NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Founders Edition

[neatfeatguy]

2160P not even impressed. My 2x 1070Ti's in SLI still spank the newer stuff unless its 2x 3090's in Sli. 4k gaming is where it's at and the problem is without SLi it like running in slow motion. I pushing my games around 100 fps in SLi. Heck I bet my 660 Ti's in SLI would beat the 3060ti in 1080P benchmarks. I understand directx 12 does not support it much but most games today still running dx11. Imagine if two 3060ti's was allowed to run SLi it would be 800.00 ish for same performance of a 3080 or better. But Nvidia is not only allowing the super rich afford 4k gaming.

DX12 supports SLI/Crossfire. The setup of multi-gpu, however, needs to be configured in DX12 by the developer. If it's not setup, then having multiple cards won't do you any good.

DX11/10/9 SLI support is only possible through drivers done by Nvidia. Nvidia has announced they will no longer support SLI, so even if any new games release under DX11, without driver support multiple cards won't mean squat.

 

[ShurikN]

So I assume <€200 GPUs is a thing of the past now.

Gt 1030 replacement incoming at $150

 

[hardcore_gamer]

A great card except:

• Ridiculously overpriced and people are seemingly not concerned at all. Like really? The GTX 970 launch price was $330!

GTX 900 series is an interesting point because it was on 28nm. Per-transistor cost reductions slowed down somewhere around this point.

Per chip costs are going up for GPUs (with significant transistor counts increments each generation). I doubt we'll see $300-350 upper mid-range cards ever again.

 

[Sithaer]

Don't know if I'd call $400 mainstream. The GTX 960 launched at $200, literally half the price. That's where the mainstream pricing should be and no amount of inflation can account for a doubling of price.

It is amazing to me that more people are not calling out the pricing.

I'm also wondering this, yes prices do go up but this is just crazy and not what I would call mainstream at all.

Tho I noticed this trend lately around here, certain ppl calling 4k gaming the new standard and 400-700$ GPUs completely normal priced and affordable to the average user.

While I don't want to be mean or anything but imo those ppl need a reality check and also realize that the world/market is bigger than USA and prices and values can be completely different depending on where ppl live.

I was a part of a Discord server for around 1 year, hardware/gaming related and there were like 300-400 ppl from all over the world and most of the ppl there had budget systems ranging from 750 Ti-s/1030s and other budget cards and the 1060s/RX 580s were already in the minority.
High end users were only a few.

So far the new gen cards 'both AMD and Nvidia' are nothing but completely overpriced things only for the higher end/richer users.

At this rate we gonna pay 300+$for a RTX 3050 in my country if it ever exists?What a joke.

 

[Chrispy_]

Don't know if I'd call $400 mainstream. The GTX 960 launched at $200, literally half the price. That's where the mainstream pricing should be and no amount of inflation can account for a doubling of price.

It is amazing to me that more people are not calling out the pricing.

For a start, the Ti isn't the same as the regular card, it's historically been priced at $300 not $200.

GTX 260 core 216 (like a Ti) = $300
GTX 465 (basically a 460Ti) = $280
GTX 560Ti = $290
GTX 660Ti = $300

Inflation from back then means that $300 is about $350 now and you have to account for not just inflation but also the trade sanctions against China that now hurt pricing too.

So calling them out for pricing these at $400 is baseless. If anything, the cut from 970 to 960 was much greater than typical for that generation so the 960 at $200 was simply priced according to its reduced performance. If you want further evidence of that, the vanilla GTX 760 that came before it was $250 and the 1060 that came after it was also $250. The 960 itself is a pricing anomaly so basing your argument on it alone is a mistake.

Perhaps Nvidia wanted to price the 960 at $250 but they couldn't because the old HD7950 was really close in performance and those were still selling for $160 with 50% more GDDR5 than the 960 too. The same card, rebranded to the R9 280 was also only $200 and had been in the market for a few months already, so there were discounts on that too; The 960 brought competition to the $200 price point but wasn't really a good deal even then because the market price of the competition was lower than the MSRP suggested. Sure, the GTX 960 sold but it wasn't an easy recommendation for people on a strict budget as the 2GB cards were already starting to struggle in some games and 3GB cards with similar performance were available for less; All it had going for it was lower power consumption.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I'm also wondering this, yes prices do go up but this is just crazy and not what I would call mainstream at all.

