RTX 4060-Ti 16GB Performs as Expected - Just Like the 8GB Model (AKA garbage LOL) + Boost at Resolutions Where 16GB of VRAM Matters

[WallacEngineering]

Im not sure where this guy got his hands on an RTX 4060-Ti 16GB early, but he has been benchmarking it.

 

We already know that all the RTX 4060 variants run like hot garbage thanks to 50-Class Die sizes and BUS widths, and the extra 8GB of VRAM on the 16GB edition makes no difference whatsoever if the game isn't pushing past 8GB of VRAM usage.

 

In short, its a dumb card - because you are paying a premium for extra VRAM you will probably never use (observe the horrid frame rates at 4K High because its not a 4K card, or even a 1440p High/Ultra Card for that matter - Nvidia made that perfectly clear when they gimped the cards)

 

The ONLY RTX 4060 model that makes any sense at all is the Base Model NON-Ti for $299.99 - that is if you can NOT find a RTX 3060 for cheaper. At least the Base Model card is a good 1080p High/Ultra card for an ALMOST acceptable price. If you want to play at 1440p, buy an RTX 4070 NON-Ti or an AMD RX 6700-XT/6750-XT/6800/6800-XT.

 

The RTX 4060-Ti 8GB and RTX 4060-Ti 16GB are both a complete waste of your time and money because they were designed to have enough Cuda Cores for 1440p but the BUS width limits their performance at resolutions above 1080p to the point where they show absolutely ZERO improvement over an RTX 3060-Ti.

 

Now do not mis-understand me, there is a world in which all of the RTX 4060 models make perfect sense. The problem is price. If the RTX 4060 Non-Ti was $250, and then the 4060-Ti 8GB was $300 and the 4060-Ti 16GB was $340, THEN maybe you could say they were pretty tempting. However, that just isn't the case - and with the fairly small overall performance improvement going from the Base Model to the Ti, there is just no way in hell anyone should be paying $100 to move up to the next tier of 4060.

 

Way to go Nvidia, you have single-handedly gimped your own near-monopoly grip on the market by sabotaging the design of your most popular class of gaming GPU - absolute idiots. Maybe an AMD spy snuck in and advised them on the design.

 

AMD - if you did that, I tip my hat to you 

 

(Weird, this guy disabled embedding on this video)

(9) RTX 4060 Ti 16gb vs RTX 4060 Ti 8gb - Watch This Before Buy - YouTube

[Supersonicwolfe]

This is what we all suspected once Hardware Unboxed reported that even board partners don't want to advertise this model... waste of PCB and components...

[Dedayog]

21 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

Im not sure where this guy got his hands on an RTX 4060-Ti 16GB early, but he has been benchmarking it.

 

We already know that all the RTX 4060 variants run like hot garbage thanks to 50-Class Die sizes and BUS widths, and the extra 8GB of VRAM on the 16GB edition makes no difference whatsoever if the game isn't pushing past 8GB of VRAM usage.

 

In short, its a dumb card - because you are paying a premium for extra VRAM you will probably never use (observe the horrid frame rates at 4K High because its not a 4K card, or even a 1440p High/Ultra Card for that matter - Nvidia made that perfectly clear when they gimped the cards)

 

The ONLY RTX 4060 model that makes any sense at all is the Base Model NON-Ti for $299.99 - that is if you can NOT find a RTX 3060 for cheaper. At least the Base Model card is a good 1080p High/Ultra card for an acceptable price. If you want to play at 1440p, buy an RTX 4070 NON-Ti or an AMD RX 6700-XT/6750-XT/6800-XT.

 

The RTX 4060-Ti 8GB and RTX 4060-Ti 16GB are both a complete waste of your time and money because they were designed to have enough Cuda Cores for 1440p but the BUS width limits their performance at resolutions above 1080p to the point where they show absolutely ZERO improvement over an RTX 3060-Ti.

 

Way to go Nvidia, you have single-handedly gimped your own near-monopoly grip on the market by sabotaging the design of your most popular class of gaming GPU - absolute idiots. Maybe an AMD spy snuck in and advised them on the design.

