News Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB Goes on Sale

[hotaru251]

Lol good luck with that jensen.

he knows hwo bad the gpu is..likely why decided not to have founder editions for the 16gb.

the aib still had pay him so he feels nothing.

many people will buy this card for 8K movies editing

...or they save $ and get an amd/intel gpu with better performance.

 

[evdjj3j]

2.5 stars is 50% which = F, 3 stars is a D, 3.5 stars is a C, 4 stars is a B, 4.5 stars is an A, 5 stars = perfect in every way. Unless the writer specifically defines what each star represents, 0 to 5 stars is standardized to the scale of 0% to 100% where each whole number is equivalent to 20 percentage points.

No.

 

[dleerup]

Seems like a decent card. It would be more exciting at $300 though.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

No.

Uhh yes, but I applaud your attempt to argue against a fact

 

[NeoMorpheus]

4070 ti - "i'm not really blown away by what's on offer here even if we ignore current retail pricing for previous gen hardware and just focus on the suggest retail pricing"
4070 - "not exactly mind blowing stuff afer about 2 and a half years"
4060 ti - "absolutely do not buy this thing for $400 US it's laughably bad at that price"
4060 - "isn't as laughably bad as the 4060 ti but its still pretty bad and as I said it's certainly not worth paying 300 US for"

Yet they would go ahead and tell you that its a better buy because DLSS, and RT, without telling you that DLSS main reason to exist is to keep you locked into Ngreedia hardware. And Tim Jensen will always, always call FSR trash

And lets not forget when Nvidia blacklisted them because even though their 3090 review was positive they didn't shill it the way Nvidia told them too and then published it without those adjustments.

Thats when they changed, ironically. After that, they never dared in posting any crazy title for their Ngreedia videos, yet they have no problem in using the term DOA on almost all AMD GPU videos.

If HuB are Nvidia shills then they don't seem to be doing a good job at it, same as if they are AMD shills

Again, they never called any Ngreedia GPU DOA, yet plenty of times for AMD's. Plus every single video they produce, they make sure to always have a 4090 visible or mentioned, even if not needed.

Oh and you should see their Twitter account, they straight up insult AMD fans with the term fanbois, but not Ngreedias.

Now, if all that I said is a lie, then feel free to call me a AMD rabid fanboi.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Yet they would go ahead and tell you that its a better buy because DLSS, and RT, without telling you that DLSS main reason to exist is to keep you locked into Ngreedia hardware. And Tim Jensen will always, always call FSR trash

Thats when they changed, ironically. After that, they never dared in posting any crazy title for their Ngreedia videos, yet they have no problem in using the term DOA on almost all AMD GPU videos.

Again, they never called any Ngreedia GPU DOA, yet plenty of times for AMD's. Plus every single video they produce, they make sure to always have a 4090 visible or mentioned, even if not needed.

Oh and you should see their Twitter account, they straight up insult AMD fans with the term fanbois, but not Ngreedias.

Now, if all that I said is a lie, then feel free to call me a AMD rabid fanboi.

No I will simply call you an Anti-Anti-AMD fanboiiii!!! Lol

 

[NeoMorpheus]

No I will simply call you an Anti-Anti-AMD fanboiiii!!! Lol

The correct term is " the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

But thanks for the support.

 

[Pollopesca]

I love how half of this thread is just people bickering over how a 5 star rating transfers to a letter grade, as if there were an official chart. yOUr chArt OnLy gOEs tO “A” bUt MINE gOEs tO “A+” thErEfOr I Am RIGHT!

let's not argue over semantics. We can all agree this is bad performance per dollar.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

I love how half of this thread is just people bickering over how a 5 star rating transfers to a letter grade, as if there were an official chart. yOUr chArt OnLy gOEs tO “A” bUt MINE gOEs tO “A+” thErEfOr I Am RIGHT!

let's not argue over semantics. We can all agree this is bad performance per dollar.

I like how people take the score that I assigned, and then tell me that I don't know how the scale works.

