NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB

[Vayra86]

Thank you for going out of your way to get one of these to test!

If the price wasn't so crazy, it might be a more future proof purchase. As it is, I'll call it a nice try.

View attachment 306115

Nice Try

• It is given to a product that attempted to respond to market conditions or fill a hole in a product lineup, but didn't quite achieve that goal
• This does not mean that product is bad, but rather it didn't fix the problem it was meant to solve
• May be combined with the "Great Value", "Innovation" or "But Expensive" awards
• Cannot be combined with "Editor's Choice" or "Recommended"

We need this badge

 

[ARF]

Not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that if a card from 2018 was called 4K ready, the same level of performance should be 4K ready five years later? It has never worked like that. Games get better looking and more demanding over time.

Games do get more demanding but you can adjust the settings and make the RTX 4060 Ti a 4K ready card today.

 

[Vayra86]

I don't think so. There were cases when the extra 2 GB helped the 960 with stutters a lot, but the 4060 Ti is already GPU limited in those cases when the extra VRAM could come in handy (in 4K with RT in some heavy games).

Its not core limited at all. Look at Doom Eternal. A near 50% gap at high res. If its not bandwidth constrained it would fly. This game/engine avoids that bottleneck; 115 vs 150+ FPS.

And then ppl say devs should optimize...lol. Keep dreaming. They need hardware to optimize on. And guess what, even 2016 upper midrange sports more raw bandwidth than the x60 Ada tier. This is Nvidia and only Nvidia racing to the bottom with a 499 dollar product. Big Cache wont fix this clearly. Ada below the x90 is a complete and utter misfire for the naive.

 

[ARF]

Its not core limited at all. Look at Doom Eternal. A near 50% gap at high res. If its not bandwidth constrained it would fly. This game/engine avoids that bottleneck; 115 vs 150+ FPS.

And then ppl say devs should optimize...lol. Keep dreaming. They need hardware to optimize on.

It needs GDDR6X with 400+ GB/s...
It is artificially limited to fill a particular performance tier... maybe they evaluated that it was cheaper for them to not put the RTX 4070 in that tier, instead of this card done right.

 

[Garrus]

So much for games needing more than 8 GB VRAM. In 4K with RT on, perhaps.

Games do need more than 8GB. His conclusion is misleading. First of all, everyone should watch the Hardware Unboxed video about this subject. Sure the FPS can be the same, but that is not the whole story. Game crashes, games not loading textures as the settings imply, 1 percent lows being ruined, there were many problems in the last year. If you want to play old games or wait half a year for a game to work correctly, you can get by with 8GB, but that is not my experience playing all the latest games in the last year.

I bought The Last of Us on launch day. It did not work with an RTX 3070 8GB. It did not work at 1080p. At medium settings. If you bought the game, there is no way you'd be saying 8GB is enough, in 2023. It took several months to be able to play that game without crashing, and that with a new texture option between normal and horrid. Sure, with enough time and money games can be improved to run at 8GB, but that is not the actual launch day experience. If it was only one title, that would be one thing, but problems are happening with many of the recent titles.

Secondly, we have Hogwarts not loading textures properly. We have Halo Infinite not loading properly. We have Forespoken with texture failures as well. You are not actually getting the setting you pick.

I played 5 games this year that all didn't work with my RTX 3070, and that's why I upgraded. Jedi Survivor, Forespoken, Halo, Last of Us, and more.

Very disappointed that those other issues were not covered. I'm sure Wizzard has heard of them.

EVERY MAJOR GAME IN THE LAST YEAR is not some kind of "you'll be ok with 8GB" situation. People want to play their games with PS5 quality, not be behind, 3 years after the PS5 launched. We don't want constant crashing either. I tested the games with an old RTX 3060 12GB and had none of those same problems that RTX 3070 has. I upgraded to the 4070 and it fixed all the problems also.

 

[Tek-Check]

So much for games needing more than 8 GB VRAM. In 4K with RT on, perhaps.

Watch Steve's review on Hardware Unboxed. He specifically shows increasing number of games where textures look muddled and sometimes broken on 8GB model. Amount of VRAM definitely does matter for those who play specific games.

