Here's the thing, I had the 460 and it played everything I threw at it at 1920x1200, no sweat. I do know how to fiddle with graphics settings fwiw. I almost pulled the trigger on a 4060, so I could have told you if it can do the same, but in the end I decided I'm not getting my money's worth and didn't.
Another thing is, in 2010 1920x1080/1200 was about the highest resolution available*. In 2024, that would be 4k.
*just like today, there were higher res monitors, albeit rare/expensive
In relative performance, GTX 460 was great because it had ~66% of the performance of GTX 480, while only costing 40% of it, and also performing about the level of the previous top models, so it was a meaningful performance level at the time.
Comparing this to the current lineup, a RTX 4060 performs about ~33% pf RTX 4090, and the price difference is huge. The big question then becomes, should we judge RTX 4060 based on how "weak" it is compared to its bigger brother, or should we consider what kind of gaming experience will this actually offer for the money?
Another important aspect since you're bringing up Fermi is longevity. Fermi wasn't just prone to overheating, it quickly became "obsolete" both due to performance demands, changes in performance characteristics and API support. This was actually pretty much the norm for every generation up to then; if someone bought a pretty good GPU, then 2-3 years later there would be many games they couldn't play or at least play well. And I had many cards in that era, like GTX 680, GTX 580, Radeon HD 4870, GTX 275 (traded), 9800 GT, 7800 GT, 6600 GT(SLI), and many before that all the way back to the Riva TNT2. And all these cards have one thing in common, they become "obsolete" long before they deserved to, either due to performance or API support/features.
But starting from Maxwell(900 series), the cards have had remarkably good mileage in them. Especially Pascal (like the GTX 1060 I see in your profile), will probably go down as legendary in terms on long-term value. Granted, the performance difference isn't as great per generation, but the APIs don't change erratically either. Maxwell, Pascal, Turing and Ampere all seem to have lasting value, especially for anyone who bought xx70 models or up. In retrospect it's easy to see that during this time-span buying one or two tiers up would have gotten people more mileage, vs. back in the GTX 460 days where everything was quickly obsolete anyways. It's also worth mentioning that anything from Maxwell and on, still have mainline driver support with features and improvements, that would not have been the case with 10 year old cards back in 2010.
But is it fair to demand 4K in a ~250$ card today?
The main reason why the high-end cards today can do 4K well is that they're using massive GPUs, drawing huge amounts of power, that are several "tiers" higher than back in the GTX 460 days. We also have higher refresh rate, so the reality is that a lower mid-range card today can usually do 1080p at a good frame rate or 1440p at lower frame rate or lower details.
My assessment is that RTX 4060 is a little too poor of a deal, but not terrible.
If I were looking to build a gaming PC today, and wondering how far to stretch my budget (how expensive GPU can I justify), I would probably go a good step up. RTX 4060 is already a little weak today, RTX 4060 Ti is of course better, but the jump up to RTX 4070 is huge, and especially now with the price cuts, I'd say go for RTX 4070 or the two compelling models from AMD: RX 7700 XT and RX 7800 XT. Those three models I believe are the "sweetspot" GPUs today, in terms of getting a great experience today and some longevity.
