NVIDIA to Target $450 Price-point with GeForce RTX 4060 Ti

[sLowEnd]

You have to be rich to buy $1000 dollar GPU's lets be honest or alternatively a bum who still lives at his parents basement and doesn't contribute to the house at all and mommy still makes them food even though they are 30 years old! So if your only expense is PC gaming and internet bill and mommy and daddy let you stay at their basement rent free and even buy and make all your food, then maybe you can afford $1000 for a GPU.

If you have your own apartment and bills to pay and food to buy and whatnot, then $500 to $1000 is a big stretch!

Everyone isn't stupid, there are those bums as I've said who still live with their parents rent free and who's only expenditure is gaming and thus they can afford unreasonable prices!

If you'd step outside of your bubble for moment, you'd realize that $1000 is expensive in a PC building context, but not in hobbies in general. There are many, many hobbies out there where $1000 won't get you much, and many many people who partake in said hobbies. Think for a moment.

 

[Chrispy_]

midrange on 450 what a fucking disgrace

Midrange was $329 two years ago. so anything north of $399 is well beyond inflation.

If you'd step outside of your bubble for moment, you'd realize that $1000 is expensive in a PC building context, but not in hobbies in general. There are many, many hobbies out there where $1000 won't get you much, and many many people who partake in said hobbies. Think for a moment.

Spent €11K on various sporting goods so far this year. I don't spend that regularly but my two major sports typically cost me €2K a year each.

I don't know why I'm so uptight about performance/$ for PC hardware. Perhaps because it's so objectively measurable, and therefore easier to see that you're paying more for less.

 

[Darksword]

I'm sure it'll still get an Editor's Choice Award by TPU, even if the value is crap.

 

[droopyRO]

You have to be rich to buy $1000 dollar GPU's lets be honest or alternatively a bum who still lives at his parents basement and doesn't contribute to the house at all and mommy still makes them food even though they are 30 years old! So if your only expense is PC gaming and internet bill and mommy and daddy let you stay at their basement rent free and even buy and make all your food, then maybe you can afford $1000 for a GPU.

If you have your own apartment and bills to pay and food to buy and whatnot, then $500 to $1000 is a big stretch!

No, i completly disagree. If you have a phone and internet access, and earn the average wage in your country that isn't the 3rd World, you can afford a 500-1000$ GPU once every 2-3 years by selling your old GPU and paying the difference. You don't upgrade every month and have to spend 500$ FFS.

If you save 10$ every month you have 120$ in one year and 360$ in three years + your old GPU = a brand new 500$ GPU. If you save 20-30$ every month you can afford an 800-1000$. And that is ONLY if you play AAA games, as older games and E-sports work well on any 200$ GPU. You can't tell me you have to be "rich" to save 10$ a month

PS:
Don't try to insult people or make assumptions. Instead manage your finances better

If you'd step outside of your bubble for moment, you'd realize that $1000 is expensive in a PC building context, but not in hobbies in general. There are many, many hobbies out there where $1000 won't get you much, and many many people who partake in said hobbies. Think for a moment.

Exactly. Hobbies like fishing, cars or heck even Warhammer miniatures cost way more than PC gaming and upgrading a GPU every 2-3 years.

 

[wheresmycar]

NVIDIA to Target $450 Price-point with GeForce RTX 4060 Ti

With property prices through the roof, more and more people are considering or are forced to commit to shared housing/rooms.

I believe NVIDIA is following a similar principle and doing a fantastic job to maintain maximum levels of efficiency in every regard.... think about it - the cards too expensive for most buyers hence two buyers pairing up and copping out $225 a piece secures a 4060 TI. John gets to play during the day and Mandy during the night. No limits either, they can both play together for maximum hours of gaming fun with john over the mouse functions and Mandy smashing the keys on the keyboard and together sharing one display. SEE THATS EFFICIENCY RIGHT THERE! Whilst everyone was busy making money, the peoples Nvidia solved our greatest problems. Now the paired gamers during intense gaming sessions can have one arm/hand free to scratch that itch, pick their noses and even comb each others hair. PROGRESS!

[TAKE MA MONAAAAYYY]

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

With property prices through the roof, more and more people are considering or are forced to commit to shared housing/rooms.

