News Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Founders Edition Review: Ampere for Only $399

[Soaptrail]

You're getting roughly a 30% to 40% uplift over the previous $400 value king the AMD 5700 XT. And compared to the previous 2060 super, you are getting 2 gigs more RAM.

And you are saying it's too expensive?

It is both a good deal and too expensive. Samsung had a $100K TV on sale for $50K so that is a good deal but that does not mean everyone should buy one.

Having said that maybe $400 is not too much since until like the Nvidia TNT 2 days we are not upgrading every 6-12 months so perhaps a $400 GPU for 2 years is not too expensive if you can swing the upfront purchase.

 

[nofanneeded]

people seem to forget about inflation per year ...


Here is inflation calculator in the US

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value From 1913-2023

Easily calculate how the buying power of the U.S. dollar has changed from 1913 to 2023. Get inflation rates and U.S. inflation news.

www.usinflationcalculator.com

Actually , Prices did not change much ...

But I still Agree that Nvidia has been overpricing their products for a long time.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

You're getting roughly a 30% to 40% uplift over the previous $400 value king the AMD 5700 XT. And compared to the previous 2060 super, you are getting 2 gigs more RAM.

And you are saying it's too expensive?

Note that 2060 was 6GB, 2060 Super was 8GB. So it's not more VRAM than a 2060 Super, but it is more than 2060.

 

[thisisaname]

You're getting roughly a 30% to 40% uplift over the previous $400 value king the AMD 5700 XT. And compared to the previous 2060 super, you are getting 2 gigs more RAM.

And you are saying it's too expensive?

Yes I am saying it is the 2060 super is far to expensive.
Comparing it with RTX 2060 Super is in my mind invalid as that was also to expensive, it was about 60% better than the 1060 Super for around 80% more in price(or in the UK 120% more).

 

[cryoburner]

From a consumer perspective, the only logical way to compare value is to pick price points and compare what you get now for that cost vs what you got in the past. Whether you're shopping for a $100 card or a $5000 card, the same process applies. It makes no sense to try and compare based on product names arbitrarily picked by a company.

Yep, what you can get for your money compared to recent years is what people should be comparing, not arbitrary model numbers. As I pointed out before, comparing the size of the graphics chips, the 2070 and 3070 chips are much larger than those used for even the 1080, so if anything, those cards are filling that product range, and the pricing reflects that. And the 3060 Ti uses a cut down version of the 3070's chip, making it comparable to what the 1070 was in that generation. The current successors to the 1060-class cards are the various 1660 models, and those should soon be replaced by whatever new cards Nvidia launches in that $200-$300 price range, even if the naming scheme changes to call them "3050" cards, or whatever. Now certainly, I imagine part of why Nvidia's marketing department did this was to upsell people to the next higher tier of card than they would normally buy, but it's not like they raised prices significantly for any given tier, they mostly just shifted around the model names.

I don't like this situation where the GPU is the most expensive component in a computer. The CPU used to be the most expensive part. It's also hard to continue supporting the PC gaming ecosystem when a decent GPU costs more than a console of equivalent performance/experience. So many games are anti-modding or anti-user content these days that PC gaming has lost its edge.

That's been the case at the launch of new generations of consoles for a long time. After a while though, the console hardware gets surpassed by the PC hardware again. And ignoring the availability issues, it certainly doesn't cost more for a "decent" graphics card than for a console of comparable graphics performance. The $400 3060 Ti should outperform the graphics hardware in a $500 Xbox Series X, and the 3060 (non-Ti) probably will as well, especially when performance with RT effects enabled is factored in. And the PS5's graphics hardware is less powerful still. In terms of actual graphics performance, the new consoles will likely be competing more with upcoming sub-$300 graphics cards.

There's also the point that not everyone cares about running games at increasingly higher resolutions, as we start running into diminishing returns in terms of apparent sharpness at typical viewing distances. A 3060 Ti running at 1440p resolution gets slightly higher frame rates than a 3090 running at native 4K, and most would be hard-pressed to notice much difference between those resolutions when actually playing a game. And the new cards capable of pushing those kinds of frame rates at 1080p will likely be priced around the $200-$250 range. The existing Radeon 5600 XT and 2060 already get similar performance at 1080p as a 3080 gets at 4K, and those were cards that could be found for around $300 or less the better part of a year ago.

 

[deshimaru]

I always figure the sale price of my current GPU into the price of a new GPU.
I had a 1060 3 GB which I sold for $120.
Then bought a 1660 Ti for $300 - $120 = $180.
Then sold the 1660 Ti for $220.
Bought a 2060 Super for $420 - $220 = $200.
So when I need an Upgrade the 3060 Ti should be a good option.
And if I sell my 2060 Super for around $300 that would cut my cost down from $400-$450 to $100-$150, which would be an Awesome deal.

Your calculations are wrong. I can see it online and in stock but the price is not less than 550 euro the cheepest, the AIB cards are above 600 euro. So this price 400$ that you use to calculate, maybe you have to adjust it. This deal it's not awesome.

 

[digitalgriffin]

Note that 2060 was 6GB, 2060 Super was 8GB. So it's not more VRAM than a 2060 Super, but it is more than 2060.

Good catch

 

[digitalgriffin]

Yes I am saying it is the 2060 super is far to expensive.
Comparing it with RTX 2060 Super is in my mind invalid as that was also to expensive, it was about 60% better than the 1060 Super for around 80% more in price(or in the UK 120% more).

NVIDIA is certainly delivering more value here for the 60 series. You have to remember the 1060 6GB FE was $300. And it's nowhere near this performance, and lacked RT. And it certainly trumps anything out on the market in terms of FPS/$ in the $400 category.