 

[InVasMani]

I'm curious how 5000MT/s CL38 timings would perform like at 4K and differences in the titles that had larger performance gains. It's possible this GPU is rather system memory performance sensitive at higher resolution targets. If heavily memory sensitive at higher resolution targets to make the most out of the GPU a 13600K with better binned memory could make more sense than a 13900K and lower binned memory paired with this GPU that's got a narrow memory bus and kind of weaker relative GPU core for the amount of VRAM the card utilizes at least for gaming that's a real time rendering sensitive task.

 

[Tek-Check]

Should have been a 12G card with a 192 bit bus the entire time. This generation will probably go down in history as one of the worst. Nvidia and AMD are milking everyone and it's pathetic. I'm glad I got my 3080 Ti when I did because I'd have to wait another 2 years for something decent.

And how much did you pay for it?

 

[ARF]

Games do need more than 8GB. His conclusion is misleading. First of all, everyone should watch the Hardware Unboxed video about this subject. Sure the FPS can be the same, but that is not the whole story. Game crashes, games not loading textures as the settings imply, 1 percent lows being ruined, there were many problems in the last year. If you want to play old games or wait half a year for a game to work correctly, you can get by with 8GB, but that is not my experience playing all the latest games in the last year.

Watch Steve's review on Hardware Unboxed. He specifically shows increasing number of games where textures look muddled and sometimes broken on 8GB model. Amount of VRAM definitely does matter for those who play specific games.

Link to the video:

Should have been a 12G card with a 192 bit bus the entire time. This generation will probably go down in history as one of the worst. Nvidia and AMD are milking everyone and it's pathetic. I'm glad I got my 3080 Ti when I did because I'd have to wait another 2 years for something decent.

Not only they are milking, they are releasing new products that are unsellable. There is literally no card either from RTX 4000 series or RX 7000 worth buying at the moment.

 

[Tek-Check]

The review doesn't paint the whole picture. It is either the chip itself is so slow, that it can not use more than 8 GB, or that nvidia cheats and automatically modifies the image quality in order to fit in the available VRAM buffer.

Steve from Hardware Unboxed shows how specific games actually look like on 8GB and 16GB model. Highly recommended watch. Several games look awful with 8GB and muddled textures. Eye-opening, literally.

 

[Garrus]

To be clear Wizzard's review is valid, his data is valid. I'm not attacking him. I'm just saying the statistics are missing the problems, and in fact the more games you average, it obscures the problem. Somehow he hasn't had the experience of playing games with an 8GB card this year to realize how prevalent the problems have been. I used an RTX 3070 all year and it was horrid. That's my personal experience, just sharing.

Would be nice to do a follow up with all the Hardware Unboxed problems (same ones I've personally experienced) and have a second perspective on the issues. That would make another nice writeup. It is complicated that The Last of Us has received updates, so the experience for the first few months is gone now.

 

[Tek-Check]

Not only they are milking, they are releasing new products that are unsellable. There is literally no card either from RTX 4000 series or RX 7000 worth buying at the moment.

I bought 7900XTX for MSRP in Europe in the week it launched. Fantastic 4K card. I do not feel 'milked'. I feel I invested into a great 4K gaming product for several years.

Link to the video:

That one, yes, but there is a new one from today, testing 4060Ti 8GB vs 4060Ti 16GB models. His thumbnail says it all...

 

[Garrus]

This situation reminds me of how Gears of War Remastered released on PC. That was the very first game where my PC crashed randomly or had weird audio issues, because of the 8GB of DDR3 in my system. Reviewers didn't catch it, but if you played the game all the time, it was obvious. Upgraded to 16GB of DDR3, all problems solved. I've never built a PC with less than 16GB ever again. And that was system ram. I've had similar issues with VRAM also. That's why I sold my GTX 970, I played a game with weird behavior on PC when the VRAM was near the limit, and I knew it was time to abandon 4GB forever. This is the year I leave 8GB VRAM behind. I would buy the 3060 12GB, or the 4070 12GB. None of the 8GB cards have value imo.

You should never be near the limit and just hope for the programming to solve the issue.

