Nvidia RTX 4060 Ti Review: 8GB of VRAM at $400 is a No-Go

[Steve]

Frankly, we don't need to conduct an exhaustive test on the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB to inform you that it represents shockingly poor value. This new 8GB GPU, priced at $400, is woefully inadequate.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2685-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060-ti/

 

[neeyik]

Specs for the cards in the review:

 

[EdmondRC]

LOL, what the heck Nvidia, the 3060 Ti already exist for $400. Why even bother with this? What is it 2% better? Terrible, simply terrible. The 16GB variant would have much better served the 4070 Ti and 4070, I'm not even sure how worthwhile it is for the 16GB variant given the benchmarks. It's not like its going to make it faster when it's not VRAM limited. This one and the 4060 should have come with 12 GB.

The 40 series is not only skippable, but should be skipped in order to force a price correction with the 50 series. Nvidia has left the mid-range wide open for AMD. Will AMD mess it up again? Probably...

 

[KofeViR]

Price should have been 349 for 8GB and 399 for 16GB version - however 16GB is mostly pointless when GPU is too weak anyway. We have seen this many times.

However, most PC gamers don't play AAA games on max settings. Efficiency is important for many (noise, heat output and powerbill) and this is why AMD needs to hurry up with 7600, 7700 and 7800 series.

 

[DSirius]

Thank you for the review Steve, and especially for the clear and concise title Keep posting.

 

[wiyosaya]

Surprise, surprise. Nvidia will be Nvidia and keeps fleecing their sheep.

 

[yukka]

Disappointing but not surprising (apart from the lower scores on the last of us and on a par performance with the 3060ti in some other games). We knew it was going to be unimpressive. What would be really useful is knowing what the fps is when you turn on path tracing and frame generation in cyberpunk and frame generation in general on other titles. Does the framerate generation make cyberpunk playable with RT past 60fps on a 60ti card (my 3060ti scratches 45fps with bad lows). I understand sort of, that you wanted to leave those out but its the only reason owners of the 3060 or 3060ti would consider this card. Half a story really.

 

[noel24]

It looks worse than AMD's 6600XT refresh.
And those minimums on the last of Us @1440p? LOL, It's actually slower than previous gen 3060Ti. Whatahell is goin on in here?
The horror, the horror!

 

[yRaz]

Price should have been 349 for 8GB and 399 for 16GB version - however 16GB is mostly pointless when GPU is too weak anyway. We have seen this many times.

However, most PC gamers don't play AAA games on max settings. Efficiency is important for many (noise, heat output and powerbill) and this is why AMD needs to hurry up with 7600, 7700 and 7800 series.

yeah, I was hoping we'd be surprised by the 4060ti GPU performance when it wasn't limited by VRAM but they couldn't let it compete with the 4070. I guess that 32MB of cache they put on it doesn't make up for the limited bus width on the memory bus.

Considering relative performance to last gen cards, the 4060ti really seems like 50 series card.

 

[Rolfil]

However, most PC gamers don't play AAA games on max settings. Efficiency is important for many (noise, heat output and powerbill) and this is why AMD needs to hurry up with 7600, 7700 and 7800 series.

Only because most PC gamers are still using very old cards. The GTX1060 is still the most popular card on the steam survey. What gamers want is a reasonably priced replacement for much older cards that CAN allow them to play at high settings. I replaced my 1060 with a AMD 6700XT and can run Forza Horizon 5 at 1440p with maxed out/Ultra settings. I couldn't even play AC: Odyssey at 1080p at 30fps without turning settings down with a 1060! The AMD 7600 only having 8gb and a higher power usage (due to node size) is disappointing.

 

[emmzo]

Oh, man, what an absolute garbage and another insult to the gaming community, but this time the backlash comes from all sides. DOA. RIP. If only AMD were smarter, but they just follow. The 7600xt will probably be on par with 6650xt or 2-3% higher, 8gb vram and cost 350$, while one could get a 6700xt for less.

 

[neeyik]

I guess that 32MB of cache they put on it doesn't make up for the limited bus width on the memory bus.

Arguably it does for its sector. Here's a rejig of the specs table, to make it easier to compare the 4060 Ti to the others:



At 1440p, on average, the 4060 Ti was 4% slower than the 3070, in Steve's testing. The latter has a 36% advantage in pixel fill rate and a 56% advantage in memory bandwidth; shading and texturing are down by 8%. The 4060 Ti is also a little faster than the RX 6700 XT, on average, but the Radeon has way better texturing, fill rate, and bandwidth.

