RTX 4060 debate, potentially not terrible? *Nope, it is.

[Agall]

2 minutes ago, Sir Beregond said:

The 1060 was as good as the previous generation GTX 980. I highly doubt the 4060 is going to be as good as a 3080. 

 

That said I will be fair as the 980 was GM204, so going back to chip tiering. If the 4060 is as good as the 3070 Ti (GA104) then cool. Somehow I doubt that it will be.

GTX 980 was only a $550 card comparably, so it would be somewhat better to compare it to the RTX 3070 than even the RTX 3070ti, especially considering how good the RTX 3000 series binning scheme was for consumers.

[Sir Beregond]

4 minutes ago, Agall said:

GTX 980 was only a $550 card comparably, so it would be somewhat better to compare it to the RTX 3070 than even the RTX 3070ti, especially considering how good the RTX 3000 series binning scheme was for consumers.

I go by the dies used and how cut down they are. The branding is all over the place. "80-class" means literally nothing when one year it uses the biggest die and then for a decade it uses mid-range dies...at the same price.

 

EDIT: That said they were pretty consistent for a decade in their die tiering as it related to the class branding, two gens of Kepler maybe being the exception. But for the most part it was pretty consistent. Then it changed in Turing, Ampere, and Ada. Turing tried to drop the 70-class to the TU106 silicon and raise the price to the highest it had ever been. People rejected that. Ampere shifted back, but I think a lot of that was being on Samsung 8nm. Now with Ada we see Nvidia trying to push this envelope again and raise prices again.

 

And the consumer gets less for more all over again.

[Agall]

1 minute ago, Sir Beregond said:

I go by the dies used and how cut down they are. The branding is all over the place. "80-class" means literally nothing when one year it uses the biggest die and then for a decade it uses mid-range dies...at the same price.

Don't worry, I agree. We're talking about specifically the upcoming RTX 4060 8GB however, which should launch at $300 USD. In 2023, $300 for a dGPU isn't unreasonable, but also isn't cheap, especially when something like the Intel Arc A380 exists at $120.

 

Yes it gets less rasterization performance, but unless you're going big, how much performance do you actually need to drive 1080p at various settings? Basically anything is better than an iGPU for gaming, especially if its only $120.

 

I can see the RTX 4060 8GB with its projected performance at $300 being a GTX 1060 6GB replacement for anyone who didn't buy the RTX 3060 12GB. Its going to be hard to not recommend, especially considering how bad the RX 7600 is and Intel Arc's A750/A770 isn't the greatest recommendation for a general consumer, yet. The drivers work, but the enthusiast community around the cards just doesn't exist yet, which is likely where they'll go to look for solutions whenever there's a problem.

[Agall]

@Sir Beregond Another point to make as a comparison to the RTX 4060ti, to get the same value in $/core, the RTX 4060ti would need to cost $340 to be of the same $/core that the RTX 4060 reaches. RTX 4060ti is quite a terrible value so its not a great point of comparison, but its the next most capable ray tracing card in the stack, being a feature a lot of people would be buying these parts to enjoy.

 

MSI Ventus GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Video Card RTX 4060 Ti VENTUS 2X BLACK 8G OC - Newegg.com

 

RTX 4060 ti's are already getting discounted, $380 still not being worth it in my opinion. They'd have to get to like $350 for it to be close enough.

[RevGAM]

I think that price,  performance and quality compared to prior generations should be looked at by consumers. They're not, in general,  going to understand the technical side of it and there is no need to.  I don't need to know how an LED light works, just the lumens, watts, price, color and quality.

 

The problem is that there are so many shills, paid off reviewers, fake reviews, uninformed customer reviews,  and so on that it's hard to know what's best. It's not like education in the USA is that good anymore, nor in a lot of other countries. 

[Agall]

1 minute ago, RevGAM said:

I think that price,  performance and quality compared to prior generations should be looked at by consumers. They're not, in general,  going to understand the technical side of it and there is no need to.  I don't need to know how an LED light works, just the lumens, watts, price, color and quality.

 

The problem is that there are so many shills, paid off reviewers, fake reviews, uninformed customer reviews,  and so on that it's hard to know what's best. It's not like education in the USA is that good anymore, nor in a lot of other countries. 

