RTX 4060 Ti 16GB Marginally Slower than 8GB Model: MSI Testing

[Guwapo77]

No it's not. VRAM doesn't matter if the GPU itself isn't 4K-capable, and neither AD106 nor AD107 are. 8GB is the correct amount of memory for the resolutions this card is intended for (1080p native, 1440p native, 4K DLSS), the 16GB model only exists because people like you keep whining that NVIDIA GPUs don't have enough memory.

I've seen testing done on HUB that shows otherwise... I guess this is true if you only play UE4 titles.

 

[Assimilator]

If I recall correctly, the issue with the 8gb card wasn't the average performance. It was the 1% lows and the textures not loading correctly. I would like to see the games that suffered from this tested rather than games that, as far as I am aware, don't have this VRAM allocation issue and see how they performed. The average FPS tells us basically nothing about this GPU or Nvidia's arguement that the 4060 ti doesn't need more than 8gb of VRAM.

Textures not loading sounds far more like a driver than VRAM capacity issue.

 

[SCP-001]

Textures not loading sounds far more like a driver than VRAM capacity issue.

I may not be explaining it right. I watched some HUB videos showing the textures either being insanely low resolution compared to native or their were constantly popping in and out.

 

[Bomby569]

No it's not. VRAM doesn't matter if the GPU itself isn't 4K-capable, and neither AD106 nor AD107 are. 8GB is the correct amount of memory for the resolutions this card is intended for (1080p native, 1440p native, 4K DLSS), the 16GB model only exists because people like you keep whining that NVIDIA GPUs don't have enough memory.

to be fair they were fueled by the media, especially the clickbait youtubers we all know

 

[Leavenfish]

Its just a bad take imo, the problem is that the 4060Ti is such a cheaply made piece of shit....

Ah, so you own one? Sounds like it...or you have some divine powers we don't know about.

 

[GreiverBlade]

Nvidia: "see, more vRAM is pointless, we win!"

*PLOT TWIST*
also Nvidia: "these fools will never imagine that we gimped the 16gb to match in performance the 8gb variant at best ... and make seems as if we were right..."


obviously it's a joke ...


also if anything, they proved that the RX 6700 XT 12gb is a better pick than either of the 4060 Ti at that price ...
unless you are into RTX (tho at the present time it's, imho, still a gimmick)

 

[Prima.Vera]

They really haven't, I am sure there are plenty of scenarios at 4K where it does make a difference and even if that's not necessarily the intended use case scenario it's ridiculous this thing was launched with 8GB in the first place.

No one sane will but this overpriced junk to play on 4K ,common.

 

[CosminO]

There is no higher density. Isn't the chip size on GDDR6 and 6x max 2GB (16Gb)? So there are 8 chips at 16bit/chip, compared to the 3060TI at the classical 64bit/chip. The cache didn't save them in this case(32bit/chip in the 8GB version).

 

[arnold_al_qadr]

No it's not. VRAM doesn't matter if the GPU itself isn't 4K-capable, and neither AD106 nor AD107 are. 8GB is the correct amount of memory for the resolutions this card is intended for (1080p native, 1440p native, 4K DLSS), the 16GB model only exists because people like you keep whining that NVIDIA GPUs don't have enough memory.

Play some resident evil remake and the last of us at 1080p all max setting, they need more than 8gb vram..

 

[Gica]

The extra vRAM myth is busted.

 

[Macro Device]

BREAKING NEWS: RTX 4050 TI DISGUISED AS 4060 TI FAILED TO MAKE USE OF 16 GBYTES OF VRAM.

Jokes aside, the most balanced GPU of this line-up is RTX 4060 (aka RTX 4070 non-Ti), which, be it sold for $350, would be an excellent "all problems casual gamers have" solution. But no, they charge $600 pretending this GPU has something to do with major leagues. No, it doesn't.

And everything below RTX 4070 just makes negative sense except for, maybe, "4060 non-Ti" which should be called 4040, capped to 75 W, and sold for a cheeky hundred dollars cheaper at least.

 

[wolf]

Consumers: Nvidia Give us midrange 16Gb cards!

NVidia: OK

Consumers: not like that!

What a waste of a product, but I suppose at the right price it exists for people who either want a very long lived midrange performer, or clutch their VRAM pearls tightly each night. Thanks (not) HUB for your share in making this happen. I look for to all the cherry picked, unrealistic scenarios we will get treated to in an attempt to justify this memory capacity.

