060/Ti launched at a clownishly inflated price point.

Don't get me wrong; I appreciate the price cuts and certainly the news post--I'm just here to compliment the author's dry humor

It's just a Best-Buy drop though? There's a gulf in UK pricing between cheapest models when I checked with OCUK and Scan (£70-100).

Keep going (lower); it's a 3060 Ti with a fart more performance and better party tricks.

N/A4060 Ti uses 188 mm² die. Personally I would wait for 4070 at 399 for the 12GB because too many games are allocating above 10 GB already even at low settings. No idea about the difference between allocating and actually needing, yeah I don't want stuttering.

The 4070 is being replaced by the 4070S though ($600).
That's likely not going to hit $400 within the remainder of its life-cycle.

RTX 4060 Ti badly needs a price cut because it is not a bad card, but badly priced. The 16GB variant in particular can be very attractive to potential buyers, but it is not worth paying USD 100 bucks more for it.

Double-ClickThe 4070 is being replaced by the 4070S though ($600).
That's likely not going to hit $400 within the remainder of its life-cycle.

I thought Nvidia was keeping the 4070 and reducing its price to $550 but retiring the 4070 ti and 4080.

^ I might stand corrected there actually.
I'm seeing articles from Nov saying no, maybe it is just the 4070 Ti and 4080 then?

Double-Click^ I might stand corrected there actually.
I'm seeing articles from Nov saying no, maybe it is just the 4070 Ti and 4080 then?

He is correct, the base 4070 does remain in the stack along the Super. The 4070Ti and 4080 are out of production and replaced.

12GB cards are entry level, 8GB cards are just wasted silicon; I keep maxing out the 16GB on my card. Also, getting tired of people suggesting that low end cards are going to pull off ray-tracing as they don't produce enough FPS to begin with to justify turning it on.

JAB Creations12GB cards are entry level, 8GB cards are just wasted silicon; I keep maxing out the 16GB on my card. Also, getting tired of people suggesting that low end cards are going to pull off ray-tracing as they don't produce enough FPS to begin with to justify turning it on.

I wish AMD was nicer and launched the former RX 7600 8GB as an RX 7400 8GB for 129$ to be the direct RX 6400 4GB replacement which badly needs to be end-of-life'd.

JAB Creations12GB cards are entry level, 8GB cards are just wasted silicon; I keep maxing out the 16GB on my card. Also, getting tired of people suggesting that low end cards are going to pull off ray-tracing as they don't produce enough FPS to begin with to justify turning it on.

Maxing out 16GB ?? which game and what setting is maxing out 16GB ??!

3070 Ti has no issue with running most modern games at high/ultra setting...

12GB entry level really ??! Are you saying 4070 Ti 12GB is entry level card ?! LOL

thepathMaxing out 16GB ?? which game and what setting is maxing out 16GB ??!

Flight Simulator.





forums.flightsimulator.com/t/how-much-vram-do-i-need-for-this-sim/572615/17

thepath3070 Ti has no issue with running most modern games at high/ultra setting...

12GB entry level really ??! Are you saying 4070 Ti 12GB is entry level card ?! LOL

Yes, because 8GB is already not enough in many games and settings.
12 GB is the minimum minimum if you are seriously into gaming.

That's more like it, but nothing with 8GB should cost over $300 in 2022. In 2024 it's disgusting, especially since the 4060Ti is fast enough to turn up settings - before realising you have to turn them down again :|

If we could get the 4060Ti 16GB at $389 or so, that would be worth talking about, though a 7700XT is still enough of a threat even if it Nvidia did actually hit that price point.

So which card is faster? I'm too lazy to check myself.

3valatzyFlight Simulator.





forums.flightsimulator.com/t/how-much-vram-do-i-need-for-this-sim/572615/17



Yes, because 8GB is already not enough in many games and settings.
12 GB is the minimum minimum if you are seriously into gaming.

There's a difference in between allocating vs actually using it.

Huge vram allocating means nothing more then caching.

You can run games even off of a 4GB card; it's just that once it runs out of that 4GB it will have to stream from system memory, which is slow.

mtosevSo which card is faster? I'm too lazy to check myself.

The 4060 Ti is faster than the 7600XT, but both are still terrible buys.

The 4060 Ti 8GB lacks VRAM to run AAA games at ultra settings in several 2023 and 2024 games, so whilst it's okay today the number of games that will require compromise going forwards will grow fast.
The 7600XT is a rip-off. It has the VRAM to be future proof for at least this generation of consoles, but it's not actually fast enough for that to matter.