It's a lot like how the food pyramid was made by the department of agriculture and not the department of health. The most prominent and/or most available information isn't always such because its the best, but simply the most supported narrative.  It could also be information designed to best suite the industry and not the consumer. 

[RevGAM]

4 minutes ago, Agall said:

It's a lot like how the food pyramid was made by the department of agriculture and not the department of health. The most prominent and/or most available information isn't always such because its the best, but simply the most supported narrative.  It could also be information designed to best suite the industry and not the consumer. 

100%!! Preach it!!

[WallacEngineering]

1 hour ago, Agall said:

I can see the RTX 4060 8GB with its projected performance at $300 being a GTX 1060 6GB replacement for anyone who didn't buy the RTX 3060 12GB. Its going to be hard to not recommend, especially considering how bad the RX 7600 is and Intel Arc's A750/A770 isn't the greatest recommendation for a general consumer, yet. The drivers work, but the enthusiast community around the cards just doesn't exist yet, which is likely where they'll go to look for solutions whenever there's a problem.

 

 

Actually when it comes to the RX 7600 from AMD, for some reason the drivers are super garbage.

 

Theres been quite a few threads popping up about it recently. Im not sure what happened with the RX 7600 but something is seriously wrong with it.

 

Me, @RevGAM, and a few other AMD owners got in on these threads and threw every possible troubleshooting tip we could but the RX 7600 for some reason just likes to run like hot garbage and crash basically constantly.

 

Apparently AMD has a specific driver for the RX 7600 that is separate from the driver that runs the other RX 7000-series cards. We don't really know why that is, but its completely terrible.

 

I hope AMD gets rid of the stupid "special" driver and just adds RX 7600 compatibility to the standard driver cuz its actually really bad from what I can tell.

 

As for its performance, I think its pretty decent at its new $250 price. At $220 it would slay everything in its price class. Im not sure why people are comparing it to a 6650-XT and then claiming there is no performance increase when the 7600 isn't even the XT variant, let alone the 50-XT. That just doesn't make any sense. The card it compares to is the RX 6600 NON-XT, in which case the performance uplift is decent although nothing super exiting.

 

At $250 its decent, its just - "A Card" so if you want "A Card" then the RX 7600 is for you! Lol

[Agall]

2 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

 

Actually when it comes to the RX 7600 from AMD, for some reason the drivers are super garbage.

 

Theres been quite a few threads popping up about it recently. Im not sure what happened with the RX 7600 but something is seriously wrong with it.

 

Me, @RevGAM, and a few other AMD owners got in on these threads and threw every possible troubleshooting tip we could but the RX 7600 for some reason just likes to run like hot garbage and crash basically constantly.

 

Apparently AMD has a specific driver for the RX 7600 that is separate from the driver that runs the other RX 7000-series cards. We don't really know why that is, but its completely terrible.

 

I hope AMD gets rid of the stupid "special" driver and just adds RX 7600 compatibility to the standard driver cuz its actually really bad from what I can tell.

 

As for its performance, I think its pretty decent at its new $250 price. At $220 it would slay everything in its price class. Im not sure why people are comparing it to a 6650-XT and then claiming there is no performance increase when the 7600 isn't even the XT variant, let alone the 50-XT. That just doesn't make any sense. The card it compares to is the RX 6600 NON-XT.

"from AMD, for some reason the drivers are super garbage."

[WallacEngineering]

2 minutes ago, Agall said:

"from AMD, for some reason the drivers are super garbage."

Well but thats the thing, the drivers for my XTX, the XT, and @RevGAMs 6800-XT are totally stable and quite good.

 

The only card having these issues is the RX 7600 with its special driver. Thats why we are all so puzzled about it.

[Agall]

2 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

Well but thats the thing, the drivers for my XTX, the XT, and @RevGAMs 6800-XT are totally stable and quite good.

 

The only card having these issues is the RX 7600 with its special driver. Thats why we are all so puzzled about it.

RX 6900 XT drivers were fine when I used that card, for the most part. There were occasional anomalies, but overall, Radeon drivers are still bad. They got substantially better with the RX 6000 series, but that's an exception to the rule, not a new standard, in my opinion. 