Tho I noticed this trend lately around here, certain ppl calling 4k gaming the new standard and 400-700$ GPUs completely normal priced and affordable to the average user.

While I don't want to be mean or anything but imo those ppl need a reality check and also realize that the world/market is bigger than USA and prices and values can be completely different depending on where ppl live.

I was a part of a Discord server for around 1 year, hardware/gaming related and there were like 300-400 ppl from all over the world and most of the ppl there had budget systems ranging from 750 Ti-s/1030s and the 1060s/RX 580s were already in the minority.

So far the new gen cards are nothing but completely overpriced things only for the higher end/richer users.

Edit: added higher end 10X0 cards -

Really has nothing to do with being in the US.

Steam HW survey pretty much says it all, I just totaled percent of users on 20X0 cards + 5700 / XT + 5600 / XT + 1070 / 1080 variants and it is about 21%. That would imply that 78%+ of gamers are using a 1660 Ti \ 5500 XT or less.

Using that metric - and usually when we talk about midrange it means where half are above this and half are below this - even a 1660 or 5500XT could be considered high end.

Looks like you have to drop all the way down to 570 / 1050 Ti / 1650 to be middle of the pack.

 

[Sithaer]

Edit: added higher end 10X0 cards -

Really has nothing to do with being in the US.

Steam HW survey pretty much says it all, I just totaled percent of users on 20X0 cards + 5700 / XT + 5600 / XT + 1070 / 1080 variants and it is about 21%. That would imply that 78%+ of gamers are using a 1660 Ti \ 5500 XT or less.

Using that metric - and usually when we talk about midrange it means where half are above this and half are below this - even a 1660 or 5500XT could be considered high end.

Looks like you have to drop all the way down to 570 / 1050 Ti / 1650 to be middle of the pack.

I get that yea but what I meant is that ppl who comment such things are mainly from richer countries and USA.

Anyway I digress, its just what I observed in the past months and I will never agree that a 400$ 'in reality 500-700$' card is mainstraim or ever will be for most ppl.

Theres like a 90% chance that I will buy a RX 5600 XT in January and that will be my card for the next ~3 years 'I keep my cards for 2-3 years always', was hoping that maybe I could grab the lower end new gen cards but seeing these prices yea aint happening.

 

[dyonoctis]

Heck I bet my 660 Ti's in SLI would beat the 3060ti in 1080P benchmarks.

Thanks, I had a good laugh

 

[RandallFlagg]

Okay here is the big question.

What time do they go up for sale?

 

[ahmadmob]

I registered here to give my special thanks to W1zzard for all these fantastic reviews.

Thanks again for the awesome work. I can imagine how hard and time consuming these reviews and charts can be, but know that we are all very grateful for that hard work.

Keep it up please.

 

[tancabean]

Don't know if I'd call $400 mainstream. The GTX 960 launched at $200, literally half the price. That's where the mainstream pricing should be and no amount of inflation can account for a doubling of price.

It is amazing to me that more people are not calling out the pricing.

Mainstream for me is still $200-$300. But that’s now the domain of x50 parts. Which is fine to be honest as those cards still work well for 1080p. A $400 3060 is definitely not mainstream.

 

[Fourstaff]

Nice price/perf if they can sell at $400, but I doubt they will be reaching that soon. Foundry undercapacity coupled with enlarged demand (from miners and analytics) mean we will have to get comfortable with elevated prices for the next few years. On the bright side for mainstream gamers RX 570 can be had for less than $150. Still plenty powerful for 1080p gaming.

Mainstream for me is still $200-$300. But that’s now the domain of x50 parts. Which is fine to be honest as those cards still work well for 1080p. A $400 3060 is definitely not mainstream.