Buy the RX 6600 8GB as a perfectly good, power-efficient $200 card. If you want something faster than that, the 3060 12GB for $280 isn't too bad, and the next step up from that is probably the $340 RX 6700XT 12GB. The sub-$400 cards from this generation RX 7600-series and RTX 4060-series are all hamstrung by shitty 128GB memory buses so their performance nosedives beyond 1080p and the PCIe interface has been cut in half from 16 lanes to 8 lanes, making them worse upgrade options for older motherboards.

JismThere's a difference in between allocating vs actually using it.

Huge vram allocating means nothing more then caching.

You can run games even off of a 4GB card; it's just that once it runs out of that 4GB it will have to stream from system memory, which is slow.

Yeah a lot of the flight sim folks and people running heavily-modded games (e.g. Skyrim with 8k textures) can peg the VRAM in a card fairly easily.

A lot of that high usage is due to the amateur nature of a lot of mods resulting in poorly-optimized assets that (almost) no professional game company would release in a commercial product. It's probably not necessary to use an 8k texture for an apple or a chair for example.

N/ANo idea about the difference between allocating and actually needing, yeah I don't want stuttering.

JismThere's a difference in between allocating vs actually using it.

Huge vram allocating means nothing more then caching.

You can run games even off of a 4GB card; it's just that once it runs out of that 4GB it will have to stream from system memory, which is slow.

I have wanted a TPU or GN deep dive on this subject for a long time. I think there is a lot that everyone can learn from some targeted testing along with knowledge from both developers and designers.

BeermotorYeah a lot of the flight sim folks and people running heavily-modded games (e.g. Skyrim with 8k textures) can peg the VRAM in a card fairly easily.

A lot of that high usage is due to the amateur nature of a lot of mods resulting in poorly-optimized assets that (almost) no professional game company would release in a commercial product. It's probably not necessary to use an 8k texture for an apple or a chair for example.

exactly. I always love seeing the Skyrim argument :laugh:

Franzen4RealI have wanted a TPU or GN deep dive on this subject for a long time.

Hardware Unboxed and DigitalFoundry have both covered 8GB VRAM limitations across multiple articles from early 2023 onwards when the first crop of current-gen exclusive* console ports arrived on the scene and struggled mightily on PCs with less than 12GB VRAM. Those games have been cleaned up and patched somewhat since the terrible launches but Hogwarts, Jedi Survivor, Plague Tale Requiem, The Last of Us, Wild Hearts, to name just a few that have 8GB cards as a minimum and typically can't run max details unless you have 10+ GB.

* ie, not dumbed-down to also run on PS4 and XB1

Chrispy_The 4060 Ti 8GB lacks VRAM to run AAA games at ultra settings in several 2023 and 2024 games, so whilst it's okay today the number of games that will require compromise going forwards will grow fast.
The 7600XT is a rip-off. It has the VRAM to be future proof for at least this generation of consoles, but it's not actually fast enough for that to matter.

ignoring there is a 4060ti 16gb model but the the extra memory does nothing as the gpu isn't remotely powerful to do anything with it. Same for AMD cards in the same performance bracket. You say running those games are ultra which the gpu isn't gonna be doing cause its not strong enough.

Chrispy_The 4060 Ti is faster than the 7600XT, but both are still terrible buys.

The 4060 Ti 8GB lacks VRAM to run AAA games at ultra settings in several 2023 and 2024 games, so whilst it's okay today the number of games that will require compromise going forwards will grow fast.
The 7600XT is a rip-off. It has the VRAM to be future proof for at least this generation of consoles, but it's not actually fast enough for that to matter.

Buy the RX 6600 8GB as a perfectly good, power-efficient $200 card. If you want something faster than that, the 3060 12GB for $280 isn't too bad, and the next step up from that is probably the $340 RX 6700XT 12GB. The sub-$400 cards from this generation RX 7600-series and RTX 4060-series are all hamstrung by shitty 128GB memory buses so their performance nosedives beyond 1080p and the PCIe interface has been cut in half from 16 lanes to 8 lanes, making them worse upgrade options for older motherboards.

Agreed. Would of been better off rebadging the 7600 as the 6700 10GB and the 7600XT as the 6700XT. Same price and faster, what exactly did the R&D budget go towards ?

Same with Nvidia. The RTX 2060 (which they actually started remanufacturing after the 3050 8gb came out because the 2060 was cheaper and faster) should of just been rebadged as the new 3050 6GB and the 4060TI should of realistically been the vanilla 4060

Chrispy_Hardware Unboxed and DigitalFoundry have both covered 8GB VRAM limitations across multiple articles from early 2023 onwards when the first crop of current-gen exclusive* console ports arrived on the scene and struggled mightily on PCs with less than 12GB VRAM. Those games have been cleaned up and patched somewhat since the terrible launches but Hogwarts, Jedi Survivor, Plague Tale Requiem, The Last of Us, Wild Hearts, to name just a few that have 8GB cards as a minimum and typically can't run max details unless you have 10+ GB.

