To anyone who thinks this should have been a 50-tier card... No. Even the 4060 (which I'll grant could be argued as a 4050
ti) holds up reasonably well against its predecessors. Yes, it costs too much, by at least USD50, and has too narrow a memory bus. But let's look at the last 9 generations of x60 cards.
I collated the results from TPU testing at the second-highest tested resolution. 960 is listed at two resolutions as the transition point to 1440p. The 560, 660, 960, 1060 and 1660 are all within 5 FPS of 60 and range from USD200-250 and 120-150W. The 760 was an outlier pre-Turing. It's also tied for hungriest here, as well as tied for most expensive until the 2060.
Note that with the 2060, price and power both took a big jump to achieve the accompanying performance increase. This was where Nvidia decided to redefine what 60-series, and all performance tiers, meant. If one simply looks at model numbers, yeah; the 4060 is a slap in the face relative to the 3060. But look at power. Gen-on-gen, performance of x60 cards pre-RT was pretty consistent relative to contemporary titles, as was power and price (again, 760 excepted). Anyone expecting the 4060 ti or even 4060 to be sold for USD200 is bordering on delusional. But at $250 and, say, $280? Whole different ball game. Downward price pressure is nearly always weaker than upward. Barring another crypto-style event, we could see "normal" 60-series P/P
and pricing in a gen or two.
Model | Price | Watts | VRAM | Bus width | Resolution | Avg FPS |
560 | 200 | 150 | 1GB | 256 | 1920x1200 | 60 |
660 | 230 | 140 | 2GB | 192 | 1920x1200 | 63 |
760 | 250 | 170 | 2GB | 256 | 1920x1080 | 73 |
960 | 200 | 120 | 2GB | 128 | 1920x1080 | 65 |
960 | 200 | 120 | 2GB | 128 | 2460x1440 | 43 |
1060 | 250 | 120 | 6GB | 192 | 2460x1440 | 55 |
1660 | 220 | 120 | 6GB | 192 | 2460x1440 | 56 |
2060 | 350 | 160 | 6GB | 192 | 2460x1440 | 85 |
3060 | 330 | 170 | 12GB | 192 | 2460x1440 | 85 |
4060 | 300 | 115 | 8GB | 128 | 2460x1440 | 70 |
I will beat this drum until people start listening: Performance expectations are, in many cases, simply too high. Beyond resolutions increasing, rendering demand rises right along with it. x60 cards were meant, pre-Turing (and
for Turing if you count the 1660), to make around 60 FPS in mainstream to upper-mainstream resolutions for 150W/$250 or less. Then Nvidia belched out RTX, and PC gamers got Stockholm Syndrome and let NV nudge "mainstream" up the ladder. Hell, by the above numbers, the
3050 should have launched as a 60-series card: $250*. 130W. 60fps@1440p. Inflation adjusted, it's practically a dead ringer for the 960.
*Yes, I know the 3050 never actually listed for it's "launch" price
4th worst at 1080p, 3rd worst above (sticking to Ada, anyway).
View attachment 306153