News GeForce RTX 4060 Launches on June 29th for $299

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
With DLSS 3 frame gen enabled, performance goes up drastically, with up to a 2.6x performance increase compared to the RTX 2060 Super.
Click to expand...

Let's not count DLSS 3 here, only pure rasterized performance if we really want to compare the 4060 with previous gen cards which lack proper support for DLSS3.
It is moot.

Nvidia claims the card offers a 20% improvement over the GeForce RTX 3060 12 GB in traditional rasterization and bigger gains when RT and DLSS are factored in.

So, based on Nvidia's specs/claims, since we are getting up to a 70% increase (with DLSS 3) and a 20% increase (without DLSS) over the RTX 3060, that says that DLSS 3 is bad or unfair metric for comparison. A lot of disparity here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atomicWAR, Why_Me and Jagar123
This card is clearly meant for 1080p, but trust me, this piece of garbage isn't worth $299. Where's the 192-bit bus and 12 GB of memory? This is why I'm going to stick with my 6700 XT.
 
Hopefully, it will inject some life into the mid-range GPU market
Click to expand...

this is a butchered 4060 ti...which was a failure and barely sells (as everyone knows its a 50 tier gpu thats actually worse than last gen outside dlss3 which not many games support)

you are honestly better off saving for at least a 4070 (still not best choice but least better value to performance) or going with intel a770.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atomicWAR and Why_Me
Why pay $300 for this when a $500 console will completely blow it away. This card can't play anything at 4K with over 30fps. In fact modern games (Last of Us pt 1, Jedi Survivor...) are all requiring over 8G for measley old 1080p. This card is delivering GTX1080 performance for about 40% off of the original 1080 price. What other level of tech can still be worth 60% of its original cost after seven years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigdragon
Have to agree with other posts - need to knock off at least another $100 to be competitive with current "mainstream" GPUs. Performance is lacking but the big miss is the 8GB DDR when so many new games demand more. If you are willing to stick with 8GB you can find a used RTX 3070 for the same price.
 
The RTX 4060 will not even be twice as fast as the RTX 2060 (6GB), since the RTX 4060Ti doesn't even get there. The RTX 2060 came out in Jan 2019, 4.5 years ago. Very disappointing, and I think this marks an unprecedented length of time in GPU history for relative speed/VRAM increases for successor cards (i.e. at the equivalent launch price point). I guess I'll wait for the RTX 5060.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atomicWAR
More meh from Nvidia. Will it ever stop this gen? Nope they're dug in. They'll drop prices just before 5000 series at best at this point. My guess is next gen will be cheaper though as Nvidia and AMD both can't be happy with sales this gen. (rtx 4080/RX 7900xtx and below...the 4090 remains the oddball this gen)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted member 2731765
While I agree this card is too much, especially for what it offers. There are reasons why that is. People sit at their keyboards and complain on forums and give us all the reasons why we should not buy, all while your waiting for your RTX 30xx or 40xx to arrive from NE.

This is simple, stop paying for it, Gamers made Nvidia king, and that loyalty is a one way street. Brand loyal serves the consumer no purpose, and as you can see, they truly dont, they want more because gamers will pay more.

I see the same people in here complaining and screaming "I aint paying that for this pos," or "Is Nvidia smoking crack, no I wont buy it" and in their sig is a rig with a Nvidia card from the last few years. most are more recent.

🙄
 
  • Like
Reactions: helper800
Ok. Let's be real. When you stop looking at the people who are paid to upsell the 40xx series cards and you get into real world results, the 4060ti was essentially a rehashed 3060ti with new video encoding processor and a reduced buss, which caused games to crash on 4k, while the 3060ti did not crash. It had about the same performance of a 3060ti, with it being worse, better, or the same depending on the game.

I would expect the 4060 to be a rehash of a 3060. Honestly, you would be better to spend that $300 on a 3070 off of ebay. Or if you need to save some money, buy a 2080 for about $215 and get better performance. or if you still need to save money, buy a 1080ti off of ebay for about $180. The 1080 ti gets higher benchmarks than a 3060. and if the 4060 performs the same as a 3060, then it would be better to spend almost half the amount of money on a 1080ti.
 
