Thursday, November 17th 2022
NVIDIA Plans GeForce RTX 4060 Launch for Summer 2023, Performance Rivaling RTX 3070
NVIDIA is reportedly planning to ramp its GeForce "Ada" generation into the high-volume performance segment by Summer 2023, with the introduction of the GeForce RTX 4060. The card is expected to launch somewhere around June, 2023. The card will be based on the 4 nm "AD106" silicon, the 4th chip based on the "Ada Lovelace" graphics architecture. Wolstame. a reliable source with NVIDIA leaks as Lenovo's Legion gaming desktop product manager, predicts that the RTX 4060 performance could end up matching that of the current RTX 3070 at a lower price-point.
This should make it a reasonably fast graphics card for 1440p AAA gaming with high-ultra settings, and ray tracing thrown in. What's interesting is if NVIDIA is expected to extend the DLSS 3 frame-generation feature to even this segment of graphics cards, which means a near-100% frame rate uplift can be had. Other predictions include a board power expected to be in the range of 150-180 W, and a 10% generational price-increase, which would mean that the RTX 4060 would have a launch-price similar to that of the RTX 3060 Ti (USD $399).
Sources:
harukaze5719 (Twitter), VideoCardz
This should make it a reasonably fast graphics card for 1440p AAA gaming with high-ultra settings, and ray tracing thrown in. What's interesting is if NVIDIA is expected to extend the DLSS 3 frame-generation feature to even this segment of graphics cards, which means a near-100% frame rate uplift can be had. Other predictions include a board power expected to be in the range of 150-180 W, and a 10% generational price-increase, which would mean that the RTX 4060 would have a launch-price similar to that of the RTX 3060 Ti (USD $399).
165 Comments on NVIDIA Plans GeForce RTX 4060 Launch for Summer 2023, Performance Rivaling RTX 3070
Hopefully Nvidia will lose a huge part of their customers, with this generation.
I swap gpus a lot. Multiple times within a generation because it’s my hobby and I enjoy that within reason and a budget. The price of mid to high end hardware is vastly outstripping the value of the hobby in my opinion.
I strongly believe the 4000 series pricing is entirely related to moving back stock of 3000 series cards and the ridiculous greed exhibited by multiple parties during the Covid/crypto boom. It’s just comical to see gpu hardware getting a thumbs up in tech editorials with pricing the way it is.
If we get 30% more performance for 50% higher price this generation, and we're okay with that, then why shouldn't we get 20% more performance for 70% higher price in the next gen, and then 10% more performance for 90% higher price, and so on. Price-to-performance should be better than last gen, otherwise there is no improvement to talk about. Instead, price-to-performance in Ada is worse than last gen, yet some people are praising Nvidia purely for the performance crown, and I don't understand why. What driver errors? Fair enough - I don't know much about the creative sector. Sure, but at what cost? It's price-to-performance ratio is worse than that of nearly every other graphics card on the market.
AMD did not publish a cudacore support. Not even Blender or other widely popular apps got access to AMD cudacores. Only expensive plugins >200$ with the side effect of only indirect support by AMD. I bought nVidia, everything speeds up smoothly. Over last 10 years, interface, render engine, cuda-cores, got monthly to quarterly updates, all for free. Perfect.
Lately AMD got better. I think there are some free interfaces now, based on OpenGL or directX, to support GPU accelerated RT in Blender eg., as AMD joined the Blender development club some years ago. 4090 has performance spikes >100% in rt visualization, real-time preview of RT editing in complex sceneries. 3090 and 4090 are comparable to rtx titan, cards with costs always 1500-2500$. Nothing changed, only the names and nVidias propaganda to sell them as gaming GPUs. 4080-4090 is a weird gab. I have no idea, why nVidia did that, it will damage its gamer base.
Not even Intel, who's a newcomer, could use price to gain a competitive advantage.
I spended the last day to explore the other options with AMD hardware and minus Blender (and i don't use it) there is nothing on 3D with AMD.
2 years ago we had ProRender in Cinema4D but Maxon remove it. Now it is a CUDA monopoly. Octane and Redshift will support AMD in the future, but nothing yet.
I agree that the 4090 is a titan class card at this performance point, BUT :
1- no NVLINK is very strange and disapointing for pro
2- DP 1.4 ... i cannot understand for such a top of the line product
3- too huge and hungry to put more than 2 in a computer case without a custom and very expensive water loop.
I was waiting this generation to upgrade and i am hugely disapointed. I think i will go renting my cards in renderfarms for the next year , i don't want to pay for such a product line, even if i have the budget to buy 3.
From a gamer perspective, the ADA line and Nvidia politic are a disaster. If I had the choice I will go AMD immediatly.