 

[Bomby569]

Thanks (not) HUB for your share in making this happen. I look for to all the cherry picked, unrealistic scenarios we will get treated to in an attempt to justify this memory capacity.

Things are getting much worst with this idiotic Youtubers, we got GN's whitewashing the 12VHPWR connector and the Australians playing 1440p ultra for some reason.

 

[N/A]

HUB delivered

 

[gffermari]

The 16GB model is fine and not comparable to the 8GB. The small brother can not even run a couple of games while this can hold the fps stable no matter what.
If in 2-3 months the price is reasonable, then why not?
Now, it's quite expensive for the performance of this chip. In general the 4060Ti is not a very fast gpu but will play everything with decent settings, without DLSS3.

 

[Macro Device]

price is reasonable

It must be HALVED to be reasonable. Not gonna happen this year.

 

[Gica]

A slap to those who went on the AMD commercial with the extra memory. You hang on to anything if you can't keep up with the competition.
Intentional release of an identical chip but equipped with different memory to destroy this myth, almost impossible to dismantle with different chips and architectures.
Why is it nonsense, even in the case of the much praised 6700XT? Because the graphics chip is the first limited. It dies before the vRAM limit. Of course a 4090 or 4080 would be severely affected by 8GB, but they are very powerful chips. And 13900K can be limited by 16 GB, but not an i3.

nVidia has silently launched the 16GB version. They knew it didn't bring anything extra, but somehow they had to get in the way of those from AMD and their allies, such as HU. Without the commotion created by AMD with extra vRAM, something tells me that the 4060 Ti 16GB was never born.

 

[kapone32]

A slap to those who went on the AMD commercial with the extra memory. You hang on to anything if you can't keep up with the competition.
Intentional release of an identical chip but equipped with different memory to destroy this myth, almost impossible to dismantle with different chips and architectures.
Why is it nonsense, even in the case of the much praised 6700XT? Because the graphics chip is the first limited. It dies before the vRAM limit. Of course a 4090 or 4080 would be severely affected by 8GB, but they are very powerful chips. And 13900K can be limited by 16 GB, but not an i3.

nVidia has silently launched the 16GB version. They knew it didn't bring anything extra, but somehow they had to get in the way of those from AMD and their allies, such as HU. Without the commotion created by AMD with extra vRAM, something tells me that the 4060 Ti 16GB was never born.

Even now you refuse to see the failure in your argument. It might be as simple as running at a 128 bit bus that makes the Memory have little to no effect. You see a 6700XT can run as high as 2700 Mhz on the core. The first thing that comes to mind in your disbelief that more Vram makes a difference should look at the Rx580 there were 4GB and 8GB versions but the 4GB is basically no longer viable, What it may actually mean is that Nvidia is trying to milk customers with the reality of VRAM mattering but forgetting to tell people that the GPU is weak for what they want to charge for it. Now the 7800XT will make people like you draw at even more straws to make ridiculous arguments about AMD in an Nvidia thread.

AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT Specs

AMD Navi 22, 2581 MHz, 2560 Cores, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 12288 MB GDDR6, 2000 MHz, 192 bit

www.techpowerup.com

The GPU is operating at a frequency of 2321 MHz, which can be boosted up to 2581 MHz, memory is running at 2000 MHz

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB Specs

NVIDIA AD106, 2535 MHz, 4352 Cores, 136 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 16384 MB GDDR6, 2250 MHz, 128 bit

www.techpowerup.com

"The GPU is operating at a frequency of 2310 MHz, which can be boosted up to 2535 MHz, memory is running at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective)".

So why would a GPU with half the cores be more popular than one with more VRAM and half the cores? It can play 1440P Games and yes my 7900XT uses more VRAM than the 6800XT using X3D chips that have Smart Access Memory enabled based on resolution. Just because the 4060TI is a failure does not mean that you should throw shade at the 6700XT because of it.

The 16GB model is fine and not comparable to the 8GB. The small brother can not even run a couple of games while this can hold the fps stable no matter what.
If in 2-3 months the price is reasonable, then why not?
Now, it's quite expensive for the performance of this chip. In general the 4060Ti is not a very fast gpu but will play everything with decent settings, without DLSS3.

