News Gen-over-gen performance uplifts are getting smaller with Nvidia's mid-range GPUs — GTX 1060, RTX 2060, RTX 3060, and RTX 4060 retested in 2024

[Admin]

ComputerBase has re-tested Nvidia's GTX 1060, RTX 2060, RTX 3060 12GB, and RTX 4060 to check out the generational performance differences in modern titles.

Gen-over-gen performance uplifts are getting smaller with Nvidia's mid-range GPUs — GTX 1060, RTX 2060, RTX 3060, and RTX 4060 retested in 2024 : Read more

 

[Notton]

Look, we all know the 4060 is actually a 4050Ti.
Otherwise it would have had a 192-bit bus, just like all the previous xx60 class of GPUs.

 

[Phenomena]

Just to get this straight in my head. When the 8GB 3060 was released, it was able to compete with the 2080, and beat it in most cases. The 2080 is much more than 17% faster than the 2060.

So what's going on?

 

[TJ Hooker]

Just to get this straight in my head. When the 8GB 3060 was released, it was able to compete with the 2080, and beat it in most cases. The 2080 is much more than 17% faster than the 2060.

So what's going on?

You're misremembering. Even the original 12GB 3060 was noticeably slower than the 2080. And the eventual 8GB version was slower still, due to having 33% less VRAM capacity and bandwidth.

 

[cryoburner]

This comparison was very poorly done, as it completely ignores the fact that Nvidia has shifted around product names to cards at different price points in an attempt to push people to spend more on a graphics card than they would have otherwise. Without looking at the prices of cards, these performance comparisons are pointless.

Comparing a 2060 against a 1060 is nonsensical, because the 2060 was positioned as more of a 1070 successor than anything, while the 1660 cards were the actual direct successors to the 1060. The 1060 3GB and 1060 6GB were $200 and $250 cards respectively, whereas the 2060 was a $350 card, and the 2060 SUPER was $400, both roughly in line with the 1070's $380 MSRP. Performance-wise, the 2060 was only around 15% faster than a 1070 in games at the time, but with 25% less VRAM, and overall, the performance gains of the 20-series were poor across the board. In today's games, the 2060's newer architecture likely gives it more of an edge in many titles, but the lower VRAM of the original 2060 compared to the 1070 likely hampers it in others.

The 3060's performance gains over the 2060 were also poor, but it was also supposedly intended to be positioned at a slightly lower $330 price point, even if that never happened due to crypto-mining and other shortages having already driven up graphics card prices to absurd levels even before the cards had a chance to launch.

The 4060's gains were very underwhelming, but there was again a slight reduction in MSRP, which when combined with the recent high inflation rates actually positions the card around a similar price level to where the 1060 cards were 7 years prior. Of course, it could certainly be argued that they have simply tacked an x60 name and price tag onto a card that would have traditionally been marketed as an x50-class card, but at least price-wise, comparing a 4060 against a 1060 might be relatively fair.

 

[hotaru251]

Otherwise it would have had a 192-bit bus, just like all the previous xx60 class of GPUs.

yup.

the 960 was last 60tier to have a 128bit bus (even the god awful nobody should buy it gtx 1060 3gb had 192)

i am hoping (so much copium) Nvidia saw how bad 4060 sold and gives full 192bit bus on 5060.


The only sku that needed a "super" refresh was the 4060. the gap between 4060 and 4070 is so massive and entirely due to that bus limitation.

, because the 2060 was positioned as more of a 1070 successor than anything, while the 1660 cards were the actual direct successors to the 1060.

not really.

every generation generally sees this where the last gen is 1 tier lower than new gen (2060 to 1070, 3060 to 2070 & the 3090 to 4080)
The 16 series was the 2060 if you didnt care about ray tracing premium pricetag. (and ur not losing that much raster performance for the price dif)

Thats a healthy improvement generation to generation....the 4060 beign worse than the 3060 in raster w/o dlss 3/FG was a clear sign that it was a 50 tier gpu in reality.

The 4060's gains were very underwhelming, but there was again a slight reduction in MSRP

and the 30 series was cheaper than 20 series yet improvement was huge across board.

1060 6gb was $250 launch in 2016 which would be around $325 today w/ inflation...a 4060 msrp is 299.
however a 3060 (which again can beat a 4060 in raster w/o dlss & fg) cost $329 in 2021 but with inflation would be $390 today.

the 4060 is bad deal price & performance wise.

 

[NedSmelly]

Comparing a 2060 against a 1060 is nonsensical, because the 2060 was positioned as more of a 1070 successor than anything, while the 1660 cards were the actual direct successors to the 1060. The 1060 3GB and 1060 6GB were $200 and $250 cards respectively, whereas the 2060 was a $350 card, and the 2060 SUPER was $400, both roughly in line with the 1070's $380 MSRP. Performance-wise, the 2060 was only around 15% faster than a 1070 in games at the time, but with 25% less VRAM, and overall, the performance gains of the 20-series were poor across the board. In today's games, the 2060's newer architecture likely gives it more of an edge in many titles, but the lower VRAM of the original 2060 compared to the 1070 likely hampers it in others.

The 2060 Super could almost be considered a "2070 Lite", as its performance was within a hair's breadth of the 2070 in many scenarios. I think it might also be the only 60-series with a full 256-bit memory bus.