Metal Messiah. said:
Let's not count DLSS 3 here, only pure rasterized performance if we really want to compare the 4060 with previous gen cards which lack proper support for DLSS3.
It is moot.

Nvidia claims the card offers a 20% improvement over the GeForce RTX 3060 12 GB in traditional rasterization and bigger gains when RT and DLSS are factored in.

So, based on Nvidia's specs/claims, since we are getting up to a 70% increase (with DLSS 3) and a 20% increase (without DLSS) over the RTX 3060, that says that DLSS 3 is bad or unfair metric for comparison. A lot of disparity here.
Click to expand...
Yes we will count DLSS3 here otherwise you should never compare products ever again.
You can't just remove features willy-nilly because it doesn't fit your narrative. It's a feature that AMD doesn't have, period.

This 4040 Ti is not even worth $199.
 
IamNotChatGpt said:
Yes we will count DLSS3 here otherwise you should never compare products ever again.
You can't just remove features willy-nilly because it doesn't fit your narrative. It's a feature that AMD doesn't have, period.

This 4040 Ti is not even worth $199.
Click to expand...
This is completely disingenuous and a false dilemma. DLSS3 is a seriously troubled 'feature' that has nearly zero support. AMD has FSR which can be compared against DLSS as a like for like, so to say its a feature they don't have is either ignorance, or subterfuge. To say he has a narrative is completely reaching as well. What language did @Metal Messiah. use to make you come to this conclusion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted member 2731765
Game consoles make way more sense than the RTX 4060. I'm wondering how long it's going to take until a developer comes out and says Nvidia's latest offering doesn't meet the minimum requirements for their new game.

AMD and Intel have a huge opportunity here. Nvidia is stagnant. This is the perfect opportunity to launch a disruptive product like Ryzen proved to be. The RTX 4060 has set the bar so low that both companies should easily be able to undercut Nvidia.
 
bigdragon said:
Game consoles make way more sense than the RTX 4060. I'm wondering how long it's going to take until a developer comes out and says Nvidia's latest offering doesn't meet the minimum requirements for their new game.

AMD and Intel have a huge opportunity here. Nvidia is stagnant. This is the perfect opportunity to launch a disruptive product like Ryzen proved to be. The RTX 4060 has set the bar so low that both companies should easily be able to undercut Nvidia.
Click to expand...
Imagine if AMD launched the 7800 xt at 400-500 dollars and the 7700 xt at 300-400 dollars? That would hit Nvidia right in the profits.
 
IamNotChatGpt said:
Yes we will count DLSS3 here otherwise you should never compare products ever again
Click to expand...
lets not. why ? simple, nvidia is using DLSS as a crutch, with out DLSS enabled, the performace of most of these cards suck, the 4060 looks to be the prime example of this. with DLSS enabled, we are getting the performance the 40 series, not counting the 4090, should be getting with it disabled.

it sure seems like nvidia bumped each tiers performance up from the tier the card should be, a 4060 ti should be a 4050, 4060 ? probably more like a 4030. do the same with the rest of the line up.

bigdragon said:
Game consoles make way more sense than the RTX 4060
Click to expand...
not if there are NO games on the consoles that a person wants to play, then a console makes ZERO sense for that person, and their money would be better spent on a comp upgrade.
 
Ogotai said:
not if there are NO games on the consoles that a person wants to play, then a console makes ZERO sense for that person, and their money would be better spent on a comp upgrade.
Click to expand...
That is hysterical. Unless you are playing casual games the consoles have way more titles. If you are playing casual games you only need integrated.
 
helper800 said:
Imagine if AMD launched the 7800 xt at 400-500 dollars and the 7700 xt at 300-400 dollars? That would hit Nvidia right in the profits.
Click to expand...
Maybe a tiny bit. The majority of Nvidia's customers aren't going to leave them regardless of price. Really no different than the Mac faithful.
 
lmcnabney said:
That is hysterical. Unless you are playing casual games the consoles have way more titles. If you are playing casual games you only need integrated.
Click to expand...
oh ? so its funny that there could be people out there, where, the games they play, are on a comp only ? what games do you play on a console ? i bet NONE of them are ones i would play.

unless you think games like starcraft, Age of empires, WoW, are casual games.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom