When I upgraded from a 2060 Super to a 3060Ti I got around 30% more performance but for the same power consumption and price, I will be very interested to see how this one pans out.

64KProbably based on what we are seeing.

I'm not sure how the MSRP of the 3060 Ti slipped into this discussion. The title says 4060 so we should compare the MSRP of the 4060 against the 3060. When the 4060 Ti drops is the time to compare that to the price of the 3060 Ti. In any case it looks like this generation is going to be way overpriced anyway.

It’s not “going” to be overpriced, it IS overpriced.

Whats worse is this sets a trend for getting WORSE performance per dollar as you drop down the stack which is legitimately stupid.

Sadly this will only stop once people stop throwing money at nvidia or financing everything in their life.

*Nvidia is obviously doing everything in their power to clear out 3000 series inventory

john_I am explaining the thinking. Considering that naming is irrelevant today, because as we have seen Nvidia can change a name because of negative reactions, 4080 12GB is becoming the 4070 Ti 12GB, or the huge difference in price between cards, RTX 3080 at $700, RTX 4080 at $1200, or even the price increase, RTX 3060 at $329, RTX 4060 rumored at $399, the best way to avoid falling victims of marketing and at the same time maintain a stable base, is to compare what we had at a price point until now and what is replacing it today or tomorrow. Does, for example, really makes sense to compare RTX 4080 to RTX 3080 when there is a price difference of $500? And if RTX 4060 is coming at $399, why compare it to the RTX 3060 and not the card that it came at the same MSRP before, the RTX 3060 Ti?
It's simple and I think it's how we should start looking at cards in the future. We shouldn't limit ourselves because of what sticker the manufacturer decides to put on the box.

Because there will most likely be a 4060 Ti. The problem with comparing a 4060 to a 3060 Ti is that it makes the MSRP of a 4060 more acceptable. I know that you have to look at the specs to see what the GPU is and not just the name. We can't do that until we have the actual specs.

nvidia will post 70% lower income next year vs. this year, just like this year vs. 2021 if they keep going in this direction.

64KBecause there will most likely be a 4060 Ti. The problem with comparing a 4060 to a 3060 Ti is that it makes the MSRP of a 4060 more acceptable. I know that you have to look at the specs to see what the GPU is and not just the name. We can't do that until we have the actual specs.

Think it like this.

Let's say that the price is $329 to avoid this parameter, in all examples below.

RTX 4060 comes as RTX 4060. Then we have 47% performance increase compared to RTX 3060 a significant performance advantage. (EDIT: wrong comparison before)
RTX 4060 comes as RTX 4050. Then we have a huge performance jump with the card performing twice as fast, compared to RTX 3050.
RTX 4060 comes as RTX 4070. Then we have zero performance jump compared to RTX 3070. Only new features and better efficiency to decide if those are enough.

3 different names, 3 different results based on those names. But what is common in all those cases is what kind of performance we get at $329. And to be able to decide if we do have a performance increase from a generation to the next, price should be the deciding factor. If we try to play with two parameters at the same time, naming AND price, we are only making the final verdict more complicated and only increase the chances to fell victims of marketing.

"What performance do I get at the X price point from the new series? What performance was the older one giving me before?" That should be the main parameter. How the product is named shouldn't. RTX 4080 looks mighty compared to RTX 3080. Then we see the price and the question is. Should we be comparing RTX 3080 with RTX 4080 in the first place?

P.S.
RTX 4060 MSRP is not more acceptable when compared to RTX 3060 Ti. It's more acceptable when compared to RTX 3060, because the performance difference there is 47%. So we fall victims of marketing, accepting the xx6x model to see a price increase from generation to generation. That's how we gone from $199 for the x60 model to $329 and tomorrow to $399 and later to $499 and....

Nvidia is trying to move price points up for years now, leaving the sub $200 market to AMD's and Intel's APUs.

Pumpernvidia will post 70% lower income next year vs. this year, just like this year vs. 2021 if they keep going in this direction.

Many people and companies will post lower income next year, thats for sure. But 70%? No. Discrete gaming GPUs are not nVidias main market anymore.

rv8000Whats worse is this sets a trend for getting WORSE performance per dollar [...]

Completely wrong statement.

john_Think it like this.

Let's say that the price is $329 to avoid this parameter, in all examples below.

RTX 4060 comes as RTX 4060. Then we have 17% performance increase compared to RTX 3060 and we probably see this as a small performance jump but at least a measurable one.
RTX 4060 comes as RTX 4050. Then we have a huge performance jump with the card performing twice as fast.
RTX 4060 comes as RTX 4070. Then we have zero performance jump. Only new features and better efficiency to decide if those are enough.

3 different names, 3 different results based on those names. But what is common in all those cases is what kind of performance we get at $329. And to be able to decide if we do have a performance increase from a generation to the next, price should be the deciding factor. If we try to play with two parameters at the same time, naming AND price, we are only making the final verdict more complicated and only increase the chances to fell victims of marketing.

"What do I get at the X price point from the new series? What was the older one giving me before?" That should be the main parameter. How the product is named shouldn't. RTX 4080 looks mighty compared to RTX 3080. Then we see the price and the question is. Should we be comparing RTX 3080 with RTX 4080 in the first place?

I agree with what you are saying, but there other aspects (price remains the main factor though).
4060 is still a newer generation, so it will be supported for a bit longer. Newer generations tend to be built on smaller nodes, thus less power draw. This particular generation comes with additional goodies. For example SER, which needs support from game engines. When that support lands, you'll get better performance, not available to the previous gen. And who knows, between now and then, the 4060 may even pick up DP 2.1 support, especially since there's pressure on that front from AMD.

So you see, while it mathematically comparing just one aspect is what yields a fair comparison, there's no way around video cards being complex beasts. Thus, what may my "meh", may also be exactly what you were waiting for.

I remember the GTX 760 being $250, the GTX 960 being $200, the 1060 6GB being $250 and then Nvidia decided to go full retard and release the 2060 for $350 while being around 5-7% slower than the GTX1080.

Since then, "mid range" has been getting more and more expensive.

SisyphusMany people and companies will post lower income next year, that's for sure. But 70%? No. Discrete gaming GPUs are not nVidia's main market anymore.

It still is, actually: www.statista.com/statistics/988034/nvidia-revenue-by-segment/
Compute and networking is growing and it looks poised to surpass graphics, but it hasn't so far.

I am sure I will be seeing this in EU for 600 EUR... xD

SisyphusMany people and companies will post lower income next year, thats for sure. But 70%? No. Discrete gaming GPUs are not nVidias main market anymore.

Completely wrong statement.

Correct, wrong terminology.

What I really meant was that in comparison to previous gen, the value proposition gets worse throughout the stack. Upon the release of either FE 4090 and 4080, the cost per frame at 4K was relatively close, if you already had $1200 for a GPU and can swing another $400 for the 4090, the 4080 is absolutely pointless from a pure value standpoint; different case as it seems the MSRP for the 4090 was a limited thing…

That does not change the fact that everything is dramatically sliding up in price generation to generation (4080 is a horribly good example), to the point we’re getting tremendously worse value for what we’re paying than just a generation ago.

Seriously though, how blind does someone have to be to call a 4080 at almost double the msrp of a 3080 a good product, let alone what BS is going to happen amongst lower tier 4000 cards.

bugI agree with what you are saying, but there other aspects (price remains the main factor though).
4060 is still a newer generation, so it will be supported for a bit longer. Newer generations tend to be built on smaller nodes, thus less power draw. This particular generation comes with additional goodies. For example SER, which needs support from game engines. When that support lands, you'll get better performance, not available to the previous gen. And who knows, between now and then, the 4060 may even pick up DP 2.1 support, especially since there's pressure on that front from AMD.

So you see, while it mathematically comparing just one aspect is what yields a fair comparison, there's no way around video cards being complex beasts. Thus, what may my "meh", may also be exactly what you were waiting for.

Well, in the example I said that, if it comes as an RTX 4070 and is offering the same performance (obviously in today's titles, because Nvidia could just stop optimizing for the 3000 series) as the RTX 3070, I did said that then it will be a matter of comparing new features and efficiency.