 

[thestryker]

While I think there's merit comparing 60 series cards FPS/$ scales are important to add rather than just raw performance. I think the 60 series mostly shows how mediocre the 3060 was compared to the higher Ampere cards.

based on their 1080p numbers at MSRP (% is reduction in cost/frame compared to prior generation):
Doom Eternal:
$3.29/frame - 1060
$2.48/frame - 2060 - 24.6%
$1.94/frame - 3060 - 21.8%
$1.39/frame - 4060 - 28.4%

Horizon Zero Dawn:
$5.75/frame - 1060
$4.68/frame - 2060 - 18.6%
$3.76/frame - 3060 - 19.7%
$2.72/frame - 4060 - 27.7%

compared their numbers for the 70 series:
Doom Eternal:
$3.62/frame - 1070
$3.17/frame - 2070 - 12.4%
$1.90/frame - 3070 - 40%
$1.68/frame - 4070 - 11.6%

 

[cryoburner]

not really.

every generation generally sees this where the last gen is 1 tier lower than new gen (2060 to 1070, 3060 to 2070 & the 3090 to 4080)
The 16 series was the 2060 if you didnt care about ray tracing premium pricetag. (and ur not losing that much raster performance for the price dif)

Thats a healthy improvement generation to generation....the 4060 beign worse than the 3060 in raster w/o dlss 3/FG was a clear sign that it was a 50 tier gpu in reality.

Again, the entire point of this article is about comparing the performance of cards between generations, but it doesn't make any sense to be comparing cards at totally different price points that are not even close to one another. If a card is released at a $350 MSRP, it makes the most sense to compare it to the card preceding it at a similar $380 MSRP, not the one that was $250. It costs 40% more than that card, so obviously one would expect it to be substantially faster. When the 20-series cards launched, they were widely seen as mostly mediocre sidegrades to existing models, with only minor improvements in terms of performance at any given price point, with the main draw being features like raytracing that weren't even available in any games for some time after launch.

and the 30 series was cheaper than 20 series yet improvement was huge across board.

1060 6gb was $250 launch in 2016 which would be around $325 today w/ inflation...a 4060 msrp is 299.
however a 3060 (which again can beat a 4060 in raster w/o dlss & fg) cost $329 in 2021 but with inflation would be $390 today.

the 4060 is bad deal price & performance wise.

The 3060 was never available for $329 at launch, or at any time in 2021. The launch happened during the peak of the crypto-mining shortages, and Nvidia knew full well when announcing that price that it was nothing more than fiction, and the card wouldn't be available for anywhere close to that. Even the manufacturer MSRPs were more in the vicinity of $400 at launch, and only went up from there, with average reseller prices hovering around $700 throughout the year.

The 4060, on the other hand, has been widely available for around $300 or so since launch. Though of course, with less VRAM and mostly similar performance to the 3060, it's actually more like what should have been marketed as a 3050 successor, only at an inflated price point. But for the purposes of comparing generational performance gains, comparing cards at similar price levels makes the most sense, not whatever random names Nvidia decided to assign to them.

 

[35below0]

The 4060 is not a performer in benchmarks, but it *is* good value. Simply because the 70 and 80 are so expensive. They perform better but tons of games will run fine on a 4060, esp. at 1080p but also 1440p. Even Cyberpunk lists only a 2060 Super as it's recommended req.

You won't get Ultra settings at 1440p/4k from Cyberpunk, or even Baldur's Gate 3. But 4060 is a budget card, and it... well kinda represents good value unless you're willing to drop $550-700 on a more powerful 7800XT or 4070 Ti or Super

It's very powerfull, just obliterated by it's more powerful cousins and rivals. Those are not budget GPUs though.

edit
If anything it's the Ti and expanded 4060s that have crap value. They cost much more and are basically the same, entry level GPU.
If the vanilla 4060 is not good enough, and the 4070 Ti too expensive, just shop AMDs cards.

 

[cryoburner]

But 4060 is a budget card, and it... well kinda represents good value unless you're willing to drop $550-700 on a more powerful 7800XT or 4070 Ti or Super

It's very powerfull, just obliterated by it's more powerful cousins and rivals. Those are not budget GPUs though.

$300 for something considered a "Budget" GPU seems a bit of a stretch. Not that long ago cards around this price were considered well within the "mid-range", even accounting for inflation.

If anything it's the Ti and expanded 4060s that have crap value. They cost much more and are basically the same, entry level GPU.
If the vanilla 4060 is not good enough, and the 4070 Ti too expensive, just shop AMDs cards.

The 4060 Ti is a notably different card from the 4060, in that it uses a larger graphics chip with 50% more cores (~42% more enabled). So the two cards sharing the same base name doesn't make all that much sense, going back to my prior point about how cards shouldn't be compared between generations based on arbitrary model numbers rather than price.

They both have a similarly-limited memory system though, with the same 128-bit bus, and the Ti only gets slightly faster memory, which often prevents the card from stretching its legs and performing like its higher core count might otherwise suggest. There are some demanding titles where the 4060 Ti can be over 30% faster than a 4060, particularly when things like raytracing are in use, but those tend to be few and far between, with the typical gains often being under 20%. Both cards are arguably a bit overpriced for what they offer though. And the 16GB version of the 4060 Ti was way overpriced, and should have been priced at the $400 that the 8GB version goes for. The 8GB version could have been a more reasonable $350. And the 4060 should have arguably been marketed as a "4050 Ti" at a somewhat lower price point as well.