I believe NVIDIA is following a similar principle and doing a fantastic job to maintain maximum levels of efficiency in every regard.... think about it - the cards too expensive for most buyers hence two buyers pairing up and copping out $225 a piece secures a 4060 TI. John gets to play during the day and Mandy during the night. No limits either, they can both play together for maximum hours of gaming fun with john over the mouse functions and Mandy smashing the keys on the keyboard and together sharing one display. SEE THATS EFFICIENCY RIGHT THERE! Whilst everyone was busy making money, the peoples Nvidia solved our greatest problems. Now the paired gamers during intense gaming sessions can have one arm/hand free to scratch that itch, pick their noses and even comb each others hair. PROGRESS!

[TAKE MA MONAAAAYYY]

Shit a biscuit, what an odd vision.

 

[AdmiralThrawn]

Price difference between 3060ti and 3070 msrp = $70
Price difference between 4060ti and 4070 msrp = $150

Double the price to upgrade from 4060ti to 4070 but no where near a doubling in performance between old and new gen. So much for performance per dollar marketing. NVIDIA will loose a few customers if they continue this reckless habit of price increases.

 

[tfdsaf]

If you'd step outside of your bubble for moment, you'd realize that $1000 is expensive in a PC building context, but not in hobbies in general. There are many, many hobbies out there where $1000 won't get you much, and many many people who partake in said hobbies. Think for a moment.

Playing sports is pretty much free, at most you'd have to pay $5 to 10$ few times to play in a closed environment, a quality dirt bike costs $1000, but that bike is for life. Painting is like $10 per month for the paints and brushes, etc...

And gaming used to be a lot cheaper, for $1000 you could build a quality mid tier PC, for $2000 you'd have the best custom built top of the line PC, today $2000 barely buy you A graphic card, think about that!

I get that some game a shit ton and live rent free at their parents, I get that they can afford a $600 overpriced GPU, but that GPU used to cost $400, so while it isn't unaffordable, you are overpaying $200 more for the same tier GPU you used to be $200 less!

And again, anyone can afford even a $1600 dollars GPU, why buy a car when you can play racing games at home? Why buy clothes when you don't go outside and don't have a social life? Why buy food when your mommy cooks you food? Why go on a vacation when you can go to different world in games?

I can sell my car and buy a $4000 dollar PC. But I think in terms of priorities for most people having to pay more for LESS isn't worth it!

 

[sLowEnd]

Playing sports is pretty much free, at most you'd have to pay $5 to 10$ few times to play in a closed environment, a quality dirt bike costs $1000, but that bike is for life. Painting is like $10 per month for the paints and brushes, etc...

And gaming used to be a lot cheaper, for $1000 you could build a quality mid tier PC, for $2000 you'd have the best custom built top of the line PC, today $2000 barely buy you A graphic card, think about that!

I get that some game a shit ton and live rent free at their parents, I get that they can afford a $600 overpriced GPU, but that GPU used to cost $400, so while it isn't unaffordable, you are overpaying $200 more for the same tier GPU you used to be $200 less!

And again, anyone can afford even a $1600 dollars GPU, why buy a car when you can play racing games at home? Why buy clothes when you don't go outside and don't have a social life? Why buy food when your mommy cooks you food? Why go on a vacation when you can go to different world in games?

I can sell my car and buy a $4000 dollar PC. But I think in terms of priorities for most people having to pay more for LESS isn't worth it!

Let's reframe the cost here.

If you buy a $1000 card every 2 years, that works out to be about $42 a month. Does that seem like an astronomical, must-live-in-your-parent's-basement kind of cost to you?

Painting is like $10 per month for the paints and brushes, etc...

Unless your idea of painting is using those watercolour kits kids in elementary school use, it can easily get more expensive than that.

a quality dirt bike costs $1000, but that bike is for life.

Dirt bikes easily go over $1000. Even if you did pick up a $1000 bike, there are still maintenance costs and other associated costs (safety gear, transportation...etc.) to consider.

Is Dirt Biking an Expensive Hobby?

Dirt biking is one of the most exciting sports in the world. However, some people are concerned about the costs involved. So, how much will you need to pay to start riding? There are a few core items to purchase to start dirt biking. First, you’ll need the bike itself. This can cost between...

ca.riskracing.com

 

[playandyou]

F*** YOU NVDIA

 

[64K]

F*** YOU NVDIA

Reminds me of Linus Torvalds.

