NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Founders Edition

[catulitechup]

Well still dont show test for howarts legacy, resident evil 4 and last of us, without forget add arc A750 8gb

 

[W1zzard]

EDIT: This message awaits mod approval also, why is this happening?! I already swapped "stupid" from the original message with "bad".

Some new users have their first posts moderated, just so we have a better chance at catching spammers Your registration got flagged due to open ports 80 and 443 on your registration IP, which looks more like dedicated server/VPN than "home user"

It usually just takes a few minutes for a staff member to see the post in the queue and approve it

 

[vldcl]

I have a 2060 6GB, is it worth upgrading to this 4060TI?

 

[BoggledBeagle]

I have a 2060 6GB, is it worth upgrading to this 4060TI?

4070 is much better in every aspect (and more expensive too). I am afraid that this is exactly what nVidia wants me to write.

 

[Deleted member 57642]

The Elephant in the Room: Who exactly is this card for?! Someone who builds "his first PC" - after working all summer (if the parents have a saying in that - they won't spend 400$ on video card alone - not to mention - this days laptops are the preferred option over a desktop)?! A replacement for a broken video card?! A YouTube streamer?!

Seriously, if you're looking for an upgrade from RTX 2xxx the buyer's remorse was made for products like this. Either you go for a 2nd hand RTX 3060+ or wait for the next generations. Point being - if gaming is your interest - the upcoming games (even some of the current/recent titles) - are getting hungrier and hungrier for VRAM (even the Bus Width was crippled to 128 Bit for 4060 - while the 16 GB Ti is around 500$). Thus... "for the price of a PlayStation 5" - you get just a Video Card - and some games will look worst on your PC (if a smooth experience - is also a priority). If this upgrade also involves monitor with at least 2K resolution - due keep in mind that this video card is intended for 1080p and preferentially games released before or around 2020. I mean...

AMD is doing pretty bad as well "at this price range..."

Which is why - a new card around this budget - seems to be a bad deal for the time being (in my opinion). The way i see it (while taking into account previous generation - where cards were crippled intentionally) - this line of cards are a strategic move (its mediocrity - is intentional). While taking into account the price range - they looked at the competition and made something slightly better (or slightly worse - depending on usage) - to fill this price gap. Might feel bad from a user perspective - for someone who was looking forward to this cards to upgrade their current rig - but from nVidia's perceptive "it's just business, nothing personal" - as in - they just have to increase the bus width, adapt to the new VRAM requirements as a new standard - and boom "they have a new product for the next generation". RTX 4060 are already selling just fine "with la[tops". And if RTX 5060 can offer an increase of 20% - even proving to be more viable for 2K and 4K (cause hey RTX 4070 is already good enough for that - so just spend more) - RTX 5060 is sure to peak one's interest - which this strategy ideal for future sells. Unless, Intel or AMD has some aces up their sleeve - and screws with their plans (tho, this too - could be a reason for nVidia to hold back). Just my 2 cents.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

The Elephant in the Room: Who exactly is this card for?! ...

Which is why - a new card around this budget - seems to be a bad deal for the time being (in my opinion). ...

This card will be available for years to come. Comparing it with old AMD RX 6000 which may sold out in weeks makes no sense. Buying a used second hand card without warranty is a completely different incomparable situation.

So at the moment the answer is easy: this card is for somebody, who wants to buy a new card with warranty, energy efficient card, card with well working modern features (upscaling, frame generation), for somebody who is not willing or cannot pay more than $400 for it.

I think that general consensus is that there are two interesting new cards from nVidia at the moment: 4090 and 4070. 4070 is 50% more expensive than 4060ti, which for somebody may be a problem.

 

[Gica]

Sorry to bother you, but I just finished a WoT session with igp UHD 770. Three wins and two losses, probably caused by the lack of 2323232 TB VRAM. Upgrade is mandatory.

X060 is the middle board. Not mainstream. The target is at most 1440p, where AAA games cannot be run decently (minimum 60 fps) with maximum details even with 128GB VRAM of this class.
Prices will drop when the 16GB variant is launched.

Attach files

 

[btk2k2]

AutoIT is your slave.

I think you completely misunderstood. No one expects you to rebenchmark all those cards across all those games every 6 weeks. Just like no one expects you to do your tax returns every 6 weeks. (Well actually, in Germany, they do expect you to do it every 4 weeks! LOL). No, just to record in your database when the benchmark result was run, so that when the tables are populated, you can either show the date, or show a traffic light, green, last 6 weeks, yellow, last 3 months, red, very old drivers.

Although not as significant as other indices, imagine a FTSE or DAX index without a date.

