News GeForce RTX 4060 May Consume More Power Than a RTX 3070

[cryoburner]

Prominent hardware leaker kopite7kimi (opens in new tab) believes that the GeForce RTX 4060 will consume more power than Nvidia's current generation GeForce RTX 3070, far more than the GeForce RTX 3060 12GB that it's replacing. But the real question is; how much more power are we talking about?
...
Unfortunately, the leaker doesn't know the exact power specifications of the GeForce RTX 4060, so it's entirely an educated guess as to what it'll be like.

So, even the leaker had no actual numbers, just a suggestion that it could potentially draw more power than a 3070, and from that you jump to the conclusion that the card could draw up to 350 watts? >_>

A reference 3070 has a TDP that's just 10% higher than a reference 3060 Ti (220w vs 200w). If Nvidia positions this card as a successor to the 3060 Ti, then a potentially modest 10% increase in power draw seems like a reasonable possibility.

Realistically, I can't see Nvidia giving this card anything remotely close to a 300-350 watt TDP. That wouldn't exactly be friendly to PC manufacturers who are typically looking to cut corners on PSUs, nor to any mainstream gamers considering upgrading from an older "mid-range" card, only to find their new card is unstable and overheats their system. Something closer to 220 watts seems far more likely than what this article is suggesting, and that's roughly in line with many previous cards around this general price range. And keep in mind that Nvidia shifted model numbers since the 20-series in an attempt to disguise those cards mediocre performance gains outside of raytracing, and to encourage people to move up to a higher tier than they would normally consider buying, so the 2060, 3060 and likely 4060 cards would have likely been given x70 model numbers in prior generations. Likewise, the 1660 was the real x60 card that generation, and the 3050 is intended to be targeted at that market currently.

The big gain of RT over several decades of raster hacks piled on top of each other is in development workflow. When you have an array of cubemaps, reflection maps, screen-space reflections and shadows, deferred rendering, shadow volumes, etc all in play, it is incredibly easy for one minor art change to have knock-on effect across the whole toolchain. Or worse, for it not to have that knock-on effect and start to introduce rendering errors because (e.g.) a cubemap did not get updated when a lightmap changed because someone moved a lamp from one desk to another.
Raytracing calculates all of those effects in real time at runtime. You make a change, and everything is correct immediately. All the tower of hacks you need for - for example - continuous variable time-of-day lighting and shadowing changes are now free and performed by default.

Those "hacks" are what are known as "optimizations", allowing for notably better visuals and more performance than what a given level of hardware could otherwise support. Those optimizations are effectively trading a small amount of visual fidelity in less noticeable areas along with some additional development effort for massive improvements to performance.

And if anything, raytraced effects are only likely to increase developer workload for many years to come. Since the current generation of game consoles only have very limited support for RT, even if developers want to use extensive RT effects for newer PCs and potentially future "Pro" versions of those consoles, then they will need to support two entirely different lighting models, since a lot of their target audience will be on hardware with limited support for those effects. It will likely be many years before most developers will be willing to drop support for non-RT lighting. In any case, lighting the game world is typically only going to amount to a small portion of the resources and budget put into a game's development, so even if RT were to eventually help streamline that process, it might not make that much of a difference to the overall development of a game.

Yeah, no, negative people have said similar things about technology in the past as well and were proven blatantly wrong with their predictions (hi Bill Gates), it’s better to not talk like this about the future. We will see, but I’m cautiously optimistic.

If you are referring to the 640k memory thing, there's no verifiable evidence that Bill Gates ever said that, and for decades he's always denied ever having made that quote. And if he did ever say something similar, it was no doubt in the context of what made sense for PCs to support for the near-future at that time. It's rather unlikely that he ever thought computer memory needs would never rise above that level. So it's likely a fake quote, or at least something taken out of context.

 

[KananX]

If you are referring to the 640k memory thing, there's no verifiable evidence that Bill Gates ever said that, and for decades he's always denied ever having made that quote. And if he did ever say something similar, it was no doubt in the context of what made sense for PCs to support for the near-future at that time. It's rather unlikely that he ever thought computer memory needs would never rise above that level. So it's likely a fake quote, or at least something taken out of context.

Yea, there’s also no “verifiable evidence” that we’re not connected to the Matrix, but great I don’t need Bill Gates to make my argument, people who talk trash about tech aren’t exactly rare.

