Wednesday, July 19th 2023
RTX 4060 Ti 16GB Marginally Slower than 8GB Model: MSI Testing
MSI Insider Weekly tested an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB graphics card as part of a Live Benchmarking event, where it is shown to be in fact slower than the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB. This begins to explain why NVIDIA or its board partners weren't too keen on sampling the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB for reviews. The performance delta between the 16 GB and 8 GB models is within 0.5%, but the 16 GB model is slightly behind the 8 GB in Cyberpunk 2077, F1 23, and Rainbow 6: Siege, all in Ultra (or equivalent settings). The performance is neck-and-neck in Fortnite and Hogwarts Legacy. The only test where the 16 GB variant is ahead is with CS:GO.
Besides the memory size, the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has identical specs—core configuration, clock-speeds, power limits, to its 8 GB sibling. One possible explanation for the 16 GB performing slightly worse could be that the higher density 16 GB memory is imposing a slightly higher latency, or having a negligibly higher power draw, but these are all just theory-crafting on our part. The RTX 4060 Ti still has 225 W at its disposal. NVIDIA has proved its point that 16 GB makes no difference to the performance of the RTX 4060 Ti. It's now up to the board partners to sell these cards at a whopping 25% higher price than the 8 GB model. Ideally, NVIDIA could have spruced up the 16 GB variant a little, by enabling all 18 TPCs on the AD106 (the RTX 4060 Ti enables 17); and if the AD106 supports GDDR6X, they should have dialed up memory speed to 21 Gbps.
The MSI Insider video follows.
Source:
momomo_us (Twitter)
Besides the memory size, the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has identical specs—core configuration, clock-speeds, power limits, to its 8 GB sibling. One possible explanation for the 16 GB performing slightly worse could be that the higher density 16 GB memory is imposing a slightly higher latency, or having a negligibly higher power draw, but these are all just theory-crafting on our part. The RTX 4060 Ti still has 225 W at its disposal. NVIDIA has proved its point that 16 GB makes no difference to the performance of the RTX 4060 Ti. It's now up to the board partners to sell these cards at a whopping 25% higher price than the 8 GB model. Ideally, NVIDIA could have spruced up the 16 GB variant a little, by enabling all 18 TPCs on the AD106 (the RTX 4060 Ti enables 17); and if the AD106 supports GDDR6X, they should have dialed up memory speed to 21 Gbps.
46 Comments on RTX 4060 Ti 16GB Marginally Slower than 8GB Model: MSI Testing
*PLOT TWIST*
also Nvidia: "these fools will never imagine that we gimped the 16gb to match in performance the 8gb variant at best ... and make seems as if we were right..."
obviously it's a joke ...
also if anything, they proved that the RX 6700 XT 12gb is a better pick than either of the 4060 Ti at that price ...
unless you are into RTX (tho at the present time it's, imho, still a gimmick)
Jokes aside, the most balanced GPU of this line-up is RTX 4060 (aka RTX 4070 non-Ti), which, be it sold for $350, would be an excellent "all problems casual gamers have" solution. But no, they charge $600 pretending this GPU has something to do with major leagues. No, it doesn't.
And everything below RTX 4070 just makes negative sense except for, maybe, "4060 non-Ti" which should be called 4040, capped to 75 W, and sold for a cheeky hundred dollars cheaper at least.
NVidia: OK
Consumers: not like that!
What a waste of a product, but I suppose at the right price it exists for people who either want a very long lived midrange performer, or clutch their VRAM pearls tightly each night. Thanks (not) HUB for your share in making this happen. I look for to all the cherry picked, unrealistic scenarios we will get treated to in an attempt to justify this memory capacity.
If in 2-3 months the price is reasonable, then why not?
Now, it's quite expensive for the performance of this chip. In general the 4060Ti is not a very fast gpu but will play everything with decent settings, without DLSS3.
Intentional release of an identical chip but equipped with different memory to destroy this myth, almost impossible to dismantle with different chips and architectures.
Why is it nonsense, even in the case of the much praised 6700XT? Because the graphics chip is the first limited. It dies before the vRAM limit. Of course a 4090 or 4080 would be severely affected by 8GB, but they are very powerful chips. And 13900K can be limited by 16 GB, but not an i3.
nVidia has silently launched the 16GB version. They knew it didn't bring anything extra, but somehow they had to get in the way of those from AMD and their allies, such as HU. Without the commotion created by AMD with extra vRAM, something tells me that the 4060 Ti 16GB was never born.
www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700-xt.c3695
The GPU is operating at a frequency of 2321 MHz, which can be boosted up to 2581 MHz, memory is running at 2000 MHz
www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-rtx-4060-ti-16-gb.c4155
"The GPU is operating at a frequency of 2310 MHz, which can be boosted up to 2535 MHz, memory is running at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective)".
So why would a GPU with half the cores be more popular than one with more VRAM and half the cores? It can play 1440P Games and yes my 7900XT uses more VRAM than the 6800XT using X3D chips that have Smart Access Memory enabled based on resolution. Just because the 4060TI is a failure does not mean that you should throw shade at the 6700XT because of it.So would you buy this over a 6800 or 6800XT? If the price is the same?
You become embarrassing if you insist. The 6700XT could be equipped with 12GB or 6GB, but 6GB is insufficient. 8GB was enough, but the architecture does not allow it.
Yes, you can force the settings to the memory limit, with an igp gaming experience. It really is possible. I saw with my own eyes how some boys "climbed" with the latest equipment a slope that you could conquer in slippers and a T-shirt. Everything is possible in this crazy world.
You wrote miles of nonsense about the extra vRAM advantages, now you turn to the price. Here is the perfect example that the 12GB are completely useless on the 6700XT, and you... Batman, Batman.
Just browsing the comparisons between the two video cards (a new one, on TPU) should have prompted you to shut up.
As for the price, in 2021 I bought the 3070Ti at a lower price than a 6700XT, very popular video cards for mining. It is idiocy itself that you insist on the price of some antiques released two years ago.
And yes! I insist on believing that the 4060 Ti 16GB was released only as a replica for AMD's marketing, which found fixed vRAM to hide its own impotence. They don't have the best performing video card, they don't have the most efficient video card, they can't keep up with the competitor's releases and they are far behind in the technologies that bring them a video card beyond rasterization.
You know, the ugly one with a belly, with crooked legs and full of cellulite pointing the finger at a miss's wart.
Always forget that you are the hero who turned 6500XT into 4090 with an X3D. I forget and waste my time with you.
All this just means the 4060 Ti had to be packed with 192 bit wide bus (no more, no less) and with 12 GB of VRAM so it could handle everything it's supposed to handle, yet it is worse than 3060 Ti in some cases which per se makes this card absurdly bad. 4060 non-Ti, well, it's fine. A little overpriced and named a little bit off (4050 would be exactly the appropriate name) but fine. At $270 mark I'd consider it a completely valid purchase.
Whereas 4060 Tis are completely destroyed by very narrow 128 bit bus. It really makes them suffer a lot. Even an insignificant (at first glance) improvement of additional 32 bits (resounding 160 bit/10 GB VRAM) would make this GPU way more appropriate for its price.