NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Founders Edition

[rv8000]

Anytime someone bashes DLSS 3 for creating unwanted artificing, I get the hint they've never seen it before.

Considering HWUB and other online review sources have documented and specifically tested for these things as nvidia makes revisions to DLSS3, you’d be wrong.

 

[Tomorrow]

Anytime someone bashes DLSS 3 for creating unwanted artificing, I get the hint they've never seen it before.

The slower the card - the higher the probability of seeing those artifacts.

 

[AusWolf]

How is this even possible.

"But cache..."

AMD releases the 6500 XT that matches the 5500 XT, and everyone calls it a shitshow.

Nvidia releases the 4060 Ti that is barely any better than the 3060 Ti, and offers worse price to performance ratio, and it gets a recommendation badge.

WTF?

 

[JimmyDoogs]

Considering HWUB and other online review sources have documented and specifically tested for these things as nvidia makes revisions to DLSS3, you’d be wrong.

I can see the grainyness of AI upscaling and I sparingly use that but I seriously don't see any loss of detail with FG. I'm down to see whatever you guys are talking about though. To me FG on vs off is so close I can't tell the difference. I personally use FG every chance and I bet you guys will one day too.

The slower the card - the higher the probability of seeing those artifacts.

Oh interesting, that is noteworthy.

 

[Taisho]

Mind explaining how 3060ti got "bottlenecked" over the 6700xt with 12GB ?

Sure. The average FPS test is completely useless in a low VRAM situation. Even a 1% low FPS comparison doesn't tell a full story. Of course, they are convenient to use, as there is a low variance in the results over a single test run, thanks to the large volume of test data. Unfortunately, this VRAM handicap causes a lot of micro stutters that make a VRAM-demanding game virtually unplayable at the given texture quality. At the same time, these stutters have close to no effect on the average FPS and still limited impact on 1% lows. I won't even start with textures not loading in time or at all, having no impact on reported FPS.

 

[izy]

No more than -2 to 3% or so. W1z has done many other GPU scaling comparisons with older PCIe versions and going down one step is never more than 2-3%. You won't notice the difference.

Well it seems that it can go up to 10% less with PCI-E 4.0 x4 ( = PCI-E 3.0 x8) , thats what der8auer is saying , 5% to 10%, RIP b450 (edit: and this is only in a short benchmark , who knows if you are playing for a while , maybe you can lose even more in specific scenarios)

,

 

[Lew Zealand]

Well it seems that it can go up to 10% less with PCI-E 4.0 x4 ( = PCI-E 3.0 x8)

View attachment 297237,

3% lower, 7% lower in 1% lows, not 10%. In one game.

Here's the closest thing you're gonna get until W1z does the tests:

-2.2% on average. I really hope W1z adds 1% lows to these tests though as that is where you'd expect these narrower bandwidths to take the biggest toll.

 

[rv8000]

I can see the grainyness of AI upscaling and I sparingly use that but I seriously don't see any loss of detail with FG. I'm down to see whatever you guys are talking about though. To me FG on vs off is so close I can't tell the difference. I personally use FG every chance and I bet you guys will one day too.

Ghosting, frame stretching, ui flickering to name a few; games like ms flight sim, Spider-Man, F1 games, CP2077. Just Google it or take the time to watch some of HWUB’s content on the subject.

There have been improvements since release but problems exactly like the ones mentioned still exist when using DLSS 3. Not to mention when using a GPU with less raw shader horse power, the occurrence and how easy these artifacts are to spot gets worse; as you trickle down the product stack DLSS 3 gets worse sadly.

I have no intention of using DLSS3 or FG tech as I don’t see the point in spending a lot of money for a high end GPU/high refresh monitor to actively degrade the visual quality of my games.

 

[izy]

3% lower, 7% lower in 1% lows, not 10%. In one game.

Here's the closest thing you're gonna get until W1z does the tests:

-2.2% on average. I really hope W1z adds 1% lows to these tests though as that is where you'd expect these narrower bandwidths to take the biggest toll.

Yeah , well this are only in short benchmarks , in real usage with 128bit/8gb/and x8 PCI-E 3.0 could be worse in some scenarios (if you are trying to play on Ultra), Hardware Unboxed was getting some big frame drops in some games even on PCI-E 4.0.
I think it was OK if all the new GPUs from nvidia were priced as a tier lower, i was thinking to upgrade my GPU and what looks good to me is 4070 or 4070 TI and they are too expensive in my opinion, 4070 should be at 4060 TI price and so on.

