Review Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Review: 1080p Gaming for $399

[Admin]

The Nvidia RTX 4060 Ti lands at $399, taking over from its RTX 3060 Ti predecessor. However, the narrower bus is only partially overcome by the larger L2 cache, and what you think about the new GPU will largely depend on how much you buy into the DLSS 3 Frame Generation marketing.

Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Review: 1080p Gaming for $399 : Read more

 

[lmcnabney]

3.5 stars for what is a fairly negative review.

Who is the target for this product? A console will perform better for the same money and eliminate the cost of the rest of the computer.

 

[HKTacticblade]

RX 6800 16GB from previous gen is already better.

 

[DSzymborski]

3.5 stars for what is a fairly negative review.

Who is the target for this product? A console will perform better for the same money and eliminate the cost of the rest of the computer.

Presumably people who want a computer that can do the stuff a console can and still do the other things that a console doesn't do all that well.

 

[bourgeoisdude]

RX 6800 16GB from previous gen is already better.

It also costs more

Seriously though, I keep waiting for a card around this price point to upgrade to, as I have the 1070 ti, but I keep getting disappointed. I am considering AMD as a protest to what I consider the NVIDIA name tax, but frankly I am skeptical that they will do much better with their 7600 (XT) or 7700 (XT). I play enough older games that I also lean away from Intel. I guess I'm just hanging on to Pascal for a bit longer.

 

[J_E_D_70]

WTH is going on. The $500 2070 Super 8GB from four (!!!) years ago crushes 1080p and is highly competent at 1440p. Two generations later a 4060ti should be equivalent to what... a 2080 or higher? Guess they really have hit a wall.

 

[dk382]

FYI, the professional/content creation portion of the review is for the 4070. Looks like you forgot to replace it with the 4060 Ti's data in the template.

 

[evdjj3j]

3.5 stars for what is a fairly negative review.

Who is the target for this product? A console will perform better for the same money and eliminate the cost of the rest of the computer.

I came here to say the same thing.

"RTX 4060 Ti comes in just ahead of the RTX 3070 at 1080p, but falls behind the RTX 3060 Ti at 1440p and 4K."

"Being faster than the RTX 3070 is at least something, but the lead is very slim, and the RTX 3060 Ti isn't far behind either. Gen on gen, we're looking at native performance that's only 13% faster with the RTX 4060 Ti."

That's not 3 1/2 starts worthy.

I'm getting the impression that Tom's doesn't want to bite the had that feeds it.

 

[peachpuff]

3.5 stars for what is a fairly negative review.

Maybe it's out of 10 stars? 🤔

 

[bit_user]

FYI, the professional/content creation portion of the review is for the 4070. Looks like you forgot to replace it with the 4060 Ti's data in the template.

I also noticed that, but the article text explains it:

Note: We're still retesting some of the cards and so the ProViz and AI results aren't quite ready yet. Check back later today... the charts and text below are placeholders from the RTX 4070 launch.
​

 

[btmedic04]

So more or less 3070 performance for $100 less now, or 3070 performance with double the vram for the same launch price as the 3070 next month. Yeah no thanks. Insane that nvidia thinks they can charge essentially the same price on 3 year old performance

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Single digit % improvement over last gen? Poor people do not deserve more improvement?! Shame.

It is like they do not want to sell too many of these. Perhaps they have a ton of orders for these chips for laptops and they do not care? I have no other explanation for this.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

3.5 stars? Do you have stock in Nvidia? It's too expensive and too ill equipped to justify it's price tag. Even if previous Gen cards weren't available it still wouldn't make sense to buy this card at this price.

 

[-Fran-]

Oof... That's all I have to say...

No, wait. One more thing: thanks a lot Jarred for the benchmark numbers! Quite through and I agree with pretty much everything you cover and conclude.

It's really a shame, because if this card was properly named "4060" and came in at $300 like it was meant to, it would be a killer product even with the downsides.

Let us now see how AMD fumbles the ball, because this* gives me a strong feeling of deja vu to the RX7900 siblings release.

Welp, I said a bit more anyway, lel.

Regards.

 

[baboma]

>3.5 stars for what is a fairly negative review.

3.5 denotes a "meh" product, ie not great, but not terrible. IMO it fits the bill. Whether you agree with that depends on your own predisposition.

I think most every reviewer agrees on the basics: 4060Ti's improvement is only marginal over its predecessor, and 8GB VRAM isn't enough. Where they differ is how much weight they put on the positives vs those two negatives.

It's perfectly normal to see a range of opinions. THW's take is roughly same as ArsTechnica's view, ie "not great, not terrible." If you prefer a more negative slant, Hardware Unboxed's "laughably bad, don't buy" does go all the way into the "terrible" spectrum.