* ie, not dumbed-down to also run on PS4 and XB1

These cards are for 1080p, and for that, 8GB is just enough today. I've played Plague Tale, was just running fine. TLoU had also no issues. It required around 6.2GB with max settings. Also, lowering some memory intensive settings can always make it able to run, and you'll still have better visuals than on current consoles.

Chrispy_Hardware Unboxed and DigitalFoundry have both covered 8GB VRAM limitations across multiple articles from early 2023 onwards when the first crop of current-gen exclusive* console ports arrived on the scene and struggled mightily on PCs with less than 12GB VRAM. Those games have been cleaned up and patched somewhat since the terrible launches but Hogwarts, Jedi Survivor, Plague Tale Requiem, The Last of Us, Wild Hearts, to name just a few that have 8GB cards as a minimum and typically can't run max details unless you have 10+ GB.

* ie, not dumbed-down to also run on PS4 and XB1

All well and good, but I was speaking of the differences between VRAM allocation vs. the amount actually being used. It is far too often that people will see an allocated amount on say, a 16GB card and then draw the conclusion that cards with less than that amount will have problems running the same game/same settings. If I may give an example-- I can load up Diablo IV and GPU-Z will show it "using" over 15GB of VRAM. By this logic, a 3080 (or even a 12GB 4080) at the same resolution and settings would most definitely struggle mightily, but this is not the case.

I was interested in your recommendation though and found a Hardware Unboxed 3070-8GB vs 6800-16GB video. Honestly not sure what to think of it, since we can pull both TPU's and GN's test suite numbers and see a 3060ti 8GB vs a 6700XT 12GB, and a 3070 8GB vs. 6800 16GB for the most part running equally with your normal everyday variances from game to game, from 1080p though 4K (including min fps and 1% lows). We know that when VRAM limits are hit, the game is completely unplayable if it doesn't just completely crash all together. I would think that at some point along the 1080/1440/4K scaling that we would eventually start to see some meaningful % difference in the 8GB vs. 12GB vs. 16GB cards, but we don't.

So yea, I'd love to see a write up in typical TPU fashion digging into this topic a bit. I would find it quite interesting and informative.

In the case of the 4060ti, it sounds like the 128bit bus can sometimes be the limiting factor before the quantity of VRAM, a 16gb version may be more helpful as a marketing slide checkbox than it will in most games.

3valatzyI wish AMD was nicer and launched the former RX 7600 8GB as an RX 7400 8GB for 129$ to be the direct RX 6400 4GB replacement which badly needs to be end-of-life'd.

I agree, AMD made some bad moves with the 6500 and 6400 cards. Plus there is a lot of nonsense about 16GB being "too much VRAM". I was using 10GB+ with three browsers and zero games open ~18 months ago. It's not just about what video games use.

thepathMaxing out 16GB ?? which game and what setting is maxing out 16GB ??!

3070 Ti has no issue with running most modern games at high/ultra setting...

12GB entry level really ??! Are you saying 4070 Ti 12GB is entry level card ?! LOL

Sniper Elite 5 maxed out without crashing, Diablo IV maxed out every 30-90 seconds and would crash if you clicked the error message window summer 2023. Those are just the ones off of the top of my head. There are a lot more games than what are talked about in video card review videos. And yes, 12GB cards are entry level because 16GB cards are lower-midrange at best.

k0vaszThese cards are for 1080p, and for that, 8GB is just enough today.

You've said it exactly.

"Just enough for today" and "only 1080p". These aren't cheap GPUs that are disposable to be replaced in a year, they're expected to last for at least 2-3 years at a minimum.

1440p is rapidly becoming the mainstream resolution, especially since upscaling to 1080p from anything lower looks like garbage, whilst upscaling from 1080p to 1440p is pretty decent. That matters because monitors are cheap and GPUs aren't - with many new games using upscaling and needing it for acceptable performance at max settings.

Today's games are developed with 8GB as the recommended spec, since their development process started when XB1 and PS4 support were still required. Most of the UE5 stuff now is now squeezed down to fit into 8GB by the devs and several of them have openly criticised the wasted effort it takes them to compromise and tweak their assets to run on 8GB hardware. Going forward, games in development right now, so due later this year or next, will likely be targeting 12GB or 16GB for max settings now that the XB1 and PS4 are officially deprecated by the console vendors.