 

AMD - if you did that, I tip my hat to you 

 

(Weird, this guy disabled embedding on this video)

(9) RTX 4060 Ti 16gb vs RTX 4060 Ti 8gb - Watch This Before Buy - YouTube

This is what reviewers have been saying.

 

Did you just review the card yourself or just post to mock some guy?

 

Edit:  Misread, my bad.  

[WallacEngineering]

17 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

This is what reviewers have been saying.

 

Did you just review the card yourself or just post to mock some guy?

 

Um, what? How would I be mocking him? Im spreading his video and helping him out...

 

Why did you automatically just assume the worst? Lol relax man if anyone deserves to be mocked its Nvidia. The dude obviously got the card literally just to review/test it. I seriously doubt hes actually using it.

 

17 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

Edit:  Misread, my bad.  

 

Lol no worries it happens

[jaslion]

32 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

can NOT find a RTX 3060 for cheaper. At least the Base Model card is a good 1080p High/Ultra card for an ALMOST acceptable price.

Even then a 12gb 3060 is worth the like 20$ extra it sometimes is.

 

But then basically all the 4060 has is dlss3 as even in ray tracing a 6700xt is beating it often.

 

As for the 4060ti 16gb the ONLY reason I see for this in actual use is rendering. As 16gb for that little is quite nice.

[Agall]

I'd say it'd be a good card at $300, where the xx60ti class used to be, given its a trash bin tier of silicon. Its at least not as bad as the absolute trash bin tier of silicon that is in the RTX 4060 that shouldn't even be produced.

[jaslion]

2 minutes ago, Agall said:

I'd say it'd be a good card at $300, where the xx60ti class used to be, given its a trash bin tier of silicon. Its at least not as bad as the absolute trash bin tier of silicon that is in the RTX 4060 that shouldn't even be produced.

It woulda been nice as a 4050. No complaints there :p.

 

So basically the card this SHOULD have been

[Agall]

40 minutes ago, jaslion said:

It woulda been nice as a 4050. No complaints there :p.

 

So basically the card this SHOULD have been

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
			16.7%	3072	4060 8GB $300

 

Yes, mathematically.

[WallacEngineering]

37 minutes ago, Agall said:

I'd say it'd be a good card at $300, where the xx60ti class used to be, given its a trash bin tier of silicon. Its at least not as bad as the absolute trash bin tier of silicon that is in the RTX 4060 that shouldn't even be produced.

 

35 minutes ago, jaslion said:

It woulda been nice as a 4050. No complaints there :p.

 

So basically the card this SHOULD have been

 

I mean I agree that the RTX 4060 Base Model Non-Ti should have been a 4050 but I would take one at $224.99-$249.99 for 1080p gaming. Its a pretty good 1080p card and its got DLSS-3 for a boost whenever I feel like it so ya, I will give Nvidia that much - just because 1080p will probably remain the value gaming resolution for basically forever and at 1080p the narrow BUS width isn't as big of a problem.

 

But Ill admit Im specifically looking for a good side to at least one of these cards and in my eyes its the entry level one because why would you buy a 4060-Ti for 1080p? Its supposed to be a 1440p card so it just doesn't make any sense.

 

Hardware unboxed did a review comparing the 4060 NON-Ti to the Ti version to see if the extra $100 is worth it, not even considering the 16GB model.

 

What they found is that thanks to the BUS width limiting performance to a certain level, even the 4060-Ti 8GB just cannot unleash its full potential in a lot of scenarios - even if it is not limited by VRAM. In these scenarios its less than 10% faster than the NON-Ti

 

So really, why would you ever buy the Ti unless its maybe only $30 or $40 more than the Base Model NON-Ti? Its just another 1080p card after all with a bit higher FPS and thats it.

 

 

[Agall]

2 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

 

I mean I agree that the RTX 4060 Base Model Non-Ti should have been a 4050 but I would take one at $224.99-$249.99 for 1080p gaming. Its a pretty good 1080p card and its got DLSS-3 for a boost whenever I feel like it so ya, I will give Nvidia that much - just because 1080p will probably remain the value gaming resolution for basically forever and at 1080p the narrow BUS width isn't as big of a problem.

 

But Ill admit Im specifically looking for a good side to at least one of these cards and in my eyes its the entry level one because why would you buy a 4060-Ti for 1080p? Its supposed to be a 1440p card so it just doesn't make any sense.