 

[InvalidError]

If something doesn't change, PC gaming is going to die anyway. Turning console graphics up to 10.5 on a lazy port is not going keep people spending increasingly large amounts of money on gaming PC's.

The original strength of PC gaming was game developers not needing to kiss any game publisher or walled garden gatekeeper's ring to gain access, not ultra-powerful CPUs or GPUs. Games can still be plenty fun with graphics turned down to 1 where it fits the fantasy. Out of control GPU prices will hopefully prod game developers into going back to fundamentals of fun instead of heaping effort on graphics.

 

[KananX]

I don’t know about you guys but I love my pc because it’s built by me and I can do multiple things at once while I’m playing, it’s just the complete freedom I have to do whatever I want. And multiple game platforms and access to thousands of games. Consoles will never be close for me and never comparable, I stopped giving a F about consoles after the N64, when I got my first good PC, and never looked back. The only remotely interesting console would be a PS5 for me, because of some games that aren’t released on other platforms typical to Japan and that’s it. Switch is also interesting for Mario Kart. Minor things.

PS. I own a PS2 and consider it more special than a PS5, it’s 100% a more legendary console than the PS5 will ever be.

 

[InvalidError]

PS. I own a PS2 and consider it more special than a PS5, it’s 100% a more legendary console than the PS5 will ever be.

My newest console is a PS2. Bought it mostly for GT3, GT4, FFX and FFXII while it was on clearance sale before getting discontinued. Paid only $125 for it. Dusted it off to have a look at how GT4 would look on my 50" TV when I bought that, instantly regretted it as 480p and 720i both looked horrible on a 50" LCD. If I ever play any of those games again, it will have to be on emulator.

 

[JWNoctis]

I don’t know about you guys but I love my pc because it’s built by me and I can do multiple things at once while I’m playing, it’s just the complete freedom I have to do whatever I want. And multiple game platforms and access to thousands of games. Consoles will never be close for me and never comparable, I stopped giving a F about consoles after the N64, when I got my first good PC, and never looked back. The only remotely interesting console would be a PS5 for me, because of some games that aren’t released on other platforms typical to Japan and that’s it. Switch is also interesting for Mario Kart. Minor things.

PS. I own a PS2 and consider it more special than a PS5, it’s 100% a more legendary console than the PS5 will ever be.

I thought the main draw of Switch are those infamously-bitter carts. Kinda wonder whether those are going to be the very last of them.

As for GPU performance, it's not as if desktop PC gaming had not been giving way (read: losing market) to portable gaming anyway, and you just don't put anything much above 150W in any mainstream gaming notebook of reasonable size and weight. Developers are obviously going to keep that in mind - They stand to lose out on quite a bit of money, if even the best current-generation notebook won't run their stuff smoothly at max graphics setting.

Either way, if all they have in reserve for desktop gaming are some Ultra+ graphics settings that doesn't actually look much better, or 250fps instead of 150fps... Personally I don't see much point in it at all. How much more power do bragging rights need, anyway?

 

[TerryLaze]

PC gaming has always been a niche market within the overall gaming market. Has PC gaming been much more than a place for crappy console ports in recent years? It may take a shift in the market like this to differentiate PC gaming from consoles again. If something doesn't change, PC gaming is going to die anyway. Turning console graphics up to 10.5 on a lazy port is not going keep people spending increasingly large amounts of money on gaming PC's.

PC has always been the place to dump crappy console (and earlier arcade) ports on, this has been going on since the early 80' just check out larry bundy on youtube. PC hasn't died yet 40 years later.
Also the xbox has a developer mode where it enables you to run a lot of software including chrome basically turning your console into the PC it already is.
PC gaming isn't going to go anyway because consoles are PCs without windows running, and lately they are even x86 PCs.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ5aqx02QDI

 

[KananX]

My newest console is a PS2. Bought it mostly for GT3, GT4, FFX and FFXII while it was on clearance sale before getting discontinued. Paid only $125 for it. Dusted it off to have a look at how GT4 would look on my 50" TV when I bought that, instantly regretted it as 480p and 720i both looked horrible on a 50" LCD. If I ever play any of those games again, it will have to be on emulator.