[WallacEngineering]

11 minutes ago, Agall said:

RX 6900 XT drivers were fine when I used that card, for the most part. There were occasional anomalies, but overall, Radeon drivers are still bad. They got substantially better with the RX 6000 series, but that's an exception to the rule, not a new standard, in my opinion. 

 

I mean ya I will admit they aren't perfect but I literally haven't had a single crash on my XTX that wasn't my fault (overclocking, wrong API selection, game mods, ECT ECT).

 

I know this because when I corrected the issue (setting) said game would never crash again.

 

The RX 7600 is crashing like literally every 5-10 mins while gaming at factory settings. You literally can't use the damn thing right now.

[RevGAM]

34 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

ECT ECT

Is that short for ectoplasm?  

[SteveGrabowski0]

On 6/26/2023 at 12:47 PM, Sarra said:

If the 4060 was on par, or better than the 3060TI, then it would be worth it.

That's the 4060 Ti

[Sarra]

15 hours ago, RevGAM said:

Is that short for ectoplasm?  

Where's that South Park clip?

[WallacEngineering]

Well, I told you guys that the 20-25% faster than the 3060 was BS, and it is. Its barely faster than that 3060 AT ALL when running 1440p or 4K resolutions. Only at 1080p is there any sort of noticable gain to be had. Sound familiar? Ya, its as bad as the 4060-Ti, just like I told you guys it was going to be.

 

The only thing this card gets you over a 3060 is DLSS-3 frame generation. Ya, because FAKE frames are a reason to spend $300. Ya no, I don't f***ing think so, Nvidia. Even the reviewers are pissed at this point, and I don't blame them. Nobody even wants to review this stupid card, let alone use it

 

FAKE frames are NOT a reason to buy a card. I will NEVER consider frame generation to be a reason to spend more money, and neither should any of you. If you want to avoid making stupid decisions with your money, then ignore DLSS and FSR entirely and make your purchase decisions based on TRUE native rendering.

 

Oh whats worse - its actually tied with AMDs RX 7600 in most games. Ya - thats right - you heard me correctly - AMD is the same speed when it comes to the same tier of GPU. That hasn't happened in like - basically forever.

 

Ill say it one more time in case you guys missed it - ALL RTX 4060s and variants of them are SCAMS. And at this point I think my point has gotten across. Enjoy your absolute garbage, worthless, pointless new cards - whoever decides to buy one. You have been warned.

 

EDIT: Oh right, I forgot, there is ONE SINGLE POSITIVE attribute to this card. Because its a 50-class in disguise, it draws insanely little power. 115 Watts Max without OC as a matter of fact. This puts its power consumption LOWER than an RTX 3050. And none of you believed me when I told you 60-class cards are just 50-class class cards in disguise this gen. Compare the die size, BUS width, and power consumption to an RTX 3050. Is it not completely obvious? Lol

 

 

 

 

 

[Blue4130]

35 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

Well, I told you guys that the 20-25% faster than the 3060 was BS, and it is. Its barely faster than that 3060 AT ALL when running 1440p or 4K resolutions. Only at 1080p is there any sort of noticable gain to be had. Sound familiar? Ya, its as bad as the 4060-Ti, just like I told you guys it was going to be.

 

The only thing this card gets you over a 3060 is DLSS-3 frame generation. Ya, because FAKE frames are a reason to spend $300. Ya no, I don't f***ing think so, Nvidia. Even the reviewers are pissed at this point, and I don't blame them. Nobody even wants to review this stupid card, let alone use it

 

Oh whats worse - its actually tied with AMDs RX 7600 in most games. Ya - thats right - you heard me correctly - AMD is the same speed when it comes to the same tier of GPU. That hasn't happened in like - basically forever.

 

Ill say it one more time in case you guys missed it - ALL RTX 4060s and variants of them are SCAMS. And at this point I think my point has gotten across. Enjoy your absolute garbage, worthless, pointless new cards - whoever decides to buy one. You have been warned.

 

EDIT: Oh right, I forgot, there is ONE SINGLE POSITIVE attribute to this card. Because its a 50-class in disguise, it draws insanely little power. 115 Watts Max without OC as a matter of fact. This puts its power consumption LOWER than an RTX 3050. And none of you believed me when I told you 60-class cards are just 50-class class cards in disguise this gen. Compare the die size, BUS width, and power consumption to an RTX 3050. Is it not completely obvious? Lol

 

 

 

 

It's not that we don't believe you, it's just that (I'll repeat it again) we don't care about names or classes, just performance vs price.