 

[kiakk]

PC gamres, lets change our habits. An example: a football is few bucks, and:

- free to play, no additional fees
- Single- and multiplayer possibilites
- Operation system independent
- every update is bug-free
- natural perfectly optimized ranking system
- real world sense simulation
- optimized frametame = unlimited framerate
- no input lag, instant reaction
- no screen tearing
- realistic Force Feedback
- In multiplayer matches the video settings are homogenized, so elliminated the better configuration advantages
- All player's ping, server-client sync are perfectly syncronized in all multiplayer matches
- Limitless randomized situations frame-by-frame with the highest level N.I. (Neural Intelligence) process
- No hacking, joyfull playtimes

Pre-order now!!!

 

[watzupken]

The 4060 Ti will still sell, but given the negative publicity of 8GB VRAM limitations with recent titles, I don't think it will sell well. And honestly, it is not a big uplift in performance from the RTX 3060 TI if this is expected to reach 3070 Ti performance. In fact I feel that the RTX 3070 Ti may be more capable to run at 1440p if it wasn't VRAM limited.

 

[Gica]

The 4060 Ti will still sell, but given the negative publicity of 8GB VRAM limitations with recent titles, I don't think it will sell well. And honestly, it is not a big uplift in performance from the RTX 3060 TI if this is expected to reach 3070 Ti performance. In fact I feel that the RTX 3070 Ti may be more capable to run at 1440p if it wasn't VRAM limited.

What AMD does not say is that this additional vRAM must be associated with a powerful graphics processor to make it worthwhile.
Let's take an example: RTX 3070Ti 8GB versus RX 6800 16GB. Do you see any difference between 2021 (3070Ti review) and 2023 (4070 review)???

None! However, there are differences in other aspects, all in favor of the 3070Ti, because it destroys the 6800 with RT ON and almost all the games that matter have DLSS support.
RTX 3070Ti - DLSS, FSR and CUDA, NVENC, OptiX, etc. for productivity
RX 6800 - only FSR and weak OpenCL

Maybe we should look in the mirror when we say that all those who don't choose AMD are idiots. Sometimes the idiot can be found there.
AMD sells cheaper because it has many weak points. Even with slightly lower prices, it still cannot dethrone nVidia. DLLS is superior to FSR (which nVidia also benefits from) and, with RT, they are one generation behind the "greens". Strictly in gaming because the gap is much bigger in other chapters.

 

[Vayra86]

What AMD does not say is that this additional vRAM must be associated with a powerful graphics processor to make it worthwhile.
Let's take an example: RTX 3070Ti 8GB versus RX 6800 16GB. Do you see any difference between 2021 (3070Ti review) and 2023 (4070 review)???

View attachment 292167
View attachment 292168

None! However, there are differences in other aspects, all in favor of the 3070Ti, because it destroys the 6800 with RT ON and almost all the games that matter have DLSS support.
RTX 3070Ti - DLSS, FSR and CUDA, NVENC, OptiX, etc. for productivity
RX 6800 - only FSR and weak OpenCL

Maybe we should look in the mirror when we say that all those who don't choose AMD are idiots. Sometimes the idiot can be found there.
AMD sells cheaper because it has many weak points. Even with slightly lower prices, it still cannot dethrone nVidia. DLLS is superior to FSR (which nVidia also benefits from) and, with RT, they are one generation behind the "greens". Strictly in gaming because the gap is much bigger in other chapters.

Ampere is two years old now. Let's see where we are in 2024-25.

Also, average performance is absolutely not the same as 'stutter' and it certainly won't show you anything in terms of VRAM gaps across the entire benchmark suite where a much larger part will do fine on 8GB. You can have perfectly fine averages and still play a stuttery mess. And thát is the behaviour you get with lacking VRAM. I already saw this on my GTX 1080 with ultra textures on TW WH3. No FPS difference, or 1-2 FPS at most, between Ultra and High, but High would run stutter free and Ultra was horrible to play with.

I'll take actual in-game experiences over looking at average FPS bar charts, but thanks for the input Its pretty tone deaf though because you're seeing and hearing the noise about problems on 8GB everywhere lately. The above explains why, and its the whole reason I had to retire the 1080. In battles, TW WH3 would still run at 40+ FPS... but not stutter free. That's the 8GB with a graphics core of 2016 and almost identical bandwidth as a 4070. The 3070ti has twice the processing power and a mere 100GB/s on top.

Its too obvious, I'm not even sure what you're trying to talk about here. The only thing you just underlined is that your hands on experience is either extremely limited, or zero, or you work your way around limitations that do not have to exist if you simply had enough VRAM. Downplaying the issue isn't exactly improving your credibility at this point. In 2021 Ampere release 8-10GB could still have some benefit of the doubt if you were naive, but in 2023... That's joker territory.