Same here I bought a used PS2 like 10 years ago maybe for a ridiculously low price including many games for 5 bucks each.
Graphics wise, of course first you don’t have to care that much you’ll get used to it, secondly be sure to use a component cable to have highest quality, never use a composite cable or the quality will be trash on top of outdated graphics. Then, many games have a widescreen option, this is mandatory as well for modern screens.

I thought the main draw of Switch are those infamously-bitter carts. Kinda wonder whether those are going to be the very last of them.

Well obviously there are Mario games and Zelda as well, and Metroid, but I don’t care much about those atm.
PS5 has JRPGS controlled or made by Sony, that’s what makes the PS5 special, otherwise it’s like a Xbox and Xboxes are entirely unnecessary if you own a PC, especially if the PC is good.

 

[InvalidError]

Graphics wise, of course first you don’t have to care that much you’ll get used to it, secondly be sure to use a component cable to have highest quality, never use a composite cable or the quality will be trash on top of outdated graphics. Then, many games have a widescreen option, this is mandatory as well for modern screens.

Playing GT4 in 480p/1080i with widescreen was the main reason I hooked up my PS2 to my TV in the first place, I even bought the component cable all the way back when in anticipation of something like this happening someday. Just tried it again (only game I grabbed that didn't give me a "disc could not be read" error despite the discs still looking in perfect condition and reading fine on my PC) and 1080i is flickery due to (de-)interlacing and 480p looks pretty blocky at 50". While it wasn't as horrible as I remembered, I still don't think I can get used to 480p 3D that looks like pixel art when I can probably have the same games emulated in 4k instead. Time to go fishing for a PS2 emulator!

 

[TerryLaze]

Time to go fishing for a PS2 emulator!

There is only one around but that one is very god. (pcsx2)
But no amount of 4k textures and emulation is going to make it look pretty on a 50" you need a sensibly sized crt.
If you have a PS3 it can be made to play ps2 games and it has an hdmi out so it should provide a somewhat better picture than the ps2.

 

[spongiemaster]

The original strength of PC gaming was game developers not needing to kiss any game publisher or walled garden gatekeeper's ring to gain access, not ultra-powerful CPUs or GPUs. Games can still be plenty fun with graphics turned down to 1 where it fits the fantasy. Out of control GPU prices will hopefully prod game developers into going back to fundamentals of fun instead of heaping effort on graphics.

I would argue the original strength of the PC for gaming was/is a mouse and keyboard. That has always made it better for certain genres of games. Through the 80's and 90's and even into the 2000's consoles consistently had the better graphics, not PC's. It's only been the last decade plus that single GPU high end PC's have separated themselves from consoles. That's basically been its niche in recent years. Release a game on consoles, then later release an "ultimate" edition on PC with higher resolution and refresh rate options. The problem is how lazy so many of the ports have been with the minimal amount of effort done to make it playable on PC so they lack the graphic customizations you would expect on a modern title, or the controls just aren't as tight as they are on a console making the game more enjoyable on a console even if it isn't as pretty. Graphics will always be a priority for game developers because that's the easiest way to get gamers' attention in reviews. It's impossible to demonstrate gameplay or degrees of fun in a website review or video review.

 

[spongiemaster]

Also the xbox has a developer mode where it enables you to run a lot of software including chrome basically turning your console into the PC it already is.
PC gaming isn't going to go anyway because consoles are PCs without windows running, and lately they are even x86 PCs.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ5aqx02QDI

Not sure how options that allow your console to be more like a PC, thus reducing the need for you to use your PC, benefits the future of PC gaming.

PC gaming is never going to die completely. However, if the minimum cost of entry into PC gaming is an entry level $250-300 GPU every few years, the market will be diminished. It will make the PCMR's happy about how elite they are, but it will hurt the market overall.

 

[KananX]

Playing GT4 in 480p/1080i with widescreen was the main reason I hooked up my PS2 to my TV in the first place, I even bought the component cable all the way back when in anticipation of something like this happening someday. Just tried it again (only game I grabbed that didn't give me a "disc could not be read" error despite the discs still looking in perfect condition and reading fine on my PC) and 1080i is flickery due to (de-)interlacing and 480p looks pretty blocky at 50". While it wasn't as horrible as I remembered, I still don't think I can get used to 480p 3D that looks like pixel art when I can probably have the same games emulated in 4k instead. Time to go fishing for a PS2 emulator!