Let's be real: Most tech products are going to get a score of 6 to 9 (3 to 4.5 stars). Why? Because anything that falls below that was a garbage attempt that should not have been put on the market, while the perfect 10/10 is almost never achieved — nearly everything has some faults or disclaimers. With the costs required to bring a new GPU to market, getting a D or F grade just shouldn't happen. Getting below an F (the 1, 2, 3, 4 out of 10 scores) really means the product shouldn't have been made — those scores are reserved for things that are fundamentally flawed. Like the GTX 1630, which cost as much as the GTX 1650 but performed substantially worse.

RTX 4090 is an excellent card, but it uses a decent amount of power and costs a lot of money: 9/10

RTX 4080 is a decent card that outperforms everything from Nvidia's previous generation, but it costs substantially more: 7/10

RTX 4070 Ti basically matches the RTX 3090 and costs less, but it's a big jump in generational pricing and the 192-bit memory interface and 12GB feels chintzy for a $800 product: 7/10

RTX 4070 is very efficient and beats the RTX 3080, at a somewhat reasonable price of $600. It's not as big of a pricing jump as we saw with the higher Ada GPUs: 8/10 (In retrospect, I feel I probably should have gone with 7/10 again)

RTX 4060 Ti beats the previous generation 3060 Ti in performance in efficiency, at the same price point, but the 128-bit interface and 8GB VRAM is chintzy: 7/10

RTX 4060 gets the entry price of Ada down to $300, and does outperform the 3060 in nearly every important metric, but again the 128-bit interface and 8GB of memory represents a step back from prior 60-class hardware: 7/10

There's always some leeway on the scores, where you could add or subtract one point, but fundamentally if a new product outperforms the old pricing equivalent, that's still progress. Thus, all of Nvidia's new cards are at least "okay" — we just would have liked things to be closer to "good" or even "great" rather than merely average. And a C-grade is absolutely average.

 

[NeoMorpheus]

I like how people take the score that I assigned, and then tell me that I don't know how the scale works.

Let's be real: Most tech products are going to get a score of 6 to 9 (3 to 4.5 stars). Why? Because anything that falls below that was a garbage attempt that should not have been put on the market, while the perfect 10/10 is almost never achieved — nearly everything has some faults or disclaimers. With the costs required to bring a new GPU to market, getting a D or F grade just shouldn't happen. Getting below an F (the 1, 2, 3, 4 out of 10 scores) really means the product shouldn't have been made — those scores are reserved for things that are fundamentally flawed. Like the GTX 1630, which cost as much as the GTX 1650 but performed substantially worse.

RTX 4090 is an excellent card, but it uses a decent amount of power and costs a lot of money: 9/10

RTX 4080 is a decent card that outperforms everything from Nvidia's previous generation, but it costs substantially more: 7/10

RTX 4070 Ti basically matches the RTX 3090 and costs less, but it's a big jump in generational pricing and the 192-bit memory interface and 12GB feels chintzy for a $800 product: 7/10

RTX 4070 is very efficient and beats the RTX 3080, at a somewhat reasonable price of $600. It's not as big of a pricing jump as we saw with the higher Ada GPUs: 8/10 (In retrospect, I feel I probably should have gone with 7/10 again)

RTX 4060 Ti beats the previous generation 3060 Ti in performance in efficiency, at the same price point, but the 128-bit interface and 8GB VRAM is chintzy: 7/10

RTX 4060 gets the entry price of Ada down to $300, and does outperform the 3060 in nearly every important metric, but again the 128-bit interface and 8GB of memory represents a step back from prior 60-class hardware: 7/10

There's always some leeway on the scores, where you could add or subtract one point, but fundamentally if a new product outperforms the old pricing equivalent, that's still progress. Thus, all of Nvidia's new cards are at least "okay" — we just would have liked things to be closer to "good" or even "great" rather than merely average. And a C-grade is absolutely average.

I heard a crazy person saying that AMD also makes GPU's, not only Ngreedia. 🙂

 

[Eximo]

I love the internet, the red fanbois call them Ngreedia Unboxed, the green fanbois call them Radeon Unboxed and the blue . . . do they even have actual fanbois . . . if so then they'd call them . . . . hmmm something that refers to both of them.