 

Hardware unboxed did a review comparing the 4060 NON-Ti to the Ti version to see if the extra $100 is worth it, not even considering the 16GB model.

 

What they found is that thanks to the BUS width limiting performance to a certain level, even the 4060-Ti 8GB just cannot unleash its full potential in a lot of scenarios - even if it is not limited by VRAM. In these scenarios its less than 10% faster than the NON-Ti

 

So really, why would you ever buy the Ti unless its maybe only $30 or $40 more than the Base Model NON-Ti? Its just another 1080p card after all with a bit higher FPS and thats it.

 

 

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
			16.7%	3072	4060 8GB $300

 

I'll just leave this here, again.

[WallacEngineering]

12 minutes ago, Agall said:

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
			16.7%	3072	4060 8GB $300

 

I'll just leave this here, again.

 

Lol ya I saw and so ya at $225-$250 the price would make sense for the 4060 base model as it would pretty much match the original MSRP of a 3050 with a good uplift over the 3050 and DLSS-3 to boot.

 

Thats what I call a good value from one gen to the next - a value I would expect to see - even if the name is wrong.

[Agall]

4 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

Lol ya I saw and so ya at $225-$250 the price would make sense for the 4060 base model as it would pretty much match the original MSRP of a 3050 with a good uplift over the 3050 and DLSS-3 to boot.

 

Thats what I call a good value from one gen to the next - a value I would expect to see - even if the name is wrong.

I personally don't mind a shift in pricing or tiering, but when its both and its drastic between a single generation, its just too much.

 

+2 tiers relative to past and nearly doubling the respective price is just disgusting.

[WallacEngineering]

1 minute ago, Agall said:

I personally don't mind a shift in pricing or tiering, but when its both and its drastic between a single generation, its just too much.

 

+2 tiers relative to past and nearly doubling the respective price is just disgusting.

 

Ya its pretty bad, I definitely wouldn't ever say that its not - but if you remove the class of silicon, take away the name and just purely look at the performance and features that a card gives you for the price that you pay, a base model 4060 does in fact make perfect sense for the value 1080p gamer at $250 or less.

 

Even a few years ago when people were picking up previous-gen (at the time) RX 580's for $200 they were considered an excellent value for 1080p gaming. This is a current generation card with a pretty cool frame gen feature and miles better 1080p performance than an RX 580 had even back when they were new. So $50 more than what they paid back then for the "bargain-bin last-gen card" seems perfectly acceptable to me.

 

But of course, its not $249.99 - its $299.99 which is just nowhere near as appealing. $50 may not seem like much but when you are on a budget and looking at $200-$300 products, $50 is a MASSIVE difference. So unfortunately while I think $249.99 would be acceptable, $299.99 is completely unacceptable.

[Agall]

1 minute ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

Ya its pretty bad, I definitely wouldn't ever say that its not - but if you remove the class of silicon, take away the name and just purely look at the performance and features that a card gives you for the price that you pay, a base model 4060 does in fact make perfect sense for the value 1080p gamer at $250 or less.

 

Even a few years ago when people were picking up previous-gen (at the time) RX 580's for $200 they were considered an excellent value for 1080p gaming. This is a current generation card with a pretty cool frame gen feature and miles better 1080p performance than an RX 580 had even back when they were new. So $50 more than what they paid back then for the "bargain-bin last-gen card" seems perfectly acceptable to me.

 

But of course, its not $249.99 - its $299.99 which is just nowhere near as appealing. $50 may not seem like much but when you are on a budget and looking at $200-$300 products, $50 is a MASSIVE difference. So unfortunately while I think $249.99 would be acceptable, $299.99 is completely unacceptable.

I'd say if the RTX 4060ti 16GB simply retired the 8GB version at $30 higher ($430 that is) then it wouldn't be a bad product. It would at least curtail the concerns of VRAM entirely while supporting DLSS3 and frame generation, while having sufficient RTX performance when combined for those games. 1440p being its maximum however.

