RX 7600 and RTX 4060Ti specs and release dates leaked | 8GB and 16GB cards coming for both

[leadeater]

20 minutes ago, porina said:

I don't know if things like Steam Deck APU would be counted as Client or Gaming, likely depending on if it is a standard product or customised for Valve, but it is probably small beans anyway.

I think it comes under Embedded. Basically anything custom that isn't console chips is under than from my understanding.

 

Edit:

Nope my memory was mistaken

Quote

Gaming segment revenue was $1.6 billion, down 7% year-over-year driven by lower gaming graphics sales partially offset by higher semi-custom product revenue. Operating income was $266 million, or 16% of revenue, compared to $407 million or 23% a year ago. The operating income and margin decreases were primarily due to lower graphics revenue

 

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

When I said gaming I was including consoles and other gaming SoCs in general (eg Steam Deck).  This is a market NVIDIA largely doesn't bother with, the exception being the Nintendo Switch which given its the same SoC used in ShieldTV I'm not sure that even counts.

I don't believe AMD counts SteamDeck in gaming revenue. It's probably counted under PC Client/Laptop APUs.

[porina]

Pricing and availability is now official. 

 

4060 8GB $299 July

4060 Ti 8GB $399/£389 May 24

4060 Ti 16GB $499 July

 

[Quackers101]

4060 super when? oh wait... a 4060? oh no

[Alex Atkin UK]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

I don't believe AMD counts SteamDeck in gaming revenue. It's probably counted under PC Client/Laptop APUs.

True, but the only point I was making is that AMD are making their money in segments of the market that NVIDIA aren't really competing in.  Its no loss for AMD to include more VRAM as they have everything to gain (market share) and nothing to lose in doing so.

With NVIDIA they are rather competing with themselves on high-end compute which is problematic.  They don't want to be selling 4070 Ti and 4080s to the kinds of customers who would otherwise need to spend ten times as much for cards with enough VRAM for high-end 3D rendering and compute workloads.  Also why they have (had?  I think someone said its gone on 4000 series?) that software lock to prevent using consumer cards in VMs, they don't want desktop cards being used in the data center.

[Alex Atkin UK]

1 hour ago, porina said:

Pricing and availability is now official. 

 

4060 8GB $299 July

4060 Ti 8GB $399/£389 May 24

4060 Ti 16GB $499 July

 

NVIDIA e-mail:

Quote

Introducing the GeForce RTX 4060 Family, Starting at £289

 

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, porina said:

Pricing and availability is now official. 

 

4060 8GB $299 July

4060 Ti 8GB $399/£389 May 24

4060 Ti 16GB $499 July

 

I can't wait for people to defend the 4060Ti's 8GB price vs the $279 7600 8GB or 7600 16GB $349.

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

Absolutely horrible product. 4060ti will be like 7-10% faster than 3060ti..

[porina]

13 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I can't wait for people to defend the 4060Ti's 8GB price vs the $279 7600 8GB or 7600 16GB $349.

Nvidia already won. Because they're nvidia  Have AMD officially announced the 7600 yet? I didn't sleep through it or something. If not, let's see where they end up.

[AlTech]

6 minutes ago, porina said:

Nvidia already won. Because they're nvidia  Have AMD officially announced the 7600 yet? I didn't sleep through it or something. If not, let's see where they end up.

Announcement/Embargo is the day after the 4060Ti.

 

The perf of the 7600 is expected to be between a 6700 and a 6700XT and the perf of the 4060Ti is 3070 to 3070Ti perf.

 

So a re-litigation of 3070 8GB vs 6700XT 12GB but with now 16GB of VRAM for AMD instead of 12GB. And a 16GB 3070 replacement for $499.

 

If consumers buy the objectively product, AMD will win. If not, Nvidia will win.

[starsmine]

oof only 15 %

[AlTech]

And Nvidia have confirmed via HUB that the 4060Ti is a 1080p High Settings card for $399 -_- .

