NVIDIA Makes GeForce RTX 4060 MSRP Official - Starting at $299

[sephiroth117]

i never thought the 4090 would have the best value for Ada cards

The mid-range offer is horrifying..
200-250€ would be more suited (I’m saying € not $)

 

[N/A]

i never thought the 4090 would have the best value for Ada cards

The mid-range offer is horrifying..
200-250€ would be more suited (I’m saying € not $)

Why? 4090 is 5x more expensive but only delivers 3x the performance even in 4K. You can't seriously claim 4090 is the best value.
as far as we know 4060 is the best value GTX 2080 performance at $300

 

[Sherhi]

I have gtx 760 that cost around 300€ and that was pretty expensive in 2014ish when I bought it. Why would I pay basically the same amount of money (inflation adjusted) for the same 1080p experience?

As a wise man once said: just because majority of users have quad core CPUs it does not justify overcharging for new quad cores and just because majority of users have 1080p monitors it does not justify overcharging for 1080p entry level GPUs.

Paying 360-400€ for entry-level GPU with 8gb ram for 1080p is insane in year 2023. I want to upgrade my GPU but not 8gbs, I would rather go for A770 at this point.

 

[Rais]

Furmark, you say? I see:

RX 7600 TDP: 165W
Gaming results:

Still, Furmark gives the max, not the game. And not every game, that's the point you're missing.

As for comparing a 5nm chip with a 16nm, what the hell is that? You are not sound in mind, what's next, arguing that a GTX 660 consumption was better?

As the load in gaming rise, mid range cards will have more computational power then more power. But, let's say for a moment you can understand a graph, you would see that perf per watt always increases.

Second, the fact that NVIDIA is selling small chips at hight price is a secondary issue.

 

[Vayra86]

Still, Furmark gives the max, not the game. And not every game, that's the point you're missing.

As for comparing a 5nm chip with a 16nm, what the hell is that? You are not sound in mind, what's next, arguing that a GTX 660 consumption was better?

As the load in gaming rise, mid range cards will have more computational power then more power. But, let's say for a moment you can understand a graph, you would see that perf per watt always increases.

Second, the fact that NVIDIA is selling small chips at hight price is a secondary issue.

The entire suite of games ran at uncapped FPS simply pushes every GPU to its designed board TDP, pretty much most of the time.

This is how GPUs are designed these days. If a game has considerably lower load, obviously the GPU will scale down in power to meet that demand. But that's a detail that is irrelevant in this discussion, it happens in all games in all sorts of ways, sometimes even just by game engine, API, or CPU limitations - not a GPU influence.

I'm not denying the perf per watt always increases. But we have certainly entered a new realm where the TDP of cards has been going steadily up for each tier in the stack. This is not a good development - and it cannot last. Here's the story I'm looking at. You mentioned Kepler. Look at this GK104's TDP, and the other similarities.

Now; GTX 1080 (GP104) : 180W and still around 300mm2.

Turing is where all things get screwed up. This here is the 2060, a 1080 equivalent in terms of raster perf.
It requires a whopping 1,5x the die size, albeit at slightly reduced TDP, to get there. 'The cost of RT'. We won 20W off a refined node, but got 50% fatter.

Ampere is hilarious. The 3060. Because, yes, the new reality now is that you've gained a full tier of TDP; x60 is now carrying the wattage of what used to be an x80. Raster efficiency has effectively stalled since Pascal.

Ada then, it seems things are back in order. Not such a bad comparison after all then, once we're back on a good node and some refinements on RT. But this 200W is still for a mere 4070. Not the Ti, not the x80.

As for the flavorful comments about another's intelligence, let's leave them aside I'm trying to get a point across, its a matter of understanding/perspective, not a contest.

 

[ThaneX]

They will keep having their 60% profit margin as long as we keep buying their overpriced stuff.

 

[R0H1T]

the fact that NVIDIA is selling small chips at hight price is a secondary issue.

Secondary issue? Who are you JHH

 

[tfdsaf]

Who in their right mind would buy this turd? The most this turd is worth it is $250, and that is MAX for a measly 8GB of vram when already we have several games using more than 8GB in various scenarios at 1080p. And again PC requirements are going to get more demanding, not less as we go forward. I best half of triple A games in 2024 will use 10GB of vram or more at 1080p resolution.

I hope people don't buy this scam of a turd just because its got an Nvidia logo on it and actually punish Nvidia for these insane prices!

Realistically this is a RTX 4050 product and should cost something like $200, the RTX 4060ti is actually an RTX 4060 and should have come at $270 for the 8GB version and $320 for the 16GB version.

 

[AsRock]

This difference in energy usage would be $36 here or about 27 USD. It's telling that they focus on that and not the performance. Their own graphs indicate that the performance uplift is lackluster. It seems to be about the same as the 7600 so $299 is a tall ask for this card..

And they know it hence the BS charts.