 

[JimmyDoogs]

Ghosting, frame stretching, ui flickering to name a few; games like ms flight sim, Spider-Man, F1 games, CP2077. Just Google it or take the time to watch some of HWUB’s content on the subject.

There have been improvements since release but problems exactly like the ones mentioned still exist when using DLSS 3. Not to mention when using a GPU with less raw shader horse power, the occurrence and how easy these artifacts are to spot gets worse; as you trickle down the product stack DLSS 3 gets worse sadly.

I have no intention of using DLSS3 or FG tech as I don’t see the point in spending a lot of money for a high end GPU/high refresh monitor to actively degrade the visual quality of my games.

If you've seen it and don't like it, that's fine. I just think people are making problems up about it personally and have never actually seen it IRL.

I'm serious, implore you to see it in person if you can. You can take 4k games running at 70 Hz and easily bring it up to 120hz without any loss of detail (For me personally I guess?) And I am a serious quality nit picker. It's visually a better enhancement then AI Upsaling easily.

People talk about it like it's witchcraft and even if they had a 8900 XTX they would never turn it on and I dunnoooo, I think you just might.

 

[Bomby569]

There is a lot of exaggeration, for example saying DLSS is worthless or works badly, that is objectively wrong no matter what you do. Ignoring it's also idiotic.
This is a worthless, overpriced waste of sand, there is no need to go full r...... with stupid arguments. Should have more vram, should have a bigger performance increase against the card it replaces or it should be insanely cheaper and probably replace a 6 for a 5.

Now it's up to consumers to teach or not Jensen a lesson. The rest is irrelevant.

 

[dirtyferret]

200 comments on a card that no one in this thread will purchase at MSRP, interesting

 

[HaKN !]

@W1zzard

Are we still using 6+ months old + Beta drivers

 

[Lew Zealand]

Yeah , well this are only in short benchmarks , in real usage with 128bit/8gb/and x8 PCI-E 3.0 could be worse in some scenarios (if you are trying to play on Ultra), Hardware Unboxed was getting some big frame drops in some games even on PCI-E 4.0.

Yes, that's because the 4060 Ti ran out of VRAM which is a different problem.

However I had a look at the frametime graphs from TPU's 6600 XT PCIe scaling tests I took that graph from, and here are my observations comparing PCIe 4.0 x8 to 3.0 x8:

1. all but 2 games had a less than 5% difference in 1% lows, many lower than 2%
2. Far Cry 5 was down 9% in 1% lows but otherwise had similar average framerates like the above games
3. Hitman 3 shows a HUGE difference with averages down 8% and 1% lows down 25%.

So there will be individual games that are very sensitive to PCIe bandwidth but the vast majority will perform similarly.

 

[mtb scotland]

You know it's a great card when they list

• Idle fan-stop

As a thumbs up. how the actual F did this card get a highly recommended badge. Guessing TPU and JTC are on the same bung scheme nVidia run.

 

[HD64G]

2 years ago the 8 GB VRAM didn't limit you to 1080p gaming, and it's not like this resolution gained popularity. Even at 1080p, 8GB VRAM can be a hard bottleneck. You're paying for a GPU obsolete on arrival, so it needs to be very cheap.

Since those GPUs aren't powerful enough, once you select the proper settings for the game to run fluidly, the 8GB VRAM will be enough.

 

[EatingDirt]

Anytime someone bashes DLSS 3 for creating unwanted artificing, I get the hint they've never seen it before.

If you've seen it and don't like it, that's fine. I just think people are making problems up about it personally and have never actually seen it IRL.

I'm serious, implore you to see it in person if you can. You can take 4k games running at 70 Hz and easily bring it up to 120hz without any loss of detail (For me personally I guess?) And I am a serious quality nit picker.

People talk about it like it's witchcraft and even if they had a 8900 XTX they would never turn it on and I dunnoooo, I think you just might.

Frame Generation is good when you're already getting 60+ FPS, because you will not see or feel the added latency, and it does add latency. I imagine as a 4090 user, you've likely not experienced getting ~60 FPS(with frame generation on) unless you've played some games at 4k ultra settings with very intensive Raytracing on.

Once you start getting near 30 FPS, you bet you'll start noticing the latency increase even though your FPS counter says 60 FPS with frame generation on. It's also much more likely that you'll notice the artifacting, as there's not as many frames to insert the generated frames between.