 

And I agree, this is a hard pass for me, but I always thought it would be, nothing new or expected there.

[WallacEngineering]

5 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

It's not that we don't believe you, it's just that (I'll repeat it again) we don't care about names or classes, just performance vs price.

 

And I agree, this is a hard pass for me, but I always thought it would be, nothing new or expected there.

 

Ya and like Ive literally told you a thousand times now, I don't care about the classes or names either - only the price to performance ratio, that you for some reason still can't get through your head

[Agall]

8 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

Ya and like Ive literally told you a thousand times now, I don't care about the classes or names either - only the price to performance ratio, that you for some reason still can't get through your head

Also keeping in mind relative performance expectations, since as we've discussed multiple times now, isn't linear or proportional between RTX 4000 series cards due to relatively anti-consumer choices Nvidia has made with its binning. Worst example so far being the RTX 4080 actually, but mostly because of the price.

 

RTX 3000 to 4000 should be ~90% increase in performance when comparing similar die configurations/sizes.

[Blue4130]

49 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

EDIT: Oh right, I forgot, there is ONE SINGLE POSITIVE attribute to this card. Because its a 50-class in disguise, it draws insanely little power. 115 Watts Max without OC as a matter of fact. This puts its power consumption LOWER than an RTX 3050. And none of you believed me when I told you 60-class cards are just 50-class class cards in disguise this gen. Compare the die size, BUS width, and power consumption to an RTX 3050. Is it not completely obvious? Lol

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

Ya and like Ive literally told you a thousand times now, I don't care about the classes or names either - only the price to performance ratio, that you for some reason still can't get through your head

I can't "get it through my head" because you say that you don't care about classes or names, then you go on a rant about how the 60 is just a 50 class in disguise even though that is not the case.

[WallacEngineering]

15 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

I can't "get it through my head" because you say that you don't care about classes or names, then you go on a rant about how the 60 is just a 50 class in disguise even though that is not the case.

 

Um that is entirely the case and exactly why I don't care about the classes and names.

 

Because if I DID care about the classes and names then it would be literally IMPOSSIBLE for me to describe the RTX 4060s as "50-class cards in disguise" because then I cannot argue with Nvidia's naming scheme. Thats literally what caring about their naming schemes means - DUH

 

Yes it is a 50-class card lol. How can you possibly be dumb enough to claim that it isn't? Things that determine what class a card is - Die Size, BUS width, Cuda Core/Shader Count, Power Consumption.

 

Of course you must in mind that the numbers scale with technology - for a given die size you should see cuda cores go up or die size go down for the same number of cuda cores/ect. Probably the MOST important factor of what determines the class of a card is probably the Die Size in Milimeters Squared.

 

Now of course Die Size isn't the only important thing and thats why the RTX 4070 isn't completely terrible because it offers the same number of Cuda Cores as last gen but boosts performance by a respectable 30% thanks to other improvements.

 

So die size is not absolute, it is a combination of factors and its just that die size is probably the MOST contributing factor, thats all.

 

Now if you could take this information from the RTX 4060/Ti/16GB and then compare them to the RTX 3060/Ti and the RTX 3050/Ti and then please try to tell me again that the RTX 4060 is not a 50-class card in disguise.

 

I mean at this point Im laughing so hard at you that Im basically dying

[Blue4130]

1 minute ago, WallacEngineering said:

t? Things that determine what class a card is - Die Size, BUS width, Cuda Core/Shader Count, Power Consumption.

 

 

No. It's a guy with a marketing degree that determines it.

 

The more personal insults you throw, the weaker your argument sounds. Have some tact.

[Agall]

1 minute ago, Blue4130 said:

 

I can't "get it through my head" because you say that you don't care about classes or names, then you go on a rant about how the 60 is just a 50 class in disguise even though that is not the case.

Well he's right about that, speaking relative to the RTX 3000 series.