IntTools? Perhaps IntFools?

We do need a good one for Intel.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

I heard a crazy person saying that AMD also makes GPU's, not only Ngreedia.

And I did review all of the AMD releases as well. The point was that this is a thread about Nvidia cards and so I gave a list of my general feeling of each GPU from the 40-series.

 

[NeoMorpheus]

And I did review all of the AMD releases as well. The point was that this is a thread about Nvidia cards and so I gave a list of my general feeling of each GPU from the 40-series.

Ok, valid response. But wouldnt hurt to add AMD, as is usually the case, when is the other side of the coin. ;-)

 

[newtechldtech]

Actually I dont understand why 128bit GPU cards still exist in 2023 .. for comparison the last 32 bit CPU was in 2002 ...

 

[newtechldtech]

...or they save $ and get an amd/intel gpu with better performance.

Which 16 GB VRAM cards are cheaper than 4060 ti from intel/AMD ?

 

[Thunder64]

I like how people take the score that I assigned, and then tell me that I don't know how the scale works.

Let's be real: Most tech products are going to get a score of 6 to 9 (3 to 4.5 stars). Why? Because anything that falls below that was a garbage attempt that should not have been put on the market, while the perfect 10/10 is almost never achieved — nearly everything has some faults or disclaimers. With the costs required to bring a new GPU to market, getting a D or F grade just shouldn't happen. Getting below an F (the 1, 2, 3, 4 out of 10 scores) really means the product shouldn't have been made — those scores are reserved for things that are fundamentally flawed. Like the GTX 1630, which cost as much as the GTX 1650 but performed substantially worse.

RTX 4090 is an excellent card, but it uses a decent amount of power and costs a lot of money: 9/10

RTX 4080 is a decent card that outperforms everything from Nvidia's previous generation, but it costs substantially more: 7/10

RTX 4070 Ti basically matches the RTX 3090 and costs less, but it's a big jump in generational pricing and the 192-bit memory interface and 12GB feels chintzy for a $800 product: 7/10

RTX 4070 is very efficient and beats the RTX 3080, at a somewhat reasonable price of $600. It's not as big of a pricing jump as we saw with the higher Ada GPUs: 8/10 (In retrospect, I feel I probably should have gone with 7/10 again)

RTX 4060 Ti beats the previous generation 3060 Ti in performance in efficiency, at the same price point, but the 128-bit interface and 8GB VRAM is chintzy: 7/10

RTX 4060 gets the entry price of Ada down to $300, and does outperform the 3060 in nearly every important metric, but again the 128-bit interface and 8GB of memory represents a step back from prior 60-class hardware: 7/10

There's always some leeway on the scores, where you could add or subtract one point, but fundamentally if a new product outperforms the old pricing equivalent, that's still progress. Thus, all of Nvidia's new cards are at least "okay" — we just would have liked things to be closer to "good" or even "great" rather than merely average. And a C-grade is absolutely average.

I think your usage of ratings are "chintzy". Why bother inclusing 0-5 if they won't be used? Just make it 6-10 with 10 being a unicorn.

How would you compare this to a 6800 XT? Nearly identical price. In raster the 6800 XT is 26-36% faster. In RT it is 0-36% faster.

That gives the 4060 Ti 16GB a nice advantage in power consumption, about half while gaming, support for DLSS 3 which may be nice to have but has significant tradeoffs in certain types of games, and AV1 encoding.

So a 2 1/2 year old card beats it in gaming and will be useful for gaming for longer. The power consumption of the 4060 Ti is a nice win and AV1 will become more useful. But, who cares if you have to replace the card again sooner anyway? I'd call that a poor value and the overall loser.

It's no surprise. Everyone knew this card would be an awful value. But your ranking doesn't seem to reflect that. I'd give it two stars. I'd give the 8GB version 3-3.5 stars.

 

[BlaUno]

Which 16 GB VRAM cards are cheaper than 4060 ti from intel/AMD ?