You can say it's too much if you want, but it's the best mid range buy right now. (IF you can get one, and until AMD launches a competitor) So either buy or sit this one out.

 

[nofanneeded]

It is all Nvidia fault ...

The RTX 3060 ti should be called RTX 3070 for $400

The RTX 3070 should never been released ! it is not a good 4K card and an overkill 1440P card.

The RTX 3080 for $650

The RTX 3080 ti for $900

and the midrange which is the coming RTX 3050 ti should be sold for $250 and named RTX 3060

..

RTX 3060 ti is not expensive , it is just the name Nvidia Chosen for it.

 

[DMAN999]

Your calculations are wrong. I can see it online and in stock but the price is not less than 550 euro the cheepest, the AIB cards are above 600 euro. So this price 400$ that you use to calculate, maybe you have to adjust it. This deal it's not awesome.

Actually here in the US they are showing as:
$399.99 - EVGA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti XC GAMING - Newegg
$439.99 - ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 3060 Ti DUAL - Newegg
$449.99 - MSI - Geforce RTX 3060 Ti VENTUS 2X OC - Newegg and Best Buy

So, No price adjusting / recalculating is needed for me.
And I won't be looking to upgrade for a year or more, so availability shouldn't be an issue by then either.

 

[r7litepro]

i dont really care about the price, my main issue here is the ABISMAL power consumption. ( and i have the absolute bests psus) but 250W is inaccceptable imo, is so damn much!

 

[cryoburner]

i dont really care about the price, my main issue here is the ABISMAL power consumption. ( and i have the absolute bests psus) but 250W is inaccceptable imo, is so damn much!

Where are you seeing 250 watts? The 3060 Ti is shown here to draw just over 200 watts under load, and even overclocked it only gets to around 225. That seems like fairly normal power draw compared to other recent $400 cards. Certainly, the power draw has trended upward, and is around 15% higher than last year's 2060 SUPER, but the card is able to provide around 40% more performance than that card, making it more efficient overall.

 

[r7litepro]

100w would be efficient. custom cards consume 250w and sometimes more. my 5600x is efficient at almost 5ghz 20 % ipc and less than 65w tdp. like i said this are abismal.

 

[Soaptrail]

NVIDIA is certainly delivering more value here for the 60 series. You have to remember the 1060 6GB FE was $300. And it's nowhere near this performance, and lacked RT. And it certainly trumps anything out on the market in terms of FPS/$ in the $400 category.

You can say it's too much if you want, but it's the best mid range buy right now. (IF you can get one, and until AMD launches a competitor) So either buy or sit this one out.

While this card includes Ray Tracing is that a benefit? I can use it and according to the 10 game average get 60.6fps at 1080p and 41.5fps at 1440p. This really puts the 3060 Ti in a bad spot.

I argue $400 gets you great non RT performance but who wants to pay that much when it will be too weak for Ray Tracing. They should have dropped the price and dropped RT IMO.

 

[King_V]

100w would be efficient. custom cards consume 250w and sometimes more. my 5600x is efficient at almost 5ghz 20 % ipc and less than 65w tdp. like i said this are abismal.

Are you really comparing a CPU's power consumption and generation-to-generation performance increase to ONLY a GPUs power consumption increase generation-to-generation, and ignoring the performance increase?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I tend to favor AMD over Nvidia, but this is ridiculous.

 

[r7litepro]

Are you really comparing a CPU's power consumption and generation-to-generation performance increase to ONLY a GPUs power consumption increase generation-to-generation, and ignoring the performance increase?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I tend to favor AMD over Nvidia, but this is ridiculous.

agree. ridiculous power consumtion for a marginal upgrade in perfomance. keep drinking the kool aid.

 

[King_V]

agree. ridiculous power consumtion for a marginal upgrade in perfomance. keep drinking the kool aid.

 

[r7litepro]

more like ...

 

[-Fran-]

more like ...

Are you actually being serious or you're just trolling?

I strongly suggest you read a bit more on power consumption and the history around GPUs at certain performance levels. While your original assessment is acceptable: the 3060ti is using more power than what we all would like it to, it does bring a huge amount of performance over previous gens.

Anyway, please read some.

 

[digitalgriffin]

While this card includes Ray Tracing is that a benefit? I can use it and according to the 10 game average get 60.6fps at 1080p and 41.5fps at 1440p. This really puts the 3060 Ti in a bad spot.

I argue $400 gets you great non RT performance but who wants to pay that much when it will be too weak for Ray Tracing. They should have dropped the price and dropped RT IMO.

At this price point, not many will be spending the money on a Variable Sync Monitor above 1080p. It wouldn't make sense. And for many, 60fps is fine and acceptable frame rate. Not every game is a twitch fest. Some are more cinematic like Tomb Raider.

 

[cryoburner]

At this price point, not many will be spending the money on a Variable Sync Monitor above 1080p. It wouldn't make sense. And for many, 60fps is fine and acceptable frame rate. Not every game is a twitch fest. Some are more cinematic like Tomb Raider.

Graphics cards in this price range are generally considered to be "1440p cards", and I imagine a lot of people will be pairing this card with a 1440p high refresh rate screen. It's possible to find such monitors for around $300 these days.

As you say though, not every game benefits much from high frame rates, so for those slower, more cinematic titles, the higher resolution may be preferred. And of course, these games are running at "ultra" settings, while significant performance gains can can often be had with minimal impact on visuals by lowering a few settings a bit. And even at maxed settings, DLSS upscaling was shown to bring average frame rates with raytracing back up around 60fps.