The thing that makes it so much more important to future proof on VRAM a little bit these days is that raster perf is stalling gen to gen, and you need to look upwards in the stack to keep pushing performance forward if you upgrade. So, you'll be spending MORE on any upgrade anywhere in the stack, which ultimately tells me to upgrade less often. Which means, the GPU had better last longer than it used to. 4-6 year upgrade cadence is perfectly valid and has been for many years now.

 

[Gica]

Also, average performance is absolutely not the same as 'stutter' and it certainly won't show you anything in terms of VRAM gaps across the entire benchmark suite where a much larger part will do fine on 8GB. You can have perfectly fine averages and still play a stuttery mess. And thát is the behaviour you get with lacking VRAM. I already saw this on my GTX 1080 with ultra textures on TW WH3. No FPS difference, or 1-2 FPS at most, between Ultra and High, but High would run stutter free and Ultra was horrible to play with.

You probably didn't pay attention when I said that you have vRAM for nothing if you don't have a powerful graphics processor. The old GTX 1080 won't work wonders even if you allocate 128GB. It is old and beyond the requirements of new games.
The given example I think was clear: even after two years this surplus of vRAM did not increase the performance of AMD graphics cards.
What will it be in 2025? One thing is certain: the graphics cards of 2020-2021 will be far from reality regardless of how much vRAM they have. For the owner of the AMD graphics card from 2020-2021 there is a hope: wait a decade, maybe the miracle of a 1% boost will appear.

The games in the image run much better than at the time of purchase. Some have received updates for optimization, some for RT, and some only support DLSS, not FSR. I'm not complaining, everything is going smoothly.

 

[Vayra86]

You probably didn't pay attention when I said that you have vRAM for nothing if you don't have a powerful graphics processor. The old GTX 1080 won't work wonders even if you allocate 128GB. It is old and beyond the requirements of new games.
The given example I think was clear: even after two years this surplus of vRAM did not increase the performance of AMD graphics cards.
What will it be in 2025? One thing is certain: the graphics cards of 2020-2021 will be far from reality regardless of how much vRAM they have. For the owner of the AMD graphics card from 2020-2021 there is a hope: wait a decade, maybe the miracle of a 1% boost will appear.

The games in the image run much better than at the time of purchase. Some have received updates for optimization, some for RT, and some only support DLSS, not FSR. I'm not complaining, everything is going smoothly.
View attachment 292169

Yep, that's pretty tone deaf. Maybe you should read what you're responding to, instead of repeating how well you can look at averages.

You've got a range of games over there that date back to 2021 and prior, none of this is 2023, or even 2022 content Enjoy the dream, while it lasts.

Cyberpunk: 2020
CoD MW: 2019
Far Cry 6: 2021
Exodus: 2019...



There is a real term for this psychology, it is called cognitive dissonance. I'd reflect on that tbh. I'm not saying this to pester you, its a real thing that's useful to realize.

 

[bug]

Personally speaking my last 3-4 GPU's have been nVidia but I agree with those calling out BS on the current trend where "Fake Frames (tm)" marketing slides plastered over everything is very obviously attempting to normalize benchmarking games with vendor-locked proprietary features enabled as "standard" (an unhealthy thing for the industry regardless of who does it), and looks doubly stupid when not that long ago, the very same people now pushing DLSS2-3 as the Second Coming of Jesus for PC previously spent 2-3 years mocking "console peasants" for their 'fake 4k' upscaling / interpolation...

The real bottom line is low-mid range GPU's now have appallingly bad value. "Just enable DLSS" doesn't "solve" that problem, it just tries to sweep it under the carpet. And it's that "let's turn an enhancement into a crutch" + underlying marketing BS that's what many people are really calling out. It's no real different than if Intel started charging $499 for new quad-cores then said "Yo, we noticed we're not looking too good in the perf / $ charts, so from now on we want you to base your perf / $ CPU review charts on video encoding measuring new $499 quad-cores using Intel Quicksync then compare them to previous gen 6-8 core CPU's that were using software encoding..." to 'fake inflate' what you're actually gaining from upgrading from previous gen "like for like" to justify an "up-tiering" of pricing...