Here, it's the 6800, although there are (seemingly) only a few in stock. Based on prices here (Europe but not EU), i'm assuming the 16gb 4060Ti will cost the same or nearly as 6800XT would. Unfortunately, 6800XTs went extinct few months ago here.

When i first heard there would be a 16GB 4060Ti, i decided that would be my choice (i'm using a 750ti on a 13yo platform) for my new build soon. Once i heard about the 192bit bus, i immediately dropped that idea. Deliberately mutilating a product that far back in order to F me over by charging that much does not sit well with me. And to be clear, i'm talking a 620-730 USD price range (that's between the 6800 and the 4070, current) for the 16GB 4060Ti. No way.

 

[cryoburner]

4060Ti: 16GB of suck due to 128bits bus.

Only one 4060 was needed in this world and it should have had 12GB of VRAM on 192bits for ~$300.

Having a separate 4060 and 4060 Ti seems reasonable, though charging a big premium for additional VRAM while starving the base models of memory and bandwidth does not. Had the 4060 and 4060 Ti offered similar 1080p performance and pricing to what they do, but with 12GB of VRAM and a 192 bit bus to prevent higher resolutions and future memory-hungry games from being crippled, that would have arguably been alright, or at least an all-around improvement over the previous gen.

As it is though, the 4060 feels more like a rebadged 3050 successor, while the 4060 Ti feels like a 3060 successor, both with a big 20% price-hike. Had the existing 8GB 4060 Ti hardware been positioned around the 3060's $330 MSRP as the 4060, that would have arguably been fine enough. There would still have been a VRAM and memory bandwidth reduction, but it would have been a reasonable tradeoff to get 3060 Ti-like performance at that price level. And the 16GB model could have also been reasonable at $400. You would still have the bandwidth reduction, but the additional VRAM buffer would make that less of a concern. Perhaps we'll eventually see something like a "SUPER" update to address the unattractive pricing though.

2.5 stars is 50% which = F, 3 stars is a D, 3.5 stars is a C, 4 stars is a B, 4.5 stars is an A, 5 stars = perfect in every way. Unless the writer specifically defines what each star represents, 0 to 5 stars is standardized to the scale of 0% to 100% where each whole number is equivalent to 20 percentage points.

That's not generally how it works. Typically when reviewers utilize a 5 star scale, they tend to consider the full range. Around 5 stars = great, around 4 stars = good, around 3 stars = okay, around 2 stars = poor, and around 1 star = terrible. Those using a 100 point scale, on the other hand, tend to only utilize the upper half, as that corresponds roughly to letter grade systems that have been used in schools. For those, generally 90-100 = great, 80-90 = good, 70-80 = okay, 60-70 = poor, and anything under that = terrible. And in terms of letter grades in school, generally A = great, B = good, C is okay, D = poor, and E/F = terrible.

I would consider 3.5 stars to translate roughly to being in-between an "okay" and "good" rating, or what might be somewhere in the vicinity of an 80%, roughly in the range of a C+ to B- for a corresponding letter grade. Personally, I would probably rate it a little lower, but reviews are ultimately a matter of opinion.

The 4060 Ti isn't exactly "bad", at least in terms of being a functional piece of hardware. The hardware works, and does have some advantages over its similarly-priced predecessor, like efficiency and in turn heat output. It's just poorly priced relative to what's typically expected in its price range, and doesn't really push performance forward at its price level. Because of that, it would be a bit hard to consider the card as being "good" or "great". Classifying it as "okay" might be reasonable, though perhaps leaning a bit more toward "poor" in terms of value.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Having a separate 4060 and 4060 Ti seems reasonable, though charging a big premium for additional VRAM while starving the base models of memory and bandwidth does not. Had the 4060 and 4060 Ti offered similar 1080p performance and pricing to what they do, but with 12GB of VRAM and a 192 bit bus to prevent higher resolutions and future memory-hungry games from being crippled, that would have arguably been alright, or at least an all-around improvement over the previous gen.