 

RTX 3000	CUDA Cores	%cores	%cores	CUDA Cores	RTX 4000
GA102	10752	100%	100%	18432	AD102
3090ti 24GB $2000	10752	100%
3090 24GB $1500	10496	97.6%
3080ti 12GB $1200	10240	95.2%
			88.9%	16384	4090 24GB $1600
3080 12GB $800	8960	83.3%
3080 10GB $700	8704	81.0%
3070ti 8GB $600	6144	57.1%
3070 8GB $500	5888	54.8%	52.8%	9728	4080 16GB $1200
3060ti 8GB $400	4864	45.2%	41.7%	7680	4070ti 12GB $800
3060 12GB $330	3584	33.3%	31.9%	5888	4070 12GB $600
3050 8GB $250	2560	23.8%	23.6%	4352	4060ti 8GB $400
			20.8%	3840	4060 8GB $300

 

If you do a breakdown on Nvidia's binning scheme between the RTX 3000 and 4000, the RTX 4060ti's silicon is effectively equivalent to the RTX 3050. This chart staggers the cards relative to its binning scheme and not to its product name, as @WallacEngineering has talked about being a major difference with the RTX 4000 series.

 

The way I look at it, the RTX 3000 series has an above average binning scheme for the GPU dies, by like +1 tier per bin, where RTX 4000 series has a below average binning scheme, being like -1 tier per bin. That just creates a +2 tier per bin differential between two generations. What makes it even worse is the price hikes when you do this comparison.

 

[WallacEngineering]

9 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

No. It's a guy with a marketing degree that determines it.

 

The more personal insults you throw, the weaker your argument sounds. Have some tact.

 

As If I care on an internet forum, I don't care about any of you or anything about this forum, Im so completely over the stupidity of the internet that it could seemingly die tomorrow from and EMP or whatever else and I genuinely would not care in the slightest.

 

In fact I kind of hope it happens, man kind really needs to take a break from the internet, that much is obvious.

[porina]

1 hour ago, WallacEngineering said:

Well, I told you guys that the 20-25% faster than the 3060 was BS, and it is. Its barely faster than that 3060 AT ALL when running 1440p or 4K resolutions. Only at 1080p is there any sort of noticable gain to be had. Sound familiar? Ya, its as bad as the 4060-Ti, just like I told you guys it was going to be.

Going by techpowerup, for raster compared to 3600 it is +18% at 1080p, +14% at 1440p, +10% at 4k. This is on the lower end of expectations but not wildly outside such.

For RT, it is +17% at 1080p, +13% at 1440p, and -5% at 4k. Yes, slower at RT at 4k.

 

For 1080p and 1440p 4060 is 2 or 3% faster than 7600. However at 4k it is 10% faster. Team red seems to fall off harder there.

As would be expected, RT is a weak spot for AMD, and the 7600 gets destroyed here. 4060 is 27% faster at 1080p, 40% faster at 1440, and 96% faster at 4k. 7600 really doesn't do 4k well.

 

IMO it is in the ball park of where it needed to be, and will sell by the bucket load. This is the current gen GPU for the masses. 7600 gives slightly better perf/$ if you only look at raster gaming, but if you ever touch RT at all or use any of the nvidia features the 4060 makes more sense.

 

3060 remains a maybe option. I'll await actual UK pricing but I'd expect 4060 to more or less equal a new 3060, so the only real reason to consider a 3060 will be if you want 12GB VRAM over 8GB.

 

1 hour ago, WallacEngineering said:

ignore DLSS and FSR entirely and make your purchase decisions based on TRUE native rendering.

Your loss.

 

1 hour ago, WallacEngineering said:

Oh whats worse - its actually tied with AMDs RX 7600 in most games. Ya - thats right - you heard me correctly - AMD is the same speed when it comes to the same tier of GPU. That hasn't happened in like - basically forever.

If you count only raster perf AMD haven't been that bad at more or less matching nvidia in some areas outside the top end. Like last gen 6800XT was close enough to a 3080 as long as you don't go anywhere near RT. I'm sure there's more similar areas of overlap. It is not unusual, but also not always the case.

 

21 minutes ago, Agall said:

RTX 3000 to 4000 should be ~90% increase in performance when comparing similar die configurations/sizes.

By die size is an interesting metric. That would be looking at performance gain enabled by improved process. Has anyone actually worked that out?

 

As a typical trend new gen GPUs perform like the tier-or-so above previous gen tier, and we are kinda still doing that outside the 4060 Ti.