 

I guess there hasn't been innovation from 2015 to 2023 (if we're still paying $399 for 8GB of VRAM) if Nvidia are to be believed

 

2015 - $399 for 8GB  - R9 390

2016: $239 for 8GB - RX 480 / $379 for 8GB - GTX 1070

2017: $229 for 8GB - RX 580

2019: $399 for 8GB - RX 5700XT / RTX 2060 Super

2020: $399 for 8GB - RTX 3060Ti

2023: $399 for 8GB - RTX 4060Ti

 

 

[porina]

36 minutes ago, starsmine said:

oof only 15 %

That would put it at 3070 performance level, but it is cheaper than a 3070 both when it was launched and today (new), and gets you the Ada tech upgrades.

[AlTech]

3 minutes ago, porina said:

That would put it at 3070 performance level, but it is cheaper than a 3070 both when it was launched and today (new), and gets you the Ada tech upgrades.

With the same VRAM problems as the 3070, little to no perf upgrade without creating fake FPS,  and no price savings despite the 4060Ti being cheaper to produce than a 3070.

[porina]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

With the same VRAM problems as the 3070, little to no perf upgrade without creating fake FPS,  and no price savings despite the 4060Ti being cheaper to produce than a 3070.

I still feel this VRAM thing is still blown totally out of proportion. At worst you might run medium on some new releases but the vast majority of games that will be played on it will be fine.

 

On costs, are you sure it is cheaper to make? Do we have die sizes? I'm pretty sure TSMC N4 will be a lot more expensive per wafer than Samsung 8nm, offsetting a smaller chip. And the 3070 was launched early on before the price increases that have hit almost everything.

[Quackers101]

3 hours ago, starsmine said:

oof only 15 %

yeah and f*** nvidia for that. only wanting to use DLSS 3 to say what the performance is for their cards. hopefully not going after people like they did with unboxed.

[leadeater]

19 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Also why they have (had?  I think someone said its gone on 4000 series?) that software lock to prevent using consumer cards in VMs, they don't want desktop cards being used in the data center.

It's gone on all cards, the restriction was removed in a driver update and applies to everything.

[Montana One-Six]

On 5/17/2023 at 6:49 PM, porina said:

As a 4070 owner it doesn't phase me at all because I haven't bought into the VRAM FUD. 12GB is plenty for the upper-mid range at least the next couple of years. 8GB is still fine for a low-mid GPU.

100%. Been playing at 4K for almost 2 years now and personally haven't seen any VRAM issues in games even though my 12GB shouldn't be enough. The Game that came closest to using 12GB was FarCry6 (max settings, HighRes Texture Pack, native 4K) with around 10GB used most of the time. Granted I haven't tried any of the recent bad (on a technical level) console ports but honestly if a game has worse graphics than FarCry6 but uses 12GB at 1080p something is 100% wrong with the game.

 

On 5/17/2023 at 7:41 PM, AluminiumTech said:

It is if you enjoy spending $600 for a 1440p capable GPU from Nvidia when you could buy a 4K capable GPU from AMD for $600.

For 4k60 there are plenty of cards out there right now from either AMD or Nvidia

[Alex Atkin UK]

On 5/18/2023 at 7:28 PM, porina said:

I still feel this VRAM thing is still blown totally out of proportion. At worst you might run medium on some new releases but the vast majority of games that will be played on it will be fine.

Its only fine right now because few games are being written for current-gen such as UE5, where you have much higher quality assets in general, not just textures.

Some serious Ostritch syndrome going on when were hearing reports from developers saying that 8GB just isn't enough, but no you know better than the developers who have being struggling against the VRAM wall for years and now want to transition to current-gen tech but are held back on PC by VRAM limitations.

If you don't think there's going to be a whole lot more games that either look like garbage on 8GB and/or have serious performance issues, then you've really not been paying attention.

I don't know about you but I'd be pretty livid if I bought a brand new GPU and games ended up looking/performing like Switch ports, purely due to lack of VRAM.

