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

[Ogotai]

I've already said the 4090 is the only 4000 series card worth buying if you can swallow the price

yea and that price ranges from 2200 to 2900 here !!! that is at least 1000 too much. considering you went from a 3090 to a 4090, the price is something you are willing to swallow, but most, it least where i am, have more important things to spend that kind of money on 🙂 and instead are hanging on to their current cards longer then they really should be. but what can you do ? between covid, and now over priced cards from nvidia, cards that barely compete from amd, there is not much else to do, but my 1060 is really showing its age, good thing the games i play, are not that demanding of it. but the radeon 7900xt and xtxs are a little more reasonable, those range from 1240 (XT ) to 1700 ( XTX ), which i am keeping an eye on.

 

[AgentBirdnest]

I've already said the 4090 is the only 4000 series card worth buying if you can swallow the price.

I agree with that if you are coming from last-gen.
But I actually think the 4070 seems like a pretty good buy if you are on an older gen, like ≤RTX 2070 or RX 5000. (I myself am still chugging along with my untrusty 2060. : P)


By the way... dude, awesome system you have! lol, that's so epic. I love it. : )

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

which i am keeping an eye on.

Good luck! Hope it works out!

I agree with that if you are coming from last-gen.

Yeah... I actually didn't plan on upgrading at first. Then I saw how much of an improvement the 4090 is over the 3090... and with the 10900k getting long in the tooth I decided to pull the trigger now while I could still get a decent price selling my old parts.

By the way... dude, awesome system you have! lol, that's so epic. I love it. : )

Thanks! It's one of the perks of being single... I can dump money into toys and nobody yells at me. 🤣 I went AM5 for the ease of future upgrades. If Ryzen 8000 series is a massive upgrade a CPU swap will be easy... other than that I don't see much else changing with this build for the next 4-5 years.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

You say that while posting a graph of 54 fps avg. performance in 4K (and 97 fps @ 2K from the same review). Both are extremely playable. Nor am I aware of any statement from Nvidia that claims this card is only useful at 1080p. Are you?

And I'll kindly ask you to moderate your tone. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't a evil bloodsucking Nazi. I, for instance, am a bloodsucking capitalist.

Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about, so I leave you be; whatever I maybe, I'm not a bully.

 

[Deleted member 431422]

I think there's way too much sensationalism these days within the YouTuber and journalism realms. Everyone wants a huge <Mod Edit> rather than a reasonable take. I disagree, vehemently, with that approach.

RTX 4060 Ti is not a bad card. It's not awesome, but to suggest it's a failure is hyperbole of the worst form. I wouldn't suggest everyone rush out to buy it, but I would absolutely recommend buying a 4060 Ti for $400 over a previous generation card with similar performance for the same price. Now, what about a "lightly used" RTX 3060 Ti for $300 or less? That's where it gets fuzzy.

I'm know there are select workloads where the 4060 Ti can perform a bit worse than a 3060 Ti, but my experience is that those are far from the norm. And while I don't love DLSS 3, it's not actually horrible. It's just overstating things, for lack of a better way of putting it.

As hotaru251 puts it, the idea that we should get 30 to 50 percent more performance each generation thanks to Moore's Law has long since died. TSMC N4 is expensive. Only Nvidia and TSMC know for certain exactly how much it costs for the GPUs, and Nvidia also has all the other components that go into the card to consider as well. Meanwhile, the economy is doing very poorly right now.

Nvidia could theoretically charge less money for the RTX 40-series cards and still earn money, but that's only if you look at hardware costs. What about all the R&D going on? What about previous generation GPUs that still need to be sold? I don't believe for a moment that Nvidia's CEO and executive team are blind to everything that's going on. Quite the opposite. I think they know far better than anyone on the web exactly what their portfolio looks like, how much inventory they have, how much they should charge, etc. Heck, they're probably running financial models that are smarter than all of us on their supercomputer to optimize profits.

This all reminds me a bit of my 13-year-old, where when he wants something, that's all that matters. Gamers want a faster, cheaper, better graphics card. Great! Wanting that and a company actually managing to create it are completely different things.

If you want another example... well, maybe check back in the morning. But AMD, the proverbial champion of the budget gamer, has abandoned the budget sector just as much as Nvidia. It's not making much money on previous generation RX 6000-series parts, RX 7000-series are only at the very top (and soon bottom) of the performance ladder, and pricing is basically right in line with what Nvidia is doing. There are tons of unsold last-gen GPUs as well, which is why AMD isn't pushing out RX 7800/7700 yet and instead is pointing at RX 6900/6800/6700-class GPUs.

I agree. People place too much hope on AMD. I support them, because it's good to have an option, but their recent choices are solely to make profit and have nothing to do with satisfying consumer needs. RX5500 was the last budget card that made sense from AMD. It's hard to find a used one at reasonable price, even. I bought used, mining RX570 and with how things are it might be best to wait for a ZEN4 APU than buy a new GPU.

When you mention other reviews and their goal to get the most views... It's really hard to reach a conclusion on what to think about RX4600ti. The sites I trust all have different reviews, conflicting each other, so the only conclusion I came to:
"Can I afford the card?" - No.
"Am I willing to save money to change old RX570?" - Again, no.

 

[sherhi]

The large majority of gamers don't seem to care about graphical prowess.

The Nintendo Switch userbase is larger than PC+PS5+Xbox combined.

This focus on high-end hardware on PC might be helping Nvidia and AMD sell GPU, but it certainly isn't helping game developers sell more games.

You can include mobile gaming, look at that candy crush rocking in numbers 😂 switch is portable so it's kind of in between categories but yeah, in general graphics are over hyped and most people don't care but most people reap the benefits of innovations driven by top 5-10% consumers who are willing to pay for better and better products so that's why PC gaming market is pivotal for this progress. Another question is: if people are okay with 1080p and some medium graphics are they willing to pay 400 dollars (close to 500€) for it every 2-3 years (just for single part of a PC)?

Is that part about 77% of gamers still game at 1080p even remotely accurate?

If so that is really mind blowing... I mean... 1080p TVs were a thing when HDTV first came out... but doesn't everyone at least have a $299 4K TV from Best Buy now?

Maybe I'm speaking for the minority because I game in 4K just like I watch my home theater movies in 4K. It costs more... and is worth the cost.



If the above reference is true I would have to agree. The only console I have is a Switch... and that's for portability and for the fact I can easily play all my NES/SNES favorites from when I was a kid. I don't care about today's games... but I love the old school stuff.

Steam SW shows around 65%, dunno if it's about laptops or it's just the cheapest most common resolution for more than a decade. Maybe