Wide and fast memory buses are important when you don't have lots of cache available, but when it's there, the bus traffic notably decreases.

 

[EdmondRC]

MSI MECH 12 GB 6750 XT available at $329 on Newegg today. Or you can wait for 4060 Ti 8GB for DLSS3 frame generation!

 

[letsgoiowa]

Is this the worst generational improvement in GPUs ever? It's less than when AMD refreshed the *same chips* because they at least had the benefit of doubling VRAM and lowering costs.

 

[punctualturn]

Really surprised by the scores both at HU and TS, even though they are well deserved.

That said, what the heck is wrong with Forza Horizon 5 and RDNA3?

Worse, being a MS title for their Xbox platform, why the heck it favors Nvidia?

 

[michalcz]

Nvidia showing us middle finger... again.

 

[neeyik]

That said, what the heck is wrong with Forza Horizon 5 and RDNA3?

Worse, being a MS title for their Xbox platform, why the heck it favors Nvidia?

FH5 is a good poster child for RDNA 2, as seen in our 7900 XT vs 6800 XT article. It's perhaps just one of those games that the RDNA 3 compiler does a poor job of it. As Nvidia, it's been using the game as a flag-waving exercise for DLSS 3 so there are probably some FH5-specific optimizations in its compiler.

 

[UdyrL]

This is going to be a 4 star product on some other sites where they post advertorials for the green team.

 

[yRaz]

Arguably it does for its sector. Here's a rejig of the specs table, to make it easier to compare the 4060 Ti to the others:

View attachment 89034

At 1440p, on average, the 4060 Ti was 4% slower than the 3070, in Steve's testing. The latter has a 36% advantage in pixel fill rate and a 56% advantage in memory bandwidth; shading and texturing are down by 8%. The 4060 Ti is also a little faster than the RX 6700 XT, on average, but the Radeon has way better texturing, fill rate, and bandwidth.

Wide and fast memory buses are important when you don't have lots of cache available, but when it's there, the bus traffic notably decreases.

My biggest issue is that for that kind of money you should be able to get some kind of 4k performance out of it at this point. I paid $330 for my 6700XT and it has better 4k performance than what this card is offering for $400. My setup is very niche but 4k displays are more common than people give them credit for.

 

[Nobina]

This is straight up garbage, Nvidia managed to surprise me even more. It's almost as if they're doing this on purpose. Power consumption is a + if it means anything to anyone.

 

[loki1944]

8GB of VRAM is plenty for 99% of users who are @1080p and don't bother maxing anything out; even my GTX 780Ti 3GB, R9 290X 4GB, and R9 Fury 4GB cards can play modern games at medium to low settings @1080p, my GTX 980Ti 6GB and Vega 64 can do high to medium @1080p/1440p.

 

[loki1944]

Price should have been 349 for 8GB and 399 for 16GB version - however 16GB is mostly pointless when GPU is too weak anyway. We have seen this many times.

However, most PC gamers don't play AAA games on max settings. Efficiency is important for many (noise, heat output and powerbill) and this is why AMD needs to hurry up with 7600, 7700 and 7800 series.

Exactly.

 

[takaozo]

Mwahahaha what a joke, I wasn't expecting this from a 4050Tie card to almost beat the last gen 3070.
With half the memory bus, half the PCIe lines and 70% less power, impressive.
Now only if the price was below $250 ($300 adjusted) maybe it will make some sense.

 

[EdmondRC]

It's really unfathomable what Nvidia is doing here. Why are they pricing these cards so high? Can they really not turn a profit on a 188nm2 die that only requires a PCB and cooler that can handle 200 Watts (160W TBD) even for OC'ing, without charging $400? If not, PC gaming is dead. This should have been this generation's 4060 series and should have had 12GB Vram, for $300. The upcoming 4060 should have been a $200 4050 with 8GB of VRAM. Every single Nvidia card should be moved down a tier except the 4080 & 4090, the 4080 should just be moved down a pricing tier though.

 

[Vulcanproject]

What is this garbage that's barely faster than a 3060Ti? The performance metrics against that two and a half year old card are simply horrible. You offer barely 10 percent performance uplift and no extra memory for the same price as a card that launched in early December 2020. You can make up most of that by overclocking a 3060Ti!

This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in a long time. This should have 16GB of memory as standard for $399 and then at least Nvidia could point to that as the slight overall improvement of the old 3060Ti. Not even that going for it.