 

What I do find strange overall is Nvidia's frankly insulting choices to double or quadruple up the memory bus on some cards, but not others. They clearly think the mid range tier of cards should have better memory configurations likely because they have to entice people more to purchase them. They must not think the flagship tier needs it as much except for the halo product class. RTX 3000 series was really bad in this regard since the 3070/ti/3080 10GB would've been REALLY good cards if they had doubled up the VRAM. Now they're left in the dust by the RX 6700 XT by simply being able to play some games without maxing the VRAM.

[WallacEngineering]

5 minutes ago, Agall said:

I'd say if the RTX 4060ti 16GB simply retired the 8GB version at $30 higher ($430 that is) then it wouldn't be a bad product. It would at least curtail the concerns of VRAM entirely while supporting DLSS3 and frame generation, while having sufficient RTX performance when combined for those games. 1440p being its maximum however.

 

What I do find strange overall is Nvidia's frankly insulting choices to double or quadruple up the memory bus on some cards, but not others. They clearly think the mid range tier of cards should have better memory configurations likely because they have to entice people more to purchase them. They must not think the flagship tier needs it as much except for the halo product class. RTX 3000 series was really bad in this regard since the 3070/ti/3080 10GB would've been REALLY good cards if they had doubled up the VRAM. Now they're left in the dust by the RX 6700 XT by simply being able to play some games without maxing the VRAM.

 

Ya thats why I wouldn't even recommend the 4060-Ti 16GB for 1440p - to me they are all only 1080p cards because of that BUS width limitation. The fact that it goes from a small uplift in performance at 1080p versus last gen to ZERO uplift or even loosing to last gen just makes it impossible for me to recommend at that resolution.

 

Even if the Ti 16GB was $430 thats still a terrible value considering the 6700-XT has the same performance for less. Thats why in the OP I described an acceptable price layout of $250 - base model, $300 - Ti 8GB, $340 - Ti 16GB. The jump from base model to Ti 8GB is simply not worth a full $100 and it only costs Nvidia $20 to double the VRAM so give them 100% profit on the extra VRAM and call it $40 to go from Ti 8GB to Ti 16GB.

 

But see that means even $430 for the Ti 16GB is still a crap value - thats just how far off Nvidia really is with this crap - especially considering the 50-class dies and BUS widths.

[Agall]

2 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

Ya thats why I wouldn't even recommend the 4060-Ti 16GB for 1440p - to me they are all only 1080p cards because of that BUS width limitation. The fact that it goes from a small uplift in performance at 1080p versus last gen to ZERO uplift or even loosing to last gen just makes it impossible for me to recommend at that resolution.

 

Even if the Ti 16GB was $430 thats still a terrible value considering the 6700-XT has the same performance for less. Thats why in the OP I described an acceptable price layout of $250 - base model, $300 - Ti 8GB, $340 - Ti 16GB. The jump from base model to Ti 8GB is simply not worth a full $100 and it only costs Nvidia $20 to double the VRAM so give them 100% profit on the extra VRAM and call it $40 to go from Ti 8GB to Ti 16GB.

 

But see that means even $430 for the Ti 16GB is still a crap value - thats just how far off Nvidia really is with this crap - especially considering the 50-class dies and BUS widths.

I'd rather buy an Arc A770 16GB than an RTX 4060ti 16GB personally, but that might be my underdog bias speaking. The Acer card regularly goes on sale for $320, which is on par with an RTX 4060's price and generally beats the RTX 4060ti in rasterization.

Acer Predator BiFrost Arc A770 Video Card Predator BiFrost Intel Arc A770 OC DP.BKCWW.P02 - Newegg.com

 

Gladly the crap GPU market is making Intel Arc compelling, which is good for the long term health of the market.

[WallacEngineering]

43 minutes ago, Agall said:

I'd rather buy an Arc A770 16GB than an RTX 4060ti 16GB personally, but that might be my underdog bias speaking. The Acer card regularly goes on sale for $320, which is on par with an RTX 4060's price and generally beats the RTX 4060ti in rasterization.

Acer Predator BiFrost Arc A770 Video Card Predator BiFrost Intel Arc A770 OC DP.BKCWW.P02 - Newegg.com

 

Gladly the crap GPU market is making Intel Arc compelling, which is good for the long term health of the market.

 

See thats what makes my $340 suggested price even more perfect because if the A770 16GB is $320 then that makes absolute perfect sense.