The issue is also that I think you’re using a 4K display? I used it on a 1080p TV, for me it was okay, I’m not gonna say it was good.
Emulators aren’t important to me if I have the original console, and if I want to play on my TV it’s also not a good option.
In general i think GT4 is one of the worst games to play today, it’s a older title but I think all racing games look kinda bad on PS2. What I can recommend, is things like MGS, Prince of Persia - WW, LotR 3, FIFA 10, these are all fine, I think RPGs are generally the best experience on this console and the most special games for the PlayStation in general, I would stay rather away from racing games, modern racing games like Forza 5 are so much better or newer GT on PS4/5.

 

[TerryLaze]

Not sure how options that allow your console to be more like a PC, thus reducing the need for you to use your PC, benefits the future of PC gaming.

Console games are PC games, that's how. They will always recompile their games for windows because it's super cheap for them and they are always bound to make some money.

Also, people game even AAA titles on iGPUs, if YOUR minimum is about 250-300 moneys every few years than that's bad for you but most people just make do.

 

[KananX]

People should also remember the fact that Xbox comes from DirectX Box, and aside from Xbox360 it was always a console that used PC components, albeit more unique ones. PC is a big and better Xbox, more or less always was. The only special consoles are PS and Nintendo.

 

[spongiemaster]

Console games are PC games, that's how. They will always recompile their games for windows because it's super cheap for them and they are always bound to make some money.

Also, people game even AAA titles on iGPUs, if YOUR minimum is about 250-300 moneys every few years than that's bad for you but most people just make do.

You're not following the conversation. If PC and console games are the same, what's the point of gaming on a PC? I'm not sure how you have missed what is going on with PC GPU pricing the past couple of years and what the rumors for the upcoming 4000 series are. I'm not just pulling that 250-300 minimum range out of my butt, good luck finding anything worthwhile below that price range now or in the future. If my options are gaming on an iGPU or a console, it's no contest, I'm going with the console.

 

[KananX]

APU like 5600G, you should see it as a starting point with real GPU put in later to make it a proper high performing PC, I don’t see any issues with that. A lot of people do that. And it’s a better long term investment than a console, IMO, but depends if you want to play on the couch or not. I prefer sitting in my “racing” chair while playing.

 

[JWNoctis]

Not sure how options that allow your console to be more like a PC, thus reducing the need for you to use your PC, benefits the future of PC gaming.

PC gaming is never going to die completely. However, if the minimum cost of entry into PC gaming is an entry level $250-300 GPU every few years, the market will be diminished. It will make the PCMR's happy about how elite they are, but it will hurt market overall.

You're not following the conversation. If PC and console games are the same, what's the point of gaming on a PC? I'm not sure how you have missed what is going on with PC GPU pricing the past couple of years and what the rumors for the upcoming 4000 series are. I'm not just pulling that 250-300 minimum range out of my butt, good luck finding anything worthwhile below that price range now or in the future. If my options are gaming on an iGPU or a console, it's no contest, I'm going with the console.

To be fair, the turnover rate was way faster back in the 00's. By the time RTX 40-series really comes out, it might well have taken enough time for the three generations between GeForce 8 and GeForce FX, or the time between mid-NetBurst P4 and the first Core i-series. Trying to play the latest games of '08 was borderline futility for an average build in '05, and things aren't really cheaper back then, either.

Yet PC gaming had been doing okay all along...Though the economy's better back then, too.

Well obviously there are Mario games and Zelda as well, and Metroid, but I don’t care much about those atm.
PS5 has JRPGS controlled or made by Sony, that’s what makes the PS5 special, otherwise it’s like a Xbox and Xboxes are entirely unnecessary if you own a PC, especially if the PC is good.

Don't forget Pokémons, either - Console exclusives had always been, and might well be the only things keeping those worthwhile these days.

 

[TerryLaze]

You're not following the conversation. If PC and console games are the same, what's the point of gaming on a PC? I'm not sure how you have missed what is going on with PC GPU pricing the past couple of years and what the rumors for the upcoming 4000 series are. I'm not just pulling that 250-300 minimum range out of my butt, good luck finding anything worthwhile below that price range now or in the future. If my options are gaming on an iGPU or a console, it's no contest, I'm going with the console.

A ps5 is like $800 with zero games, if my choices are $300 for a GPU or $800 for a console I know what I'm getting.