Automation won't capture IQ differences from texture swapping making any such review entirely worthless going forward.

 

[N/A]

The Elephant in the Room: Who exactly is this card for?! Someone who builds "his first PC" - after working all summer (if the parents have a saying in that - they won't spend 400$ on video card alone - ... And if RTX 5060 can offer an increase of 20% - even proving to be more viable for 2K and 4K (cause hey RTX 4070 is already good enough for that - so just spend more) - RTX 5060 is sure to peak one's interest - which this strategy ideal for future sells. Unless, Intel or AMD has some aces up their sleeve - and screws with their plans (tho, this too - could be a reason for nVidia to hold back). Just my 2 cents.

This card is for upgrading 2070 and below. 50% seem a good min uplift.

3060 and 4060 are both the same cuda count 3584 and 4352 as 1080 Ti and 2080 Ti and even the perf is very similar, coincidence? I think not.
Next is 3080 Ti with 10240 Cuda, but divided by 2 for 5120 and a 36 Gbps 128 bit 16 GB GDDR7 for 576 GBs. double that of GDDR6. RTX 5060 5120 Cuda is easily 4070 perf..

 

[AnotherReader]

Also, that was a RX480, which was $229, not 199. $199 was GB. And that was GDDR5, which is much cheaper and was back then, compared to GDDR6 today.

While I agree with the rest of your post, you are mistaken about GDDR6 being expensive. While AMD and Nvidia don't pay spot prices, the spot price for GDDR6 is between 3.05 and 4.2 dollars for a 8 Gb device of unknown speed. I don't subscribe to DRAMeXchange so I can't check the prices of 16 Gb 18 Gbps devices, but they are unlikely to be much higher. That means an additional 8 GB of GDDR6 might cost only 24 to 32 dollars.

 

[Deleted member 57642]

This card will be available for years to come. Comparing it with old AMD RX 6000 which may sold out in weeks makes no sense. Buying a used second hand card without warranty is a completely different incomparable situation.

So at the moment the answer is easy: this card is for somebody, who wants to buy a new card with warranty, energy efficient card, card with well working modern features (upscaling, frame generation), for somebody who is not willing or cannot pay more than $400 for it.

I think that general consensus is that there are two interesting new cards from nVidia at the moment: 4090 and 4070. 4070 is 50% more expensive than 4060ti, which for somebody may be a problem.

Energy Efficient?! The card is "HANDICAPPED!" Due to heat issues - on laptops there's usually a power limit - which, as can be seen with older GPUs - lowering the wattage tends to have an impact performance (compared to Desktop Video Cards - which can use as much as they need). Yet, as can be seen in the next video - between 100W -> 140W there's half a FPS or max 1 FPS difference:

Those features are situational - might work for single-player games and videos but latency can be an issue for online gaming. Not to mention - the devs have to implement it for a game to be capable of DLSS. It's also capable of Ray Tracing... Ok, it's not a good joke. But I'm not the one who made this joke. After all - it's in the name of this cards (RTX = Ray Tracing Xtreme) since 2xxx and still a useless (quite literally) feature.

Sure, might still be available in the future due to poor sells - but it's a card made for the past (not really a worthy investment for the time being - might be when it drops to around 200$ - so maybe 4 years from now). Tho, pretty sure even nVidia's not investing a lot in their mass production - desktop wise (just enough to fill that specific niche). Wouldn't be surprised if more than 80% are targeted for laptop GPUs (perfect market for this type of GPUs). So, maybe it won't be long till you can only buy them 2nd hand.

theThis card is for upgrading 2070 and below. 50% seem a good min uplift.

3060 and 4060 are both the same cuda count 3584 and 4352 as 1080 Ti and 2080 Ti and even the perf is very similar, coincidence? I think not.
Next is 3080 Ti with 10240 Cuda, but divided by 2 for 5120 and a 36 Gbps 128 bit 16 GB GDDR7 for 576 GBs. double that of GDDR6. RTX 5060 5120 Cuda is easily 4070 perf..

As mentioned above - there's very little future value for this model. If one was to win a RTX 4060 in a contest while owning a RTX 2070 - there's more value in selling the RTX 4060 and raise more money for a 4070. RTX 2070 was 500$ - 600$ on release (the people who spent that much money on those - seem to have higher standards).

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Energy Efficient?! The card is "HANDICAPPED!" Due to heat issues - on laptops there's usually a power limit - which, as can be seen with older GPUs - lowering the wattage tends to have an impact performance (compared to Desktop Video Cards - which can use as much as they need). Yet, as can be seen in the next video - between 100W -> 140W there's half a FPS or max 1 FPS difference:
.....