As it is though, the 4060 feels more like a rebadged 3050 successor, while the 4060 Ti feels like a 3060 successor, both with a big 20% price-hike. Had the existing 8GB 4060 Ti hardware been positioned around the 3060's $330 MSRP as the 4060, that would have arguably been fine enough. There would still have been a VRAM and memory bandwidth reduction, but it would have been a reasonable tradeoff to get 3060 Ti-like performance at that price level. And the 16GB model could have also been reasonable at $400. You would still have the bandwidth reduction, but the additional VRAM buffer would make that less of a concern. Perhaps we'll eventually see something like a "SUPER" update to address the unattractive pricing though.


That's not generally how it works. Typically when reviewers utilize a 5 star scale, they tend to consider the full range. Around 5 stars = great, around 4 stars = good, around 3 stars = okay, around 2 stars = poor, and around 1 star = terrible. Those using a 100 point scale, on the other hand, tend to only utilize the upper half, as that corresponds roughly to letter grade systems that have been used in schools. For those, generally 90-100 = great, 80-90 = good, 70-80 = okay, 60-70 = poor, and anything under that = terrible. And in terms of letter grades in school, generally A = great, B = good, C is okay, D = poor, and E/F = terrible.

I would consider 3.5 stars to translate roughly to being in-between an "okay" and "good" rating, or what might be somewhere in the vicinity of an 80%, roughly in the range of a C+ to B- for a corresponding letter grade. Personally, I would probably rate it a little lower, but reviews are ultimately a matter of opinion.

The 4060 Ti isn't exactly "bad", at least in terms of being a functional piece of hardware. The hardware works, and does have some advantages over its similarly-priced predecessor, like efficiency and in turn heat output. It's just poorly priced relative to what's typically expected in its price range, and doesn't really push performance forward at its price level. Because of that, it would be a bit hard to consider the card as being "good" or "great". Classifying it as "okay" might be reasonable, though perhaps leaning a bit more toward "poor" in terms of value.

I respectfully disagree, an F letter grade in education has its own unique standards that products do not adhere to. A product failure is one where their are no redeeming qualities or advantages to offer and everything is a disadvantage IE 0%. By saying 0 stars equals 50% you are saying that the product is neither good or bad IE it’s advantages and disadvantages cancel each-other out to create an unremarkable and average product. So then how many stars do we give an absolute trash product? Negative 5 stars?

 

[Eximo]

Which 16 GB VRAM cards are cheaper than 4060 ti from intel/AMD ?

A770 16GB is usually $380 in the US right now, sometimes on sale for as low as $320/330.

A decent 1440p experience if the game in question works right.

 

[InvalidError]

A770 16GB is usually $380 in the US right now, sometimes on sale for as low as $320/330.

$330 was the normal price until about a month ago. Looks like all of Intel's driver development work is finally paying off, raising the price inventory can still be shifted at by $30-50.

 

[Eximo]

I keep telling myself I don't need one, but if it drops below $300 I might buy one just to mess with it. Probably will wait for battlemage though, I am more interested in an efficient card this go around I think.

Also that new slot power only A380 on the market, tempted to buy that and sell off my full size one since I pretty much only use it for multimedia playback.

 

[LZ X-Ray]

What’s sad is the few things I’ve seen on YouTube the numbers aren’t a whole lot better than the 8gb card. In other words, buy a 6800xt and be happy.

I haven't bought an AMD card since the cards were still ATI. So my problem is I just dont know what to buy by comparison...

 

[sitehostplus]

The only good thing about this card is it shoots AMD's claims about the importance of V-Ram full of lots of holes.

GPU horsepower still matters very much, and this chip clearly doesn't have it. Now matter how much V-Ram is shoved into this card, the performance barely improves if at all.

 

[InvalidError]

GPU horsepower still matters very much, and this chip clearly doesn't have it. Now matter how much V-Ram is shoved into this card, the performance barely improves if at all.

1% lows improve quite a bit in games that use more than 8GB of VRAM and those are going to become increasingly common at high/ultra details. Though it may just end up bandwidth-challenged by the 128bits memory bus along the way.

I think Nvidia discovered the hard way that regressing from the 3060 was a dumb idea, 12GB/192bits is the absolute bare minimum for 60-tier GPUs in 2023.