 

[Vayra86]

To be clear Wizzard's review is valid, his data is valid. I'm not attacking him. I'm just saying the statistics are missing the problems, and in fact the more games you average, it obscures the problem. Somehow he hasn't had the experience of playing games with an 8GB card this year to realize how prevalent the problems have been. I used an RTX 3070 all year and it was horrid. That's my personal experience, just sharing.

Would be nice to do a follow up with all the Hardware Unboxed problems (same ones I've personally experienced) and have a second perspective on the issues. That would make another nice writeup. It is complicated that The Last of Us has received updates, so the experience for the first few months is gone now.

I moved up from 8GB Pascal for much of the same rationale except my killer app was TW Warhammer 3. 8GB is simply yesteryear's news. Im enjoying 250% FPS boosts now even on a subpar CPU. >10GB and >500Gbps is where you must be for any new purchase or you are wasting time and precious money.

 

[Garrus]

I moved up from 8GB Pascal for much of the same rationale except my killer app was TW Warhammer 3.

yeah, i've also not had any problems with games, and was able to lower the settings until the last 12 months, with my 3070... then it was a flood of PC titles that didn't work right with 8GB, just a total flood of them (and even 1080p causes the problems now)

NVidia got my money for an RTX 4070, kind of annoyed about that, but I needed 12GB of VRAM

 

[AusWolf]

Games do need more than 8GB. His conclusion is misleading. First of all, everyone should watch the Hardware Unboxed video about this subject. Sure the FPS can be the same, but that is not the whole story. Game crashes, games not loading textures as the settings imply, 1 percent lows being ruined, there were many problems in the last year. If you want to play old games or wait half a year for a game to work correctly, you can get by with 8GB, but that is not my experience playing all the latest games in the last year.

I bought The Last of Us on launch day. It did not work with an RTX 3070 8GB. It did not work at 1080p. At medium settings. If you bought the game, there is no way you'd be saying 8GB is enough, in 2023. It took several months to be able to play that game without crashing, and that with a new texture option between normal and horrid. Sure, with enough time and money games can be improved to run at 8GB, but that is not the actual launch day experience. If it was only one title, that would be one thing, but problems are happening with many of the recent titles.

Secondly, we have Hogwarts not loading textures properly. We have Halo Infinite not loading properly. We have Forespoken with texture failures as well. You are not actually getting the setting you pick.

I played 5 games this year that all didn't work with my RTX 3070, and that's why I upgraded. Jedi Survivor, Forespoken, Halo, Last of Us, and more.

Very disappointed that those other issues were not covered. I'm sure Wizzard has heard of them.

EVERY MAJOR GAME IN THE LAST YEAR is not some kind of "you'll be ok with 8GB" situation. People want to play their games with PS5 quality, not be behind, 3 years after the PS5 launched. We don't want constant crashing either. I tested the games with an old RTX 3060 12GB and had none of those same problems that RTX 3070 has. I upgraded to the 4070 and it fixed all the problems also.

Watch Steve's review on Hardware Unboxed. He specifically shows increasing number of games where textures look muddled and sometimes broken on 8GB model. Amount of VRAM definitely does matter for those who play specific games.

Then I guess, reviews have to change so that performance isn't the only thing they talk about.

Edit: Also, games being released in a broken state and getting fixed later isn't news, either.

 

[Garrus]

Then I guess, reviews have to change so that performance isn't the only thing they talk about.

This is a specific problem, a VRAM limited issue. It isn't a standard review issue. Needs a different way to be investigated. The games have to work properly.

 

[Avro Arrow]

It's the same shit as with the 960 2gb vs 4gb and the 270x 2gb vs 4gb.

Except that those cards didn't have a price delta of $100USD.

So much for games needing more than 8 GB VRAM. In 4K with RT on, perhaps.

Yeah, most games don't have any problems at 1440p. The problem is that even the devs themselves have stated that it will be a problem going forward. Most gamers still game at 1080p anyway and for them, 8GB is plenty.

The problem isn't that the cards only have 8GB, the problem is that the cards have only 8GB and cost $400USD. That's just insane.