Man, what are you talking about? Why are you posting a video about completely different laptop GPUs?

 

[Squared]

The 4090 outperforms the 3090 Ti by 45% average at 4K, at a lower launch MSRP. This 4060 Ti beats the 3060 Ti by 12% average at 1080p (15% in ray tracing, 10% at 1440p), at the same launch MSRP. What a letdown.

I don't see a silver lining. Lower power consumption is great but it won't make your games run better. DLSS 3 will be nice in supported games but it won't do much good in games where latency hinders competitiveness. PCIe 3.0 performance will be pretty bad compared to the 3060 Ti based on der8auer's PCIe 4.0 x4 testing.

Performance is just shy of the 3070. That'd be alright performance for a new generation once upon a time when the old generation was only a year old. But the 3060 Ti is 2 1/4 years old. What a letdown.

 

[tfdsaf]

I have a 2060 6GB, is it worth upgrading to this 4060TI?

It's worth upgrading to a 6700XT which goes for around $340 and has 12GB of vram. Otherwise, I suggest you skip this generation as pretty much every single GPU is a scam, except for the 7900XTX which offers solid value for the performance and features it brings.

The RTX 4060ti is essentially a 4050ti, its a lower class card renamed into a mid-range card. If it released at $300 with 16GB of vram it would have been worth it, as it is its essentially a scam!

 

[BoggledBeagle]

The 4090 outperforms the 3090 Ti by 45% average at 4K, at a lower launch MSRP. This 4060 Ti beats the 3060 Ti by 12% average at 1080p .... What a letdown.

Perhaps nVidia do not see much sense in competing in the lower segment with consoles. Or they have a good allocation for these chips in laptops. Objectively this card seems like a good REPLACEMENT , which brings useful features, and not a great upgrade.

It's worth upgrading to a 6700XT which goes for around $340 and has 12GB of vram. Otherwise, I suggest you skip this generation as pretty much every single GPU is a scam, except for the 7900XTX which offers solid value for the performance and features it brings.

6700XT is a soon to be discontinued inefficient old product, which lacks useful features of current nVidia cards.

Current AMD cards are broken - they eat tens of watts for what should require single digits. If you ignore that your card consumes 40W just for playing a youtube video, 7900XTX is a good option.

4090 is the best card available today, 4070 is also excellent (beside it having only 12 GB of RAM).

Rich people should get 4090.

Poorer people with cheap electricity should get 7900XTX

Poor people should get 4070.

Beggars on the street should get a console.

 

[lemonadesoda]

Automation won't capture IQ differences from texture swapping making any such review entirely worthless going forward.

Weird comment. We are not talking about Reviews or Quality Assessment. We are talking about BENCHMARK FIGURES FPS. You know, those bar charts with Card vs. FPS. Please show me a benchmark table in this article that has IQ differences as the variate function.

 

[btk2k2]

Weird comment. We are not talking about Reviews or Quality Assessment. We are talking about BENCHMARK FIGURES FPS. You know, those bar charts with Card vs. FPS. Please show me a benchmark table in this article that has IQ differences as the variate function.

One where you set the settings and the game decides to use different quality textures because it runs out of VRAM to prevent hitching.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1661119867242651650

So this kind of scenario where the 4060Ti is 30% faster than the 6700XT but the IQ is terrible in comparison.

Automation will not pick up those cases so any site that uses full automation will miss it and as such their numbers are automatically untrustworthy.

 

[lemonadesoda]

Thanks for the example. Yes, that is problematic if the in-game graphics engine decides to "cheat" the settings. OK - so if you spot this issue, how to deal with it? Do you remove it from the benchmark FPS tables?

 

[btk2k2]

Thanks for the example. Yes, that is problematic if the in-game graphics engine decides to "cheat" the settings. OK - so if you spot this issue, how to deal with it? Do you remove it from the benchmark FPS tables?

That is the issue imo because I don't see an obviously correct answer. These are some options I see.

1) Give the card that runs below the set IQ a 0 in that benchmark: Issue is that skews the geomean quite a bit.
2) Ignore the benchmark: Issue with this is that it will probably become more prevalent and ignoring those cases does the consumer a disservice since it is information that would impact a buying decision.
3) Use the FPS achieved but highlight that the IQ was significantly worse: Issue is that it will skew the geomean but the other way and how do you highlight on the summary page the IQ was different in a few titles.
4) Choose different settings that all cards can run: Issue here is time in doing that.

I would probably lean towards option 1 because if the game is choosing to use lower quality assets despite the settings chosen in the menu then it is failing the test. You could maybe on the summary page have 2 bars, one for the entire suites geomean and a second for just the games that didn't have this issue to somewhat mitigate the skewing of performance summary.