So would you buy this over a 6800 or 6800XT? If the price is the same?

 

[Gica]

Even now you refuse to see the failure in your argument.

All the comparisons between the 4060 Ti, 8GB and 16GB, confirm all the statements made on this topic. All! Is the 6700XT more powerful than the 4060 Ti? Not! If you haven't landed on your head at birth, you can understand that 12GB can't make a difference if even 16GB doesn't.

You become embarrassing if you insist. The 6700XT could be equipped with 12GB or 6GB, but 6GB is insufficient. 8GB was enough, but the architecture does not allow it.
Yes, you can force the settings to the memory limit, with an igp gaming experience. It really is possible. I saw with my own eyes how some boys "climbed" with the latest equipment a slope that you could conquer in slippers and a T-shirt. Everything is possible in this crazy world.

 

[kapone32]

All the comparisons between the 4060 Ti, 8GB and 16GB, confirm all the statements made on this topic. All! Is the 6700XT more powerful than the 4060 Ti? Not! If you haven't landed on your head at birth, you can understand that 12GB can't make a difference if even 16GB doesn't.

You become embarrassing if you insist. The 6700XT could be equipped with 12GB or 6GB, but 6GB is insufficient. 8GB was enough, but the architecture does not allow it.
Yes, you can force the settings to the memory limit, with an igp gaming experience. It really is possible. I saw with my own eyes how some boys "climbed" with the latest equipment a slope that you could conquer in slippers and a T-shirt. Everything is possible in this crazy world.

At the PRICE this card does not compete with the 6700XT but like I said the 6800 or 6800XT. Please tell me that they are not. The 6700XT is less than both the 8GB and 16GB version. I am well aware that the latest APUs allow you to dedicate up to 16GB but that is still system memory that will be better at DDR5 but we are aware of that already. Keep in mind that APUs dedicate 8 lanes to the IGPU as well. You were the one that put AMD into your argument blaming them for the 16GB version. As far as architecture not allowing it the 6700XT is on a 192 bit bus and the 6800/XT are on 256 but I guess that doesn't matter that both cards are on a 128 bit bus. You see the 3060 6 GB and 12GB are very different cards but obviously on a wide enough bus to notice a difference in VRAM allocation. Let us keep in mind what we are talking about

 

[Gica]

Earth to kapone32.
You wrote miles of nonsense about the extra vRAM advantages, now you turn to the price. Here is the perfect example that the 12GB are completely useless on the 6700XT, and you... Batman, Batman.
Just browsing the comparisons between the two video cards (a new one, on TPU) should have prompted you to shut up.
As for the price, in 2021 I bought the 3070Ti at a lower price than a 6700XT, very popular video cards for mining. It is idiocy itself that you insist on the price of some antiques released two years ago.

And yes! I insist on believing that the 4060 Ti 16GB was released only as a replica for AMD's marketing, which found fixed vRAM to hide its own impotence. They don't have the best performing video card, they don't have the most efficient video card, they can't keep up with the competitor's releases and they are far behind in the technologies that bring them a video card beyond rasterization.
You know, the ugly one with a belly, with crooked legs and full of cellulite pointing the finger at a miss's wart.

Always forget that you are the hero who turned 6500XT into 4090 with an X3D. I forget and waste my time with you.

 

[Macro Device]

12GB are completely useless on the 6700XT

Almost completely. Yet 192 bit wide bus yields it necessary pace so the card doesn't feel TOO embarassing compared to 4060 series. And VRAM-happy titles work better on 6700 XT than on 4060s anyway (which does not change the fact the 6700 XT is imperfectly balanced crap for its money).

All this just means the 4060 Ti had to be packed with 192 bit wide bus (no more, no less) and with 12 GB of VRAM so it could handle everything it's supposed to handle, yet it is worse than 3060 Ti in some cases which per se makes this card absurdly bad. 4060 non-Ti, well, it's fine. A little overpriced and named a little bit off (4050 would be exactly the appropriate name) but fine. At $270 mark I'd consider it a completely valid purchase.

Whereas 4060 Tis are completely destroyed by very narrow 128 bit bus. It really makes them suffer a lot. Even an insignificant (at first glance) improvement of additional 32 bits (resounding 160 bit/10 GB VRAM) would make this GPU way more appropriate for its price.