[bramturismo]

On 5/18/2023 at 5:42 PM, AluminiumTech said:

I can't wait for people to defend the 4060Ti's 8GB price vs the $279 7600 8GB or 7600 16GB $349.

But weren't the 2060 Super and 3060Ti cards exactly the same price at launch?

 

Maybe I am missing the point here, but I don't really see huge issues with the pricing of this card, neither do I see any issues with the 8Gb of VRAM for 1080p gaming.

As I see it, you get a card that at 1080p gives you all the eye-candy, and all the performance you need. Feel free to correct me, though, but I'm not really understanding why so many people are still shouting that nVidia is ripping off people with this card.

 

As far as AMD cards, I have no idea where they are at right now. Since the launch of the 7900 cards, I am not really seeing many people actually recommending them. I applaud AMD for launching a budget card, but please oh please let it be a good product.

[porina]

14 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Some serious Ostritch syndrome going on when were hearing reports from developers saying that 8GB just isn't enough, but no you know better than the developers who have being struggling against the VRAM wall for years and now want to transition to current-gen tech but are held back on PC by VRAM limitations.

Got some examples of those dev comments? I'd like to read up on it. I have no objection to them using more than 8GB of VRAM on the higher end. The question is what quality you get at 8GB. Most releases are not going to drop 8GB and even lower support for a very long time, unless they want to make a tech showcase for the highest end only.

 

Looking at the stats from current Steam Hardware Survey:

20% below 4GB

14% at 4GB

19% at 6GB

28% at 8GB

18% above 8GB, mostly 12GB at 11%. Presumably this is driven by the 3060.

 

Say they make 12GB the minimum. They would only potentially have 13% of the Steam user market as it stands. This goes up to 46% at 8GB, 65% at 6GB, and 82% at 4GB. They will be asking themselves where to draw the line.

 

14 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

If you don't think there's going to be a whole lot more games that either look like garbage on 8GB and/or have serious performance issues, then you've really not been paying attention.

One of those example, TLOU, has been patched recently. It has been vastly improved on launch state. You can run high textures at 8GB now. Even if you drop to medium on even lesser GPUs, the visual quality is much better than at launch.

 

I don't want to play the "bad optimisation" card but there is an element of that going on. We have games that run at 8GB and look better than others using more.

 

So called AAA titles this year have often launched in a very poor state, regardless of the hardware you throw at it. You can have a 4090 and still have bad performance. They don't reach some level of refinement for some time after launch as they eventually get patched. This is the bigger problem than having 8GB of VRAM.

[starsmine]

57 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Some serious Ostritch syndrome going on when were hearing reports from developers saying that 8GB just isn't enough, but no you know better than the developers who have being struggling against the VRAM wall for years and now want to transition to current-gen tech but are held back on PC by VRAM limitations.

Some devs... not many, not most, some devs. Its not ostritch syndrom.

And its not like devs are wrong to always be asking for more to use, or to say, its not enough for my dream vision, or whatever, but to act like its not enough to do well-executed games that look amazing is just them talking out of their ass. Some may have a point that with publisher constraints it's not plausible to do simple ports from a 16GB console to PC for some games with the time constraint. 

Its not a "I know better then dev statement" because not all devs are saying that for a reason. 

Blaming UE5 is just weird, that engine is good, and it scales just fine, both to higher and lower vram amounts. 

Over reliance on multiple levels of code abstraction and inheritance are some of the largest issues code-based wise in terms of performance creating massive overhead and copying of data inside ram unnecessarily. 


 

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, bramturismo said:

But weren't the 2060 Super and 3060Ti cards exactly the same price at launch?

$399? Yes. Nvidia is offering marginally better than a 3060Ti for 3060Ti money which is not acceptable. Gamers deserve better.

1 hour ago, bramturismo said:

Maybe I am missing the point here, but I don't really see huge issues with the pricing of this card, neither do I see any issues with the 8Gb of VRAM for 1080p gaming.