 

In that scenario Intel basically becomes AMD 2.0 lol - a bit more raster performance but less Ray-Tracing performance and less driver stability for a bit less money.

 

Hmmm... Doesn't that sound familiar to you...? Lol

 

Im glad we have a third player as well, I just wish it wasn't Intel - already a massive market-dominating CPU manufacturer.

 

I feel like its okay for AMD to have both CPUs and GPUs for now because they don't dominate market share in either category, although their Server CPUs are taking off like rocket ships lately lol.

[Agall]

1 minute ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

See thats what makes my $340 suggested price even more perfect because if the A770 16GB is $320 then that makes absolute perfect sense.

 

In that scenario Intel basically becomes AMD 2.0 lol - a bit more raster performance but less Ray-Tracing performance and less driver stability for a bit less money.

 

Hmmm... Doesn't that sound familiar to you...? Lol

 

Im glad we have a third player as well, I just wish it wasn't Intel - already a massive market-dominating CPU manufacturer.

 

I feel like its okay for AMD to have both CPUs and GPUs for now because they don't dominate market share in either category, although their Server CPUs are taking off like rocket ships lately lol.

I've seen no issues with the drivers so far. Its not that they're unstable but just new, so there were gaps in performance using older API's that've been mostly ironed out. I'd expect more performance over time, but not much, maybe RX 6000 series type gains over time. Still seem more stable than Radeon drivers overall though, lol.

[WallacEngineering]

16 minutes ago, Agall said:

I've seen no issues with the drivers so far. Its not that they're unstable but just new, so there were gaps in performance using older API's that've been mostly ironed out. I'd expect more performance over time, but not much, maybe RX 6000 series type gains over time. Still seem more stable than Radeon drivers overall though, lol.

 

I mean I would have to disagree as my XTX is perfectly stable in all games old and new apart from Atomic Heart which has since been fixed by the devs (so it wasn't a driver thing it was the game) but I have certainly heard that ARC has become a hell of a lot better in a very short time frame and I have high hopes for their second gen and I think they may just be able to match the RTX 4070 Non-Ti with the next gen top-tier card.

 

I have heard tho that because they are so new they still have some fairly significant issues with older games but I figured they would need some time and is expected if you ask me.

[jaslion]

10 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

Even a few years ago when people were picking up previous-gen (at the time) RX 580's for $200

But the thing with those was that at thet ime they were also excellent 60fps+ of not even higher fps (100+) with medium settings 1440p cards without much trouble AND had the frame buffer to boot. All back in 2017-2018.

 

We now got a card for more money in the same performance level that cant even really do that well.

 

 

[WallacEngineering]

1 hour ago, jaslion said:

But the thing with those was that at thet ime they were also excellent 60fps+ of not even higher fps (100+) with medium settings 1440p cards without much trouble AND had the frame buffer to boot. All back in 2017-2018.

 

We now got a card for more money in the same performance level that cant even really do that well.

 

 

 

Well the RTX 4060 can do a solid 100 FPS at 1080p High in Demanding AAA games. Thats not bad. Its not fantastic but its not bad either...

[jaslion]

5 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

Well the RTX 4060 can do a solid 100 FPS at 1080p High in Demanding AAA games. Thats not bad. Its not fantastic but its not bad either...

Its not bad but also its kinda meh? Like this was the bar set in like 2015 that a mid range card should run the games at the popular resolution of the time at pretty high settings with good fps.

 

Right until the end of the 2000 series these cards were marketed as great for 1080p good for 1440p. Which they were.

 

Then now we have a gpu that currently still does this but is now marketed solely for 1080p and well is barely a step up in performance but priced like a the high end mid ranger it isnt.

 

Amd did it somewhat right with the currently about 230-240$ rx7600 which is pretty much where that kinda card should be and the 6700 and 6700xt are also right where they should be as these are lower level enthausiast gear and solid 1440p performers.

 

Solely due to the 8gb of vram Id not even put a 4060ti which CAN do 1440p pretty well as a 1440p card and the 16gb expensive one absolutly not because it goes up against a rx6800 which is simply faster in all ways just lacks dlss3 which isnt even applicable in all games

 

 

All in all I find these dissapointing and  clear view of how nvidia sees the consumer market. We get the scraps, pay them as much as we can and are left in the dust.