I had issues with RDNA for sure, but it seems the 6000 series was fine. Yes, for professional works I would choose an Nvidia card, because of their STudio Drivers that are better than AMD’s… but here the main focus seems to be gaming The 4090 is a ridiculous card…
Be the faster doesn’t automatically mean be the best. To compare Radeon 7000 with ATi Rage3D makes no sense at all. We are speaking about totally different teams here. I would use rdna 2 as a term for comparison…
I'm not saying that either company is perfect. What I'm saying is that I've had good and bad from both. The low point from AMD was driver support and heat issues with my 5700 XT. The low point from Nvidia was the 7800 GS AGP which was loud, it overheated, and when it did, its built-in speaker screamed so loud that it woke up the neighbours. You couldn't change its cooler, either, because it had a unique mounting hole arrangement which no aftermarket company built coolers for. It was an absolutely garbage card, totally not worth swapping my X800 XT for.
The other thing I'm saying is that you shouldn't exclude buying options just because you got burned in the past. Instead, you should visit forums like this one, and educate yourself.
But while in CPUs we still keep seeing new models at $100 or lower, models that bring (much) more performance at those price segments, in GPUs we don't. While in CPUs the top mainstream models maintain a price that is clearly under $1000, in GPUs we are constantly hitting over $1500. And as I pointed before, even if we add on the CPU the cost of RAM, motherboard, cooling, the price of that combination will still be lower of a equivalent graphics card, with equivalent I mean low end CPU vs low end GPU(RTX 3050/3060 vs i3 12100 for example, or Ryzen 5 5600G), mid range vs mid range, hi end vs hi end.
If things continue in that direction, in 5 years the cheaper new card will start at $500, while the more expensive one will have an official MSRP of over $2000. That's a price where (semi) pro cards where sitting before, not gaming cards.
Geforce 2 MX400
Geforce 4 MX440
Geforce FX 5700 Ultra
Geforce 6800 GS
Geforce RTX 3060 Ti
Radeon HD4870
Radeon HD7870
Radeon HD7970
Radeon RX 580
Radeon RX 6800 XT
Never had any driver problems. In 20+ years of gaming.
I will wait some time, until 4090 is available around MSRP, and after installing, I want to play a bit with the unreal V engine to test the new possibilities. Game render engines are much faster than the usual offline render engines, but they now have a lot to offer. I'm just doing this for fun. I used to play a lot, now I prefer to play with the possibilities of game engines than with specific games, do some art, modding, such things.
To the 4090: You are right, it seems nVidia wants to stop the 4090 cannibalizing the quadro series, cutting memory pooling/nv-link. There are possibilities to use two 4090, undervolting would be necessary, but not every creative has such knowledge. For $2000 you can get two 3090. 48GB VRam including nVlink. I don't need so much :)
My priority is reliability, cost and performance last.
Octane is an awesome renderer btw :)
About 4080 pricing, the card seems to be available around MSRP, but is selling bad. nVidia can lower the price or lose market share to AMD. Scalper neutralized due to high price, low demand :laugh:
A price development comparison from wccftech.com/amd-radeon-nvidia-geforce-graphics-card-prices-significantly-improve-gpu-availability-2022/.
Like it, as it shows, the Titan tier segment is priced normally, while the gaming/enthusiast tier got hit by recent pricing.
RTX 4080 and RTX 4090 has proven to be great performers, the RTX 4080 performed better than "leaks" were projecting. The pricing can change if AMD offers some serious competition.
As for the rest of the product lineup, we actually don't know yet. But let's use any opportunity to bash Nvidia prematurely anyway!
But what if the shoe was on the other foot?
Anyone remembers Radeon VII? Performing midway between RTX 2070 and RTX 2080, while costing as much as RTX 2080? People were making excuses for that one, even though there were better alternatives. If the actual targeted launch is next summer, then neither pricing, TDP or clockspeed would be set at this point. Meaning this leak is either partially nonsense or completely nonsense.
Also RTX 3070 isn't 20% faster than RTX 3060 (like the source claims), it's more like 45-50% in 1440p. So if RTX 4060 turns out to be ~50% faster than RTX 3060, then it's not a bad improvement.
Historically, the 60-cards have been priced well and offered good value. I think Nvidia would regret it if they didn't do so this time too.
But as for all those wondering whether to buy or wait; If something well priced shows up, like a cheap RTX 3070, then by all means buy it :)
RTX 3080: 700$
RTX 4080: 1200$
This is a new product tier, RTX 4080 doesn't belong here but to the Ultra Enthusiast and Titan tiers.
And if RTX 4080 is a "pricing disaster", is RX 6950 XT that too? And for whichever you choose, are you basing this conclusion on MSRP, the pricing in TPU's reviews or your local pricing?
Because this may lead to very different conclusions. RX 6950 XT shows up at a greater value in TPU's reviews because it's based on Newegg's pricing at the time of writing, and right now Newegg have a couple of RX 6950 XTs way below MSRP. So is this price representative for the global market?
In my area pricing for RX 6950 XT is all over the place, and vary a lot day by day, very few in stock at or near MSRP. Many are priced comparatively to RTX 4080.
When I compare products I base my conclusions on US MSRP, which is not perfect, but is probably still more representative for a relative comparison than specific shops. (at least now that shops have stocks again)