 

[Gica]

Energy Efficient?! The card is "HANDICAPPED!"

It has the same consumption as the RX 7600 and offers a much higher performance. Its competitor is the RX 7600XT and we can anticipate from now that it dominates the performance/watt ratio.
Yes, it is efficient. I don't know from what caves it is proven that a 4060 laptop is equal to a 4060 desktop.

 

[Lew Zealand]

It has the same consumption as the RX 7600 and offers a much higher performance. Its competitor is the RX 7600XT and we can anticipate from now that it dominates the performance/watt ratio.
Yes, it is efficient. I don't know from what caves it is proven that a 4060 laptop is equal to a 4060 desktop.

Unfortunately for the 4060 Ti it's too expensive to compete with the RX 7600, costing 48% more. Yet only delivers 25% more frames, though if you don't mind fake frames it could catch up to 48% in some games using those.

The 7600 XT doesn't exist yet and could be made with an entirely different die, or may never exist as nothing is announced or rumored. You got to stick with what's being offered. The 6700XT is AMD's current competitor for the 4060 Ti and delivers 6% less performance for 20% less money and gives you 50% more VRAM for future titles. But then uses 47% more power and lacks DLSS, which could mitigate some of the 4060 Ti's long term VRAM limitations in games that support it.

 

[Deleted member 57642]

It has the same consumption as the RX 7600 and offers a much higher performance. Its competitor is the RX 7600XT and we can anticipate from now that it dominates the performance/watt ratio.
Yes, it is efficient. I don't know from what caves it is proven that a 4060 laptop is equal to a 4060 desktop.

You're missing the point, as in: there's a common practice to limit the wattage of laptop GPUs - since they get to hot while having the same consumption of a desktop video card. Yet, some laptops with a better design could sustain similar consumption to a desktop GPU - where higher wattage implies - higher performance (even up to 20% higher compared to power limited versions). Yet, as can be seen in above video - RTX 4060 can use up to 140 W but above 100 W the gains are as little as 1/2 FPS (max 1 FPS). Thus, maximum consumption is pointless on this model (wasted energy) - since it's "crippled" and can't really archive higher performance.

Could be related to the 128-bit bus limit - which is half o a RTX 3060 (256 VRAM Bus Width) - which doesn't have this issue (higher power consumption translates to higher performance for RTX 3060, same goes for RTX 2060 or even GTX 1060). Same reason RTX 4080 which has 256 VRAM Bus Width (same as RTX 3060) - doesn't have this issue either (not crippled), as in - the power scaling/increase "also translates to higher performance" - where at 100 Wattage can achieve 78 FPS while at 170 Wattage the FPS climbs up to 102 (that's 24 more FPS). And obviously RTX 4090 doesn't have any crippling issue either.

PS. The price difference is to big to call RX 7600 a competitor for RTX 4060 (a whole nother story for a different topic).

 

[Gica]

Unfortunately for the 4060 Ti it's too expensive to compete with the RX 7600, costing 48% more. Yet only delivers 25% more frames, though if you don't mind fake frames it could catch up to 48% in some games using those.

The 7600 XT doesn't exist yet and could be made with an entirely different die, or may never exist as nothing is announced or rumored. You got to stick with what's being offered. The 6700XT is AMD's current competitor for the 4060 Ti and delivers 6% less performance for 20% less money and gives you 50% more VRAM for future titles. But then uses 47% more power and lacks DLSS, which could mitigate some of the 4060 Ti's long term VRAM limitations in games that support it.

The only similarity between the 7600 and 4060 Ti 8GB is that they were released in the same month. The direct competitor for the RX 7600 is the non-Ti RTX 4060 and it is announced for July.
AMD is delaying the launch of new series to get rid of stocks of old video cards, but this is not a reason to compare apples with pears.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Unfortunately for the 4060 Ti it's too expensive to compete with the RX 7600, costing 48% more. Yet only delivers 25% more frames ...

Oh, and what if RX 7600 XT will also cost 50% more than RX 7600, and only deliver 25% more frames???

This situation with both manufacturers offering just a part of the current lineups, with just two pairs comparable (4080 vs. 7900XTX and 4070 Ti vs. 7900XT) is a mess.

I for some reason expected that AMD will announce some information about the rest of the lineup, but nothing happened.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Oh, and what if RX 7600 XT will also cost 50% more than RX 7600, and only deliver 25% more frames???

Keep reading...

The 7600 XT doesn't exist yet and could be made with an entirely different die, or may never exist as nothing is announced or rumored. You got to stick with what's being offered.

"What if" is a waste of time. Spend time on "What is."