Again, HUB's take isn't wrong, but has Steve admitted himself in the piece, he's taking on a more activist or agitator role in forcing Nvidia/AMD to push the VRAM allotment higher. IMO, that's above and beyond the role of a reviewer, but I empathize with both sides of the coin.

 

[edzieba]

I wonder how much crow will be eaten when the 16GB variant arrives, and benchmarking finds it to be faster... in scenarios where resolution and texture scale have been pushed so far that the performance difference is between "unplayable" and "slightly more unplayable".

 

[InvalidError]

With 12GB on 192bits, this thing could have possibly been worth $400. As-is though, it shouldn't have been much over $300.

 

[user7007]

It also costs more

Seriously though, I keep waiting for a card around this price point to upgrade to, as I have the 1070 ti, but I keep getting disappointed. I am considering AMD as a protest to what I consider the NVIDIA name tax, but frankly I am skeptical that they will do much better with their 7600 (XT) or 7700 (XT). I play enough older games that I also lean away from Intel. I guess I'm just hanging on to Pascal for a bit longer.

I agree. I feel like after the 10 series things got weird. 20 series was just disappointing, very similar performance + ray tracing that wasn't very fast or well supported. 30 series was built on samsung so was high power, had low vram, and while priced not bad at launch they quickly jacked all the prices by huge amounts. 40 series is lower power, good performance, but they're still low on vram and now they've cut all the memory busses and kept the high pricing... just can't win.

 

[bit_user]

Maybe I missed it, but @JarredWaltonGPU , why no other models included in the DLSS benchmarks? In particular, why not the RTX 3060 Ti? Because, a big question I have is how much they're counting on improvements in hardware support for DLSS to makeup for the otherwise lackluster improvement. Does DLSS (without frame-generation) provide a bigger benefit for the RTX 4060 Ti than its predecessor?

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Nvidia 🇺🇬 be kiddin me!

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Maybe I missed it, but @JarredWaltonGPU , why no other models included in the DLSS benchmarks? In particular, why not the RTX 3060 Ti? Because, a big question I have is how much they're counting on improvements in hardware support for DLSS to makeup for the otherwise lackluster improvement. Does DLSS (without frame-generation) provide a bigger benefit for the RTX 4060 Ti than its predecessor?

You telling me you don't wanna play your games as if your character was drunk?

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Very underwhelming, although I guess we've known that for a few weeks.
Anyone on a 3xxx series card should ignore anything up to a 4080.

WTH is going on. The $500 2070 Super 8GB from four (!!!) years ago crushes 1080p and is highly competent at 1440p. Two generations later a 4060ti should be equivalent to what... a 2080 or higher? Guess they really have hit a wall.

Well, they do. A 3060ti beats even a 2080 super for the most part. I think the performance should be above the 2080/S/TI at least!

This gen is a grab reach for profits from Nvidia. This segmentation sucks

 

[Giroro]

The worst part about our AI generated future, is that ChatGPT is trained to be incapable of criticizing NVidia's current lineup of overpriced junk. Not just because it's too new, either. It's just trained to be a corporate shill, because almost all of its training material is based on public content. Public content just happens to be overwhelmingly written by corporate shills.
Go ahead, try it!

 

[Endymio]

I game very little, but when I do it's using a 3600 at 1440p. This 4060ti has nearly double the performance of mine, and in fact has the best performance at that resolution of any sub-$400 card -- and the headline is meant to imply it's wholly unsuitable for 1440p gaming? Rather shameful, Jarred.

 

[Giroro]

>3.5 stars for what is a fairly negative review.

3.5 denotes a "meh" product, ie not great, but not terrible. IMO it fits the bill. Whether you agree with that depends on your own predisposition.

I think most every reviewer agrees on the basics: 4060Ti's improvement is only marginal over its predecessor, and 8GB VRAM isn't enough. Where they differ is how much weight they put on the positives vs those two negatives.

It's perfectly normal to see a range of opinions. THW's take is roughly same as ArsTechnica's view, ie "not great, not terrible." If you prefer a more negative slant, Hardware Unboxed's "laughably bad, don't buy" does go all the way into the "terrible" spectrum.

Again, HUB's take isn't wrong, but has Steve admitted himself in the piece, he's taking on a more activist or agitator role in forcing Nvidia/AMD to push the VRAM allotment higher. IMO, that's above and beyond the role of a reviewer, but I empathize with both sides of the coin.

On a 5 star scale, "Meh" would be the middle of the scale: 2.5 stars. 3.5 stars would be "above average".

3.5 stars, aka 70/100, would only be a meh product on the scale of "This is a video game, and also you're IGN."