If 1080p is mainstream gaming, then x50 cards are more than capable.

 

[dicktracy]

Almost on par with the overpriced 6800XT in Ray Tracing without using DLSS. Ouch!

 

[Caring1]

"NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 3060 Ti comes at incredible pricing of $399 "
It's incredible literally, because no one believes it.

 

[Mussels]

This seems like a great replacement for my 1080 8GB, similar wattage and a good chunk more performance.

It's hurting me inside how power hungry modern GPU's are tho

 

[r9]

I be fine getting 2070 super for $300 but that won't happen any time soon as people still asking $500 for their old shit. Everybody wants to sell their old crap use the money to upgrade and profit $100 on top.

 

[mechtech]

But will you play those indefinitely? Its generally pretty samey, but new engines do present a different sort of load that does work out differently on newer architectures, too. The overall relative performance is where its really at, I think, and then for your specific resolution (and a higher one you might target). Games do get sequels much like BL3 and TW3 did, and engines do get updated. With a new console gen, big changes happen. Point is, those two games only tell you about those two games - their number becomes less relevant as time passes and the engine gets outdated.

Bigger datasets generally improve accuracy

Won't argue with that, however if I'm gonna sink hard earned cash into a card, it would be based on the games I own/play currently.

Oh wait, I just realized we dropped RX 480 from the test group for last rebench, only RX 580 now. But you should be able to extrapolate

View attachment 177753View attachment 177754

Now that's service

Thanks

 

[evernessince]

So I assume <€200 GPUs is a thing of the past now.

If so that's a huge problem. The vast majority of the PCs I have sold have had GPUs at $200 USD or under.

Gt 1030 replacement incoming at $150

That's for the DDR3 version, gotta pay at least $200 for that GDDR5.

I'm also wondering this, yes prices do go up but this is just crazy and not what I would call mainstream at all.

Tho I noticed this trend lately around here, certain ppl calling 4k gaming the new standard and 400-700$ GPUs completely normal priced and affordable to the average user.

While I don't want to be mean or anything but imo those ppl need a reality check and also realize that the world/market is bigger than USA and prices and values can be completely different depending on where ppl live.

I was a part of a Discord server for around 1 year, hardware/gaming related and there were like 300-400 ppl from all over the world and most of the ppl there had budget systems ranging from 750 Ti-s/1030s and other budget cards and the 1060s/RX 580s were already in the minority.
High end users were only a few.

So far the new gen cards 'both AMD and Nvidia' are nothing but completely overpriced things only for the higher end/richer users.

At this rate we gonna pay 300+$for a RTX 3050 in my country if it ever exists?What a joke.

For sure the bulk of the market is in the lower price segments. I don't see this pricing being healthy for the PC platform in general.

Mainstream for me is still $200-$300. But that’s now the domain of x50 parts. Which is fine to be honest as those cards still work well for 1080p. A $400 3060 is definitely not mainstream.

The RX 480 / GTX 1060 had 1080p down pretty well years back and the launch price of the RX 480 was $200. The 1650 is slower and the 1660 is not much faster and priced higher. That's considering the RX 480 was launched 4 years ago.

The lack of improvement in price to performance is a problem, especially for budget cards.

 

[candle_86]

For a start, the Ti isn't the same as the regular card, it's historically been priced at $300 not $200.

GTX 260 core 216 (like a Ti) = $300
GTX 465 (basically a 460Ti) = $280
GTX 560Ti = $290
GTX 660Ti = $300

Inflation from back then means that $300 is about $350 now and you have to account for not just inflation but also the trade sanctions against China that now hurt pricing too.

So calling them out for pricing these at $400 is baseless. If anything, the cut from 970 to 960 was much greater than typical for that generation so the 960 at $200 was simply priced according to its reduced performance. If you want further evidence of that, the vanilla GTX 760 that came before it was $250 and the 1060 that came after it was also $250. The 960 itself is a pricing anomaly so basing your argument on it alone is a mistake.