[WallacEngineering]

4 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Its not bad but also its kinda meh? Like this was the bar set in like 2015 that a mid range card should run the games at the popular resolution of the time at pretty high settings with good fps.

 

Right until the end of the 2000 series these cards were marketed as great for 1080p good for 1440p. Which they were.

 

Then now we have a gpu that currently still does this but is now marketed solely for 1080p and well is barely a step up in performance but priced like a the high end mid ranger it isnt.

 

Amd did it somewhat right with the currently about 230-240$ rx7600 which is pretty much where that kinda card should be and the 6700 and 6700xt are also right where they should be as these are lower level enthausiast gear and solid 1440p performers.

 

Solely due to the 8gb of vram Id not even put a 4060ti which CAN do 1440p pretty well as a 1440p card and the 16gb expensive one absolutly not because it goes up against a rx6800 which is simply faster in all ways just lacks dlss3 which isnt even applicable in all games

 

All in all I find these dissapointing and  clear view of how nvidia sees the consumer market. We get the scraps, pay them as much as we can and are left in the dust.

 

I mean yea, thats why I don't recommend the Ti 8GB or Ti 16GB whatsoever and only recommend the Base model as long as the price drops a bit.

 

See $250 is an okay price for a 1080p but then like you said - the Ti models SHOULD be 1440p capable but they show ZERO performance uplift over last-gen cards due to BUS width limiting performance and that is just completely unacceptable at $400 and $500 respectively.

 

Thats why I said $250 for Base, $300 for Ti 8GB and $340 for Ti 16GB - because really they are ALL 1080p cards.

 

Since RTX 4060 Base Model can do a solid 90+ FPS at 1080p High in Demanding AAA games without any DLSS or any tricks of any kind, that means even with no tricks at all its a solid 1080p card. Now use those tricks to your advantage and you can actually start to max out some monitors.

 

Once you enable DLSS-3 you can push beyond 120 FPS at high settings - making a standard 144/165Hz cheapy $120+ 1080p monitors an excellent fit for the card.

 

But thats the thing - because these cards drop performance at 1440p, I can't recommend them for 1440p gaming - ANY of them.

[hollyh88]

15 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

Im not sure where this guy got his hands on an RTX 4060-Ti 16GB early, but he has been benchmarking it.

 

We already know that all the RTX 4060 variants run like hot garbage thanks to 50-Class Die sizes and BUS widths, and the extra 8GB of VRAM on the 16GB edition makes no difference whatsoever if the game isn't pushing past 8GB of VRAM usage.

 

In short, its a dumb card - because you are paying a premium for extra VRAM you will probably never use (observe the horrid frame rates at 4K High because its not a 4K card, or even a 1440p High/Ultra Card for that matter - Nvidia made that perfectly clear when they gimped the cards)

 

The ONLY RTX 4060 model that makes any sense at all is the Base Model NON-Ti for $299.99 - that is if you can NOT find a RTX 3060 for cheaper. At least the Base Model card is a good 1080p High/Ultra card for an ALMOST acceptable price. If you want to play at 1440p, buy an RTX 4070 NON-Ti or an AMD RX 6700-XT/6750-XT/6800/6800-XT.

 

The RTX 4060-Ti 8GB and RTX 4060-Ti 16GB are both a complete waste of your time and money because they were designed to have enough Cuda Cores for 1440p but the BUS width limits their performance at resolutions above 1080p to the point where they show absolutely ZERO improvement over an RTX 3060-Ti.

 

Now do not mis-understand me, there is a world in which all of the RTX 4060 models make perfect sense. The problem is price. If the RTX 4060 Non-Ti was $250, and then the 4060-Ti 8GB was $300 and the 4060-Ti 16GB was $340, THEN maybe you could say they were pretty tempting. However, that just isn't the case - and with the fairly small overall performance improvement going from the Base Model to the Ti, there is just no way in hell anyone should be paying $100 to move up to the next tier of 4060.

 

Way to go Nvidia, you have single-handedly gimped your own near-monopoly grip on the market by sabotaging the design of your most popular class of gaming GPU - absolute idiots. Maybe an AMD spy snuck in and advised them on the design.