I don't think so. There were cases when the extra 2 GB helped the 960 with stutters a lot, but the 4060 Ti is already GPU limited in those cases when the extra VRAM could come in handy (in 4K with RT in some heavy games).

Yeah, but it would be useless as the GPU itself isn't potent enough for 4K no matter how much VRAM it has. What should have been done is this:

RTX 4050 - 8GB
RTX 4060 - 10GB
RTX 4060 Ti - 12GB
RTX 4070 - 16GB
RTX 4070 Ti - 20GB
RTX 4080 - 24GB
RTX 4090 - Whatever insane number they want (like 36GB).

This setup would've made the most sense.

 

[Tek-Check]

Then I guess, reviews have to change so that performance isn't the only thing they talk about.

Absolutely. Raw graphics compute performance in bar charts is just an indication of where GPU falls in a stack and segment.
It's another matter how actually games feel and look like. You might have decent 70-80 fps, but too many stutters due to poor 1% lows and textures not loading due to less VRAM.

There is ever increasing number of games that would use more than 8GB of VRAM, if available. It matters less whether PC port is better or worse at release. Most devs iron it out. For us as consumers it matters there is enough VRAM to run any game we enjoy playing.

 

[Avro Arrow]

This situation reminds me of how Gears of War Remastered released on PC. That was the very first game where my PC crashed randomly or had weird audio issues, because of the 8GB of DDR3 in my system. Reviewers didn't catch it, but if you played the game all the time, it was obvious. Upgraded to 16GB of DDR3, all problems solved. I've never built a PC with less than 16GB ever again. And that was system ram. I've had similar issues with VRAM also. That's why I sold my GTX 970, I played a game with weird behavior on PC when the VRAM was near the limit, and I knew it was time to abandon 4GB forever. This is the year I leave 8GB VRAM behind. I would buy the 3060 12GB, or the 4070 12GB. None of the 8GB cards have value imo.

You should never be near the limit and just hope for the programming to solve the issue.

I got a crazy one for you... Far Cry 5 would crash 100% of the time if you had a page file smaller than 8192MB. I swear that I wanted to kill Ubisoft for doing that.

Thank you for going out of your way to get one of these to test!

If the price wasn't so crazy, it might be a more future proof purchase. As it is, I'll call it a nice try.

View attachment 306115

Nice Try

• It is given to a product that attempted to respond to market conditions or fill a hole in a product lineup, but didn't quite achieve that goal
• This does not mean that product is bad, but rather it didn't fix the problem it was meant to solve
• May be combined with the "Great Value", "Innovation" or "But Expensive" awards
• Cannot be combined with "Editor's Choice" or "Recommended"

Ok, that's just epic. I'll say this now, I'm stealing that! It's too awesome not to!

One question, can it be combined with the "GUTTER TRASH" award?

I don't think so. There were cases when the extra 2 GB helped the 960 with stutters a lot, but the 4060 Ti is already GPU limited in those cases when the extra VRAM could come in handy (in 4K with RT in some heavy games).

Yeah, but it would be useless as the GPU itself isn't potent enough for 4K no matter how much VRAM it has. What should have been done is this:

RTX 4050 - 8GB
RTX 4060 - 10GB
RTX 4060 Ti - 12GB
RTX 4070 - 16GB
RTX 4070 Ti - 20GB
RTX 4080 - 24GB
RTX 4090 - Whatever insane number they want (like 36GB).

This setup would've made the most sense.

Thank you for going out of your way to get one of these to test!

If the price wasn't so crazy, it might be a more future proof purchase. As it is, I'll call it a nice try.

View attachment 306115

Nice Try

• It is given to a product that attempted to respond to market conditions or fill a hole in a product lineup, but didn't quite achieve that goal
• This does not mean that product is bad, but rather it didn't fix the problem it was meant to solve
• May be combined with the "Great Value", "Innovation" or "But Expensive" awards
• Cannot be combined with "Editor's Choice" or "Recommended"

Ok, that's just epic. I'll say this now, I'm stealing that! It's too awesome not to!

buncha folks above saying "see this proves 16GB isn't needed!"...isn't it more that 16GB is wasted on this card given the very limited bandwidth for access said memory plus a low-mid gpu? putting 16GB on an old S3 or Voodo dgp prolly wouldn't do much either, to make an even more obvious (and absurdly extreme; I picked it for humor rly) example

I'm not super crazy about amd's products (especially so far this gen), but their memory allocations by tier seem closer to what I'd prefer? e.g. default of 16 on the 7's and 8s. This 16gb x60 is just silly and seems intended mostly to generate FUD to argue against more memory across the rest of their product line, to me. idk.