Also I will keep hope to the last second that intel will release a decent card at low cost, people tend to think that they delay release because of drivers but waiting for components to get cheaper or just plain waiting for supply from tsmc is just as possible.

 

[spongiemaster]

A ps5 is like $800 with zero games, if my choices are $300 for a GPU or $800 for a console I know what I'm getting.

Also I will keep hope to the last second that intel will release a decent card at low cost, people tend to think that they delay release because of drivers but waiting for components to get cheaper or just plain waiting for supply from tsmc is just as possible.

PS5 digital is $400. Disc is $500. If you're paying more than that to scalpers, that's your issue. PS4 was current generation for 7 years. Every game released for the console during that time worked as intended (except Cyberpunk 2077, though maybe completely broken was the goal for release). Any GPU you buy today for less than $400 will be less capable than current gen consoles and will be a worthless paperweight in 7 years.

 

[InvalidError]

Emulators aren’t important to me if I have the original console, and if I want to play on my TV it’s also not a good option.

I just installed PCSX2 and tried GT4 at 4X resolution (~1440p, the max my GTX1050 can comfortably manage) and I'd say it is certainly a 4X improvement in appearance after going through options to smooth out a couple of glitches. You may want to give it a shot.

If PC and console games are the same, what's the point of gaming on a PC?

For me, PC gaming goes like this: I already need a PC for other reasons and I can afford to toss an extra $150-200 to do some gaming on the side. If I cannot get a decent sub-$200 GPU, then I'm not going to bother with newer PC games I cannot get semi-decent performance from.

That probably describes most of the 60% of people on Steam who still use GPUs with 6GB or less VRAM.

Any GPU you buy today for less than $400 will be less capable than current gen consoles and will be a worthless paperweight in 7 years.

Yet the RX470, GTX1650 and RX6500 are still considered relevant today. It takes several years after new consoles raise the floor on expectations for most games to follow, especially on PC where game publishers have to optimize for what people actually own right now, not things that will be priced out of most PC gamers' budgets for the next 5 years at the glacial rate GPU performance per dollar is progressing. At a glance on the Steam survey, GPUs more powerful than the RTX3060 only account for about 10% of installs with a surprising number of "obsolete" GPUs gaining market share mainly at the expense of IGPs and much older GPUs.

 

[spongiemaster]

Yet the RX470, GTX1650 and RX6500 are still considered relevant today.

The RX 6500 which is brand new, maybe. You yourself have trashed this card repeatedly. How useful is it going to be in 5+ years? Both consoles are more powerful than it when running in a current gen platform. When dropping into a PCIe 3 system? Bleh. The gap will only increase as developers continue to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the the static hardware configurations of the consoles. The other two cards? No, they aren't relevant. No one would recommend buying those.

At a glance on the Steam survey, GPUs more powerful than the RTX3060 only account for about 10% of installs with a surprising number of "obsolete" GPUs gaining market share mainly at the expense of IGPs and much older GPUs.

Which is a giant red flag that reinforces my point. Why is so much old lower end hardware still in use? Because nothing has been released since in the same price range as those cards that is a worthwhile upgrade. The market has priced the mainstream pc gamer out of it, and things do not look any better heading forward. There's not likely to be a sub $600 4000's series GPU released this year. I'd be surprised if we see any 4000 series card msrp below $250 next year. What are all the current gamers looking for a decent sub $200 GPU going to upgrade to?

 

[KananX]

7 years old, seems like a cherry picked number, I think most people don't even keep GPUs that long. 5 years is more realistic, but lets play with it for a second. 7 years = 2015, that's Maxwell stuff and RX 300 series. Both are still fully usable, depending which one you have. GTX 980, 970, usable. R9 Fury X 1080p max, same with 390X or 390. 980 Ti is easily capable for 1080p and more depending on game.

 

[spongiemaster]

As I said, the PS4 was a current generation console for 7 years and thus fully supported for that length of time. Released in 2013. Replaced in 2020.

 

[KananX]

Comparing consoles 1:1 to PCs is awkward. They aren't that comparable, but as you can see, it's still easily viable if you didn't buy midrange or lower back then in 2015. Even 8 years is usable. You get only into "unusable" territory with 2012. 2013 is stuff like R9 290X, which is also still usable for 1080p mid to high. Only 780 Ti will be awkward, as it has the power but not vram for today. That's 9 years.