 

AMD - if you did that, I tip my hat to you 

 

(Weird, this guy disabled embedding on this video)

(9) RTX 4060 Ti 16gb vs RTX 4060 Ti 8gb - Watch This Before Buy - YouTube

Gigabyte GeForce RTX­­ 4060 Ti GAMING OC 8G
469 euros
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GAMING OC 16G
549 euros
Gigabyte AERO GeForce RTX 4060 TI AERO OC 16G
559 euros
Inno3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2
589 euros
lol neither of these are worth it as such pricing but still.. lol 80 bucks more for the same gigabyte card but then 16gb of vram. (with many prices still coming out every hour)
its the same card though pretty much.

[WallacEngineering]

@jaslion

@Agall

 

You know what, I think I have figured it out, I think I know exactly why Nvidia is doing what they are doing. If you think about it, each class of card has a chosen performance level and at a chosen resolution it is specifically designed for. This does NOT excuse their pricing, nor would I ever try to defend their pricing, but it does at least explain some of the weird differences in die sizes and classes we are seeing these days. Allow me to explain...

 

So the RTX 4060s - All Variants - are designed for 1920x1080p. Choosing between the Base Model and the Ti simply determines your FPS/Settings level. Perhaps MAYBE the RTX-4060 Ti 8GB/16GB COULD designed for 2560x1080p (Ultrawide 1080p).

 

Then Nvidia wants you to buy the RTX 4070 Base Non-Ti 12GB for an ideal 2560x1440p Higher Settings experience with High Refresh Rate or perhaps 3440x1440p at most.

 

Then you have the 4070-Ti 12GB for an "ideal experience" at 3440x1440p or perhaps 3840x1600p (Ultrawide 1600p) at the absolute most.

 

 

 

Then you have the RTX 4080 designed specifically for 4K Ultra at reasonable frame rates or 4K High at high frame rates.

 

Finally you have the RTX 4090 designed for 4K Ultra at high rame rates or 5120x2160p (4K UltraWide) at the absolute most.

 

So as you can see, each class has a specifically selected design for a specific resolution, Nvidia has chosen to disregard uplift over last gen or choosing specific dies for specific classes in favor of labeling a specific class for a specific resolution and then manufacturing cards specifically designed for those needs.

 

When you look at it that way - Every single card makes perfect sense - how they are designed, BUS widths and Die Sizes, Cuda Core counts - all of the above - except for one card: The RTX 4060-Ti 16GB. Why do they even offer a 1080p card with double the VRAM when its completely unnecessary? The only explanation is for certain edge case games like Hogwarts Legacy that Gobble up VRAM even at 1920x1080p Ultra.

 

This would mean that the use case for the RTX 4060-Ti 16GB is specifically to give you piece of mind at 1080p Ultra in any game that ever comes out within the lifespan of the card - piece of mind that you will never run out of VRAM no matter how un-optimized a game might be.

 

But again, this does NOT excuse their horrid pricing. The RTX 4060-Ti 16GB really should be a $340 card and the RTX 4070 Base Non-Ti 12GB should be a $500 card and so on and so forth - blah blah blah.

 

This makes me believe there won't even be an RTX 4050 at all - because gaming at 720p with a dedicated GPU is an obsolete idea. Its not something anyone would actually do these days.

 

If AMD is thinking the same way then they are currently missing their 2560x1440p card all-together which is quite a problem considering it is a very popular gaming resolution these days.

 

The RX 7900-XTX is their 4K card and the 7900-XT is their 3440x1440/3840x1600p card, then the 7600 is their 1080p card.

 

So their ideal 2560x1440p card just... isn't there... At all... Hopefully they will fix that problem soon with the rumored upcoming 7800/7800-XT.

 

3 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

Gigabyte GeForce RTX­­ 4060 Ti GAMING OC 8G
469 euros
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GAMING OC 16G
549 euros

 

Ouch, those prices are horrid, especially with the exchange rate from Euros to USD.

 

So in other words its about $600 USD for a 1080p card with 16GB of VRAM for you guys in 2023.

 

I don't know about you but I would tell Nvidia blatantly to their faces to **** right off at that point - just hell no lol