Perhaps Nvidia wanted to price the 960 at $250 but they couldn't because the old HD7950 was really close in performance and those were still selling for $160 with 50% more GDDR5 than the 960 too. The same card, rebranded to the R9 280 was also only $200 and had been in the market for a few months already, so there were discounts on that too; The 960 brought competition to the $200 price point but wasn't really a good deal even then because the market price of the competition was lower than the MSRP suggested. Sure, the GTX 960 sold but it wasn't an easy recommendation for people on a strict budget as the 2GB cards were already starting to struggle in some games and 3GB cards with similar performance were available for less; All it had going for it was lower power consumption.

real fast the GTX465 wasn't faster than a GTX460, it was the stop gap because GTX460 GF104 wasn't ready yet.

Here is the Trend over the last decade for price per bracket for which series card, some things stick out Top end cards have move from 700 to 1200, the midrange moved from 250 to 499.

I think Nvidia has lost touch, the GTX 1660 was not a good replacement for the GTX 1060 6gb, it was more of a side grade and at times maybe 10% better, the real improvement meant moving up bracket and out of the midrange territory and into the range of the high end

A few oddites to notice, Geforce 3 was over priced but like the later Nvidia cards ATI had nothing to compete, and the GTX200 series is all over the place on launch prices, you can tell when AMD launched the HD4000 series, so it seems normally if Nvidia has competition prices go down, but not this time.

But going back in time the Geforce2 Ultra for 500 is only equal to about 750 in todays money, so its not just inflation

2000-3000

GTX Titan Z

GTX Titan V

Titan RTX

1000-2000

GTX 690

GTX Titan Black, GTX Titan

GTX Titan X

GTX Titan X, GTX Titan XP

RTX 2080 Ti

RTX 3090

700-1000

8800 Ultra

9800 GX2

GTX 590

GTX 780 Ti

600-700

7800 GTX 512, 7800 GTX 512

7950 GX2

8800 GTX

GTX 780

GTX 980 Ti

GTX 1080 Ti

RTX 2080 Super, RTX 2080

RTX 3080

500-600

Ultra

Ti 500, 3

Ti 4800, Ti 4600

FX 5800 Ultra, FX5900 Ultra, FX5950 Ultra

6800 Ultra Extreme

7900 GTX

GTX 280

GTX 480

GTX 580

GTX 680

GTX 980

GTX 1080

RTX 2070 Super, RTX 2070

RTX 3070

400-500

6800 Ultra

7800 GT

8800 GTS 640

GTX 295, GTX 260

GTX 670

GTX 770

GTX 1070 Ti

RTX 2060 Super

RTX 3060 Ti

300-400

Pro, GTS

Ti 200

Ti 4400

FX 5800, FX 5900

7800 GS

7950 GT, 7900GT

8800 GTS 512, 8800 GTS 320

9800 GTX

GTX 285, GTX 260 216

GTX 470

GTX 570

GTx 660 Ti

GTX 970

GTX 1070

RTX 2060

250-300

Ti

6800 GT

7900 GS

GTX 275

GTX 465

GTX 560 Ti 448

GTX 1660 Ti

200-250

Ti 4200

FX 5900XT

6800

8800GT

9800 GT

GTX 460

GTX 560 Ti

GTX 660

GTX 760

GTX 960

GTX 1060 6gb

GTX 1660 Super, GTX 1660

150-200

MX 400, MX

MX 460

FX 5700 Ultra, FX 5700, FX 5600 Ultra, FX 5600

6800 LE, 6600 GT

7600GT

8800GS, 8600 GTS

9600 GT

GTS 250

GTX 460 768

GTX 560

GTX 650 Ti Boost, GTX 650 Ti

GTX 750 Ti

GTX 950

GTX 1060 3gb

GTX 1650 Super

100-150

MX 440

FX 5700LE, FX 5600 LE, FX 5200 Ultra

6600

7600GS

8600 GT

9600 GSO

GT 240

GTS 450

GTX 550 Ti

GTX 650

GTX 750

GTX 1050 Ti, GTX 1050

GTX 1650

 

[Valantar]

So I'm not getting all these cards and the power draws.