Its about the extent to which you can actually use and extract the feature set/tech's benefits. When they require a per-game implementation on top of a hardware requirement it becomes pretty difficult to defend that it'll be working consistently. There is no way Nvidia is keeping up with everything, and historically they haven't, and even their very last generation of GPUs is further reinforcement of that fact. That last gen, and the generations before it, represent a much greater part of the market than whatever Ada is carving out now. SLI/Crossfire is the best example of how this will work. It has died because of the difficulty to maintain support and because the cost/benefit didn't work out favorably. Will DLSS3 get to a point where its 'add this dll and you're good'? Maybe. But even then, its restricted to a single gen of hardware thus far. That's not a good perspective for future and continued support. You can wait on DLSS4...

I agree that marketing sucks. DLSS3 should be advertised like "turbo" mode is advertised for CPUs, not slapped on as default numbers. But I wasn't talking talking marketing, I was talking the actual tech (marketing is always deceptive, no need debating that anymore).

AA and AF are nowhere near that reality, which puts a different lens on the idea of 'fake frames'. Similarly other (AA) techniques Nvidia developed have or have not made it to widespread use and hardware agnostic adoption. The industry settles on things, such as T(X?)AA, and that's that. There is not a single motivator to 'settle on DLSS3'. It serves only to push Nvidia's marketing agenda. Nvidia doesn't own the console hardware either, so what real market is left to really go with Nvidia's flow and keep investing in it when Nvidia stops doing so?

I was talking years back, when users fret over AA not being supersampling, thus being "fake". Today no game does SS anymore, it's all MSAA (or worse, as you have noted). And then we got mip maps and AF optimizations that were also shunned as "fake". They're also ubiquitous today.

 

[progste]

"Customers to target more reasonable alternatives in the face of corporate greed".

 

[Prima.Vera]

nvidia selling a 150 usd gpu for $450 eheh, keep buying idiots.

I would say 249$ is a fair price for a 4060Ti card.
But definitely, definitely, NOT callous 450$. Not in a million years.

 

[bug]

I would say 249$ is a fair price for a 4060Ti card.
But definitely, definitely, NOT callous 450$. Not in a million years.

$200-300 has always been my target, but what makes $250 fair for 4060Ti?

Sellers will always sell for as much as they can, buyers will buy for as low as they can, in turn. If Nvidia can move 4060Tis@$450, that's what the market says it's the fair price.
It's still well outside my comfort zone and I will not congratulate anyone for charging that much for a video card. But I will not call a price unfair just because I don't like it.

 

[Chrispy_]

I would say 249$ is a fair price for a 4060Ti card.
But definitely, definitely, NOT callous 450$. Not in a million years.

There's definitely some delusions about costs of production and economic changes in the last 12 years, which is the last time a x60Ti card sold for $250.

Ignoring the wider economic picture of exchange rates, legislation changes, labour costs, foundry costs, and manufacturing costs between 2012 when the 560Ti was launched and today, and adjusting for inflation alone, that $250 in 2011 is $340 today.

That means that $340 is the absolute minimum it could possibly launch at, and I cherry-picked the best-value x60-class card in two decades of Nvidia to reach that number.

There is no way in hell the 4060Ti is going to be that cheap at launch MSRP, because like I said, that's ignoring so many other things that have impacted costs in the last year. It also ignores the fact that the cherry-picked 560Ti I used to reach that $340 figure (in today's money) was underpriced because of stiff competition from AMD at $239 (HD6870) with the older HD6950 being a wholly superior card and also getting an official price-cut to $259 when the 560Ti was announced.

Nvidia wouldn't have sold the 560Ti at $249 if they had any choice in the matter - that's the benefit (for us) of healthy competition in the market and why we sorely need AMD and Intel to hurry up with their competing cards yesterday! Expecting the 4060Ti to launch at $339 next month would only be reasonable if the global economic balance magically reverted to 2011 levels overnight, TSMC suddenly had spare capacity and serious competition from other foundries, and there were existing ~$340 GPUs already selling in the market that offered equivalent performance and feature set to the 4060Ti. Obviously, NONE of those things are true, so $339 isn't going to happen. I'd stake my job on it.

 

[N3M3515]

"Sneak up to the 3070 Ti"

Remember when the x60 series was on the same level as previous gen x80 series?

Imagine a 4060 with the same performance of a 3080 and for $300.

 

[bug]

Remember when the x60 series was on the same level as previous gen x80 series?

I honestly don't. When was that?
Edit: Nevermind, looked it up. Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't. But that was back in the days when we didn't have Ti variations for everything and performance wasn't spread all the way to the x90 abominations we have today.

 

[N3M3515]

I honestly don't. When was that?

I'll reply your trolling:

RTX 3060 Ti vs RTX 2080
RTX 2060 vs GTX 1080
GTX 1060 vs GTX 980