We've had $399 cards targeting 1080p for 8 years. We don't need $399 1080p cards. We need $199-$229 1080p cards that don't suck (Aka another Polaris moment) and $399 1440p cards.

 

This is stagnation.

1 hour ago, bramturismo said:

As I see it, you get a card that at 1080p gives you all the eye-candy, and all the performance you need.

Except you can't. Because Nvidia said: You shouldn't run on Ultra because 8GB isn't enough for it.

 

The card has the performance to run on Ultra and yet it can't ONLY because of VRAM.

1 hour ago, bramturismo said:

Feel free to correct me, though, but I'm not really understanding why so many people are still shouting that nVidia is ripping off people with this card.

Because this card is e-waste. We're tired of having Nvidia make minimum effort 40 series cards with limited amounts of VRAM at inflated prices.

 

In terms of the 4060, it is a literal downgrade from the 3060 purely because of going from 12GB to 8GB.

1 hour ago, bramturismo said:

As far as AMD cards, I have no idea where they are at right now. Since the launch of the 7900 cards, I am not really seeing many people actually recommending them. I applaud AMD for launching a budget card, but please oh please let it be a good product.

They are good products and people do recommend them.

 

AMD is selling as many $999 7900XTX units as they can make. They can't keep up with demand, there's just too many people who want it.

 

The 7900XT Pricing at $899 was too much for gamers and so AIBs and distributors cut the prices to $799 as a street price. Compared to the 4070Ti, the 7900XT is a no brainer at $799.

 

AMD's AIBs are continuing to sell the last gen 6950XT at around $500 to $600 giving massively more VRAM (16GB vs 12GB and a 256 Bit bus vs 192 Bit bus) and giving a more future proof card than Nvidia's 4070 and 4070Ti.

 

After the RX 7600 launch, AMD's next 3 cards will be (Not in order of launch):

• RX 7700 - Moderately/Heavily cut down Navi 32 (I can't remember if this will be 12GB or 16GB)- Hopefully for $449
• RX 7800 - 16GB Lightly cut down Navi 32 - Hopefully for $499
• RX 7800 XT - 16GB Fully Enabled Navi 32 - Hopefully for $599

[starsmine]

13 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

$399? Yes. Nvidia is offering marginally better than a 3060Ti for 3060Ti money which is not acceptable. Gamers deserve better.

We've had $399 cards targeting 1080p for 8 years. We don't need $399 1080p cards. We need $199-$229 1080p cards that don't suck (Aka another Polaris moment) and $399 1440p cards.

idk man calling it a 1080p card just seems wild to me

I play ALL my games at 1440p, OR HIGHER (4k tv) on a 3060, used to with a 760. Most of them with settings maxed out (obviously not maxed out settings with the 760)
As much as I can and will clown on the 4060ti for only being 15% faster then the 3060ti (which is faster then my 3060), it will do more then fine at 1440p/4k for all games. 

IMO, calling any card a "1080p/1440p/4k card" is just really fucking stupid and lies about the capabilities of the cards. 

The GTX 580 was a "1600p" card. 4060ti is idk 10x faster then that card? 

[AlTech]

8 minutes ago, starsmine said:

idk man calling it a 1080p card just seems wild to me

I play ALL my games at 1440p, OR HIGHER (4k tv) on a 3060, used to with a 760. Most of them with settings maxed out (obviously not maxed out settings with the 760)
As much as I can and will clown on the 4060ti for only being 15% faster then the 3060ti (which is faster then my 3060), it will do more then fine at 1440p/4k for all games.

 

If you play at low settings sure.

 

But High settings and higher won't be attainable with an 8GB card like the 4060Ti 8GB.

8 minutes ago, starsmine said:

IMO, calling any card a "1080p/1440p/4k card" is just really fucking stupid and lies about the capabilities of the cards. 

The GTX 580 was a "1600p" card. 4060ti is idk 10x faster then that card? 

Nvidia told Hardware Unboxed that the 4060Ti isn't meant for 1080p Ultra, it's meant for 1080p High.

 

Nvidia themselves are saying this.