Looking at this old review of a 980, it had a peak power consumption (not overclocked) of around 185W.

I remember ~5 years ago, word was nobody really needed a PSU > 600W unless they were doing crossfire or some such, and most people were fine with 450W which was rapidly becoming the norm.

Now we have 3060 Ti at > 200W peak loads, not OC'd.

Seems like these cards are made for the 1% of users that have rigs that can meet those specs, common here, but not so common in the wider market.

To make use of something like this 3060 Ti (and all other GPUs recently released) you need :

• CPU no less than a 3600 or 9600, even then very CPU limited on 3070+ or 6800+, and even this 3060 Ti will get CPU limited quite a bit.
  • If you are on 2600 or 7700K even, esp with slower RAM, you'll be very disappointed
  • Just look at the benchmarks of these on the benchmarks forum on Tomb Raider, those CPUs will make a 3080 perform like a 2070 - 2070 Super
• 600W+ power supply, 750+ for higher cards

So like, what % of users has this? It's gonna be close to zero. This kind of stuff might push a lot of people towards consoles.

Edit: This is what I'm talking about, ripped from that thread. A 3800X is 100% CPU limited with a 6800XT on Tomb Raider :

View attachment 177760

You're not wrong about the power draws increasing this generation, but a GPU running at ~210W, peaking at ~220W does not require a >600W PSU unless your build is really out there. Most PCs these days have one SSD, maybe one HDD, a few fans, perhaps an AIO pump, and that's it. Combine the GPU power draw with the real-world power draw of a CPU in a matching price range, like the 3600 or 5600X, you have about 300W, add in another 50-70W for the motherboard, RAM, storage and fans, and add another 20% or so for safety and margin for PSU wear. That leaves you with a minimum PSU of ~420-440W. So even a 500W PSU would be plenty and would leave you room for future upgrades too (though statistically the chance of someone moving significantly up in power level from their current GPU when they upgrade is rather unlikely - the far more likely thing is for them to buy a newer GPU in the same tier, with roughly comparable power draw). This of course assumes one buys PSUs of reasonable quality from reliable manufacturers, but that's a given.

 

[dont whant to set it"']

I just imagined the Ozzymanreviews bloke saying "Yeah ... Nah , just nah" at 400 buckaroos for a maybe 250 to 275 $ worth.

 

[nguyen]

If the standard 3060 comes out with 6GB VRAM and 10% slower than 3060Ti at 330usd, it's gonna be instant smash hit that could replace the almighty 1060 very soon.

 

[medi01]

That power efficiency is pretty good. Wonder if AMD cards in this perf segment can beat it

So, napkin math:

3070 - 5888 faux shaders (real figure: 2944)
3060Ti - 4864 faux shaders (real figure: 2432)
(note: just because shader can do fp+fp doesn't turn it into 2 shaders)

Drop vs 3070: 17.4%


6800 - 4608 shaders (6800 is 5%+ faster than 3070)
6700 - 2560 shaders

Drop vs 6800: 45%
Is rumored to hit 3Ghz, should still be slower, but much cheaper to produce too.


3060Ti is likely the chip NV hoped to label as 3070 or even 3070Ti, before Lisa hammered Jensen with RDNA2.

...and even the RX 6800 in raytracing...

I don't think it's a fair assessment of the cards capabilities, as RT perf varies wildly from Control to Dirt5 and with COD somewhere in the middle and with only 2 games tested one (both?) green sponsored.

$399 for something approaching a 2080S. Ampere offers theoretical improvements in performance/$ across the whole range.

Except 2080s is hard to be called a "fairly priced card".

 

[Xaled]

Once again TPU falls in the trap of nvidia and participate in the fraud of announcing an unavailable product at a fake MSRP.
Shame!

 

[medi01]

Once again TPU falls in the trap of nvidia and participate in the fraud of announcing an unavailable product at a fake MSRP.
Shame!

How could TPU control pricing/MSRP pretty please?

And it's not a secret figure either, you can see it with your eyes easily (unlike performance, which is what this site is testing)