But we have to have a basic way to compare cards from generation to generation. And average game performance at the same price should be an indication. Features are not for everyone and are not present in every game, or needed in every game. Then again we shouldn't start paying for those in advance. We shouldn't treat any new feature as an excuse for a price increase. These are gaming cards. Manufacturers should use those features to differentiate themselves from the competition. Paying extra for a card because in integrates a faster AV1 encoder for example, if we are never going to use that feature, is just let's say, not smart. They are gaming cards. Sold as gaming cards. If RTX 4060 can run a weather simulation faster than an RTX 3060 is irrelevant in gaming. Have we payed extra for Vulkan support or DirectX 12 support? have we payed extra for video encoding support? Should we? Should we have to pay extra for DP 2.1 support? Did we payed extra for HDMI 2.1 support? HDMI 2.0? HDMI 1.4?
If we go by that logic, RTX 4060 should be costing $2000, RTX 3060 over $1500, etc. because manufacturers are adding new features the last 20+ years.

rv8000Seriously though, how blind does someone have to be to call a 4080 at almost double the msrp of a 3080 a good product, let alone what BS is going to happen amongst lower tier 4000 cards.

4090 actually has more in common with a 3080 12GB 600mm2 ?102 die cutdown to 85% +-3% at 799 msrp becomes 1599, double that.
4080 is what would have been a 3070 Ti relative fully enabled 400mm2 die at 599 msrp that now becomes 1199, so again it's double.

The same kind of theme is going with the lower cards, double the performance at double the cost at lower power.

AusWolfExcept when they don't (Batterygate).

I think buying a 3070 or a 6700 XT today is a much better value than waiting half a year for a card with a similar performance and MSRP.

Or an RX6800 / 6800xt which are around the same price or lower than a 3070, and comfortably better. And of course the 3070 always had an absurdly low amount of vram, so I wouldn't go with a 3070 no matter what. :laugh:

What 3070 competitor? Ngreedia has totally lost it! It should rival at least 3080. My 2nd hand 250€ 3060TI OCed to 2100Mhz trade blows with 3070. Why the hell would anyone be willing to wait until summer 2023 just to pay 350€ or more for 3070 level of performance that he get now for less?

john_Think it like this.

Let's say that the price is $329 to avoid this parameter, in all examples below.

RTX 4060 comes as RTX 4060. Then we have 47% performance increase compared to RTX 3060 a significant performance advantage. (EDIT: wrong comparison before)
RTX 4060 comes as RTX 4050. Then we have a huge performance jump with the card performing twice as fast, compared to RTX 3050.
RTX 4060 comes as RTX 4070. Then we have zero performance jump compared to RTX 3070. Only new features and better efficiency to decide if those are enough.

3 different names, 3 different results based on those names. But what is common in all those cases is what kind of performance we get at $329. And to be able to decide if we do have a performance increase from a generation to the next, price should be the deciding factor. If we try to play with two parameters at the same time, naming AND price, we are only making the final verdict more complicated and only increase the chances to fell victims of marketing.

"What performance do I get at the X price point from the new series? What performance was the older one giving me before?" That should be the main parameter. How the product is named shouldn't. RTX 4080 looks mighty compared to RTX 3080. Then we see the price and the question is. Should we be comparing RTX 3080 with RTX 4080 in the first place?

P.S.
RTX 4060 MSRP is not more acceptable when compared to RTX 3060 Ti. It's more acceptable when compared to RTX 3060, because the performance difference there is 47%. So we fall victims of marketing, accepting the xx6x model to see a price increase from generation to generation. That's how we gone from $199 for the x60 model to $329 and tomorrow to $399 and later to $499 and....

Nvidia is trying to move price points up for years now, leaving the sub $200 market to AMD's and Intel's APUs.