I don't see the bandwidth as an issue. What I do see is that the GPU itself isn't potent enough to really use more than 12GB. When I say that, I mean that the GPU wouldn't be able to handle games at settings that would require >12GB of VRAM because it doesn't have enough graphical horsepower.

Yes, NVIDIA is greedy. They're cutting costs while increasing prices. But that doesn't take away responsibility from developers to optimize games for hardware that is currently on the market. If developers say "we're tired of optimizing for 8 GB", I don't feel like they deserve my money.

And that's the crux of the issue. I don't blame the devs, I blame the gamers who buy GeForce cards no matter how bad they are. If people are buying GeForce cards even when nVidia is clearly reducing the performance while increasing the price, the blame lies squarely with the consumers. If people are willing to buy GeForce cards no matter how much better a deal that they'd get from Radeon or Arc, then who can blame nVidia for doing what they're doing? I think that they're scummy but it's the stupidity of the people who continue to throw money at them that enables nVidia to keep this crap up.

yeah, i've also not had any problems with games, and was able to lower the settings until the last 12 months, with my 3070... then it was a flood of PC titles that didn't work right with 8GB, just a total flood of them (and even 1080p causes the problems now)

NVidia got my money for an RTX 4070, kind of annoyed about that, but I needed 12GB of VRAM

You didn't have to pay the price of an RTX 4070 just to get 12GB. It was a bad purchase because the RTX 4070's GPU is so potent that 12GB will eventually be a limiting factor on that card. AMD seemed to get it just right when 12GB were put on the RX 6700 XT and RX 6750 XT. The RTX 4070's GPU will still be powerful and useful when 12GB starts having problems (and it will, someday) and that's enough to make one's hair fall out.

I lived through the same situation myself with my R9 Furies. The GPU's potency meant that 4GB of VRAM, even HBM, would eventually be a limiting factor, and sure enough, it was.

To Auswolf:
Completely off-topic but I just couldn't help myself....

"You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it."

Maybe you'd like this:
"Everything you do or learn will be imprinted on this disk! If you lose your disk or fail to follow commands you will be subject to immediate deresolution!"

David Warner, the man had incredible range...

 

[dlgh7]

I was going to mention the textures not loading in the Hardware Unboxed video but a bunch of people beat me to it.

It does make me wonder with the bigger titles at least if it is a matter of the games originating on Consoles. Both the PS5 and Xbox series X have 16gb of memory. They also have at least 256-bit buses. The Xbox series X has a mixed memory with 10GB's being 256-bit and 6gb's being 320-bit and with both consoles having much larger bandwidth.

It really just goes to show how much Nvidia is trying to screw people over this gen. The 4060 ti is like a $200 card at best. I don't think Nvidia is charging prices based on hardware development but because of the software junk they are trying to do that just isn't that effective. They are pricing the cards to pay for software development rather than giving us adequate hardware.

 

[dicobalt]

$100 for 8GB? Okay, which one of you suspended basic economic laws?

nm i found him

 

[Ruru]

Pretty nice to have the worst graphics card of the decade already. The whole 4060 series is a total joke and should be marketed as a 4050 & 4050 Ti.

 

[InVasMani]

It's got 1/3 the memory bus width of a Tesla M40 with the same effective bandwidth. I guess the problem is the 8GB less VRAM it has!? More VRAM is always more better? That sure is a narrow bridge to cross think I'll stick to SLI.

 

[Fonduetime]

They are pricing the cards to pay for software development rather than giving us adequate hardware.

Also I think a little hold over from the crypto mining fiasco when gpus were selling for thousands of dollars. And Nvidia not realizing that gamers weren't the ones paying those prices.