These are the known downsides of frame generation.

 

[A Computer Guy]

AMD releases the 6500 XT that matches the 5500 XT, and everyone calls it a shitshow.

Nvidia releases the 4060 Ti that is barely any better than the 3060 Ti, and offers worse price to performance ratio, and it gets a recommendation badge.

WTF?

But it's more power efficient though? It looks like the perfect SFF card but I know nothing like John Snow.

 

[BetrayerX]

Garbage review of a garbage product.

The card should cost $100 less to have a real impact.

Frame generation is garbage frames designed to fool your eye.

NVidia is still cementing their legacy as the new Apple: Overpriced products with questionable price/performance ratios with closed sourced software segmenting the market, justified by their blindly fanatic fanbase.

 

[wheresmycar]

.... all the while silly billy old me thought the NDA lift was on Thursday. What a nice Tuesday afternoon surprise! (or was it)

Actually a nice review as always (except the "highly recommended" vote of confidence) but bloody hell NVIDIA certainly doesn't disappoint with the on-going performance gimping and driving those huge price tags. You just know the level of "gimping" at play when the bigger brothers are almost 100% faster. Thats crazy in itself especially considering these are mid-ranged "high" performance cards for 1080p~1440p. The next time these companies boast about 2x raster and 3x-4x RT/AI driven performance jumps prior to launch i ain't taking any notice.

This is not a $400 card. It's a $200 shitshow which should have been MSRPeed at $300 (you gotto give the green monster something to eat).

Lucky for me, i took the following precautionary guidelines pill to prevent sudden-surprise heart attacks so i'm not all that traumatized:

 

[muddymind]

I'll be honest here. this is the worst x60 series release by nvidia by far and it's pure garbage. I don't know how this can get a Highly recommended award since it's a pure garbage product.

Only 8GB VRAM for this price for 2023 where many games are starting to show issues.

The extra L2 cache clearly can't compensate the narrow 128-bit bus and it shows at 1440p and upwards.

It doesn't exist in a vacuum and there's much better RDNA2 alternatives at that price range that will age much better mostly due to the vram size.

The ONLY redeeming positive aspect of this GPU is the power efficiency. Everything else is just

and before anyone calls me an AMD shill these are the GPUs I own:

This release is a disgrace for nvidia and I'm hugely disappointed by @W1zzard 's highly recommended award.

 

[evernessince]

What exactly would you buy instead? and why? Curious to understand your train of thought. I shared my thoughts on that in the last part of the conclusion. I've updated all prices in the review 2 hours ago today, so they should be accurate and good for you to use

I don't think it's a good idea to base recommendations soley on what is currently the best option in the market. An alternative better option isn't explicitly needed because we can all see the value is bad based off past and current market conditions. For exampe, I wouldn't recommend Highmark health insurance in the US simply because they are the best option out of a bunch of turds. When the market isn't providing compelling products, reviewers should hold companies to account and not excuse overpriced products as "well it's currently the best in the market" when those companies are the one's determining the value of each product in the market in the first place and they are objectively and historically bad value.

 

[Oberon]

Woo, you guys were really reaching to make that pros list longer, weren't you? A backplate is a pro on a $400 card now.

Total joke.

 

[apoklyps3]

just delete the review... nobody can take it serious with the "highly recommended" badge.
not only we can't take it serious, it makes us highly suspicious of foul play being involved.

this is a very honest take on this piece of e-waste:

maybe you should consider a new badge that looks like a turd and it is named big turd

 

[W1zzard]

A recommended-on sale reward badge would be good for products like this.

I like your thinking, "recommended on-sale" is a bit too complex for an award graphic though. Any other ideas?

come on man. Don't be selective with my quote, when it fits your agenda. If you're going to quote me quote the whole the thing. & just bold the part you want to emphasize

I didn't mean to misrepresent your quote, it's how I've always quoted, first time I'm hearing a complaint about that

why AMD drivers so old in test system specs?

also @HaKN !

Intel Arc A750 Limited Edition 8 GB Graphics Card Discounted to $199

Newegg has reduced the asking price for Intel's Arc A750 Limited Edition 8 GB graphics card - this reference model is now available at an all-time low of $199. It is too early to tell whether this a permanent discount or just a seasonal sale - but the online retailer could be reacting (in...

www.techpowerup.com