I think the main problem all stems from nvidia's stated plan to have the 4000 series exist on top of the 3000. And this all stemmed from their unwillingness to lower prices of the 3000 series, and we are not even talking lowering below msrp, but just simply to msrp. All their cards have been above msrp for the longest time. That is the main failure of the 4000 series launch, is that it's designed in a way that it isn't even a new generation but just an extension of the previous generation. So it's not just that the 4060 is rumored to be $400, it's that the 3060 still isn't at msrp, even when it should actually be below msrp right now. So the end result is that none of the new cards actually feel like an upgrade or a replacement or an improvement upon the previous generation (especially in terms of price to performance), because it's designed to be an extension of it.

RedelZaVednoWhat 3070 competitor? Ngreedia has totally lost it! It should rival at least 3080. My 2nd hand 250€ 3060TI OCed to 2100Mhz trade blows with 3070. Why the hell would anyone be willing to wait until summer 2023 just to pay 350€ or more for 3070 level of performance that he get now for less?

You can OC the 3070 as well and then the gap in performance comes right back.

For a few years now we witness that the dogma that say that "going forward will be better" is changing to "it might be better, but is also might be the same or even worse", especially when it come to the GPU world. Many not-very-old-people are overly fixated on the past as to what "need to be" in the present or in the feutre.
I see endless die size, MSRP, memory bit, pref % and so on compression of gen to gen in, imo, futile effort to decide how future product need to be and by that to decide if it`s a 'good value' - a very wide concept that is hugely different between individuals - or not.
So yes, that's not how this works folks. The past is in the past and the present and future are changin rapidly in a non-linear manner. Try not to be so hard fix on the past as to what need to be now in order for it to be considered 'good value' or worth your buy. Doing so might expose you make bad choices because you define 'value' by a set of parameters that aren't necessary valid anymore or just don`t exist.
You might get an answere: "it is a wonderful value" so you run to push the buy button and might think it is a good buy. But if you dont really need it, and what you have right now is OK you just wasted your money. No matter how 'good value' it is-if you don't really need it is the worst you can imagine.
The opposite side: You make a conclusion that the product is an awful value relative to what you had got in the past. So are no sucker and you don`t buy (and on the way get frustrated and bitter on the world that is turning greedy day by day) but if you really need the the product you might lose a good opportunity because tommarow, or next year, the situastion might be even worse and you will bestuck with truly unfunctional piece.
Try This: At a given time ask yourself if you really need to buy new\upgrade. If yes than don`t hasitate, do the research, and choose according to your specific needs- that is your personal best value product.
If you find yourself dealing a lot with the past in order to decide if now it`s a good 'investment' than you probably don't really need to upgrade and the best value for you personaly is to wait.

I think I will wait for the 4060 Ti instead.

They will simply put a garbage AD106 (instead of AD104) chip in your rebranded "RTX 4060" which true name is RTX 4050, put it 100% price increase and the happy average joe will have no choice but to buy it.
Because he doesn't know right and doesn't know what to buy. Of course, Radeon is the only right choice.

What is this thing with true names, 2070 was using 106 chip. but was it a true 2050. People should rebel at this point.

N/AWhat is this thing with true names, 2070 was using 106 chip. but was it a true 2050. People should rebel at this point.

Turing chips were very large. TU106 was bigger than GA104. TU104 was as big as most flagship dies from other generations.

I could hardly care less about the RTX 4060 as a product. Based on how the RTX 4000 series has been positioned and priced so far, I don't feel the slightest interest towards it, and the RTX 4060 will obviously follow in the same tracks. Details are irrelevant.

But just as a phenomenon, I do find it interesting/strange to see how much discussion the topic generates.

bug$400 is rather acceptable, if true. However, if 4060 is $400 while 4080 is $1,200, there's a pretty wide space to be covered just by the 4070.

Edit: Also, that's almost a full year of milking the 4090 and 4080.

N3M35154060 Super
4060 Ti
4070
4070 Super
4070 Ti

Being "optimistic", by June they might have dropped the MSRP of the 4090 (~1200), 4080 (below ~900$) and 4070ti (700~800$), while also inserting a 4080TI (~1000$) in the mix. So the gap to fill could look like 4060 ~400$ and for the holiday season or later: 4070 ~600$, 4060TI ~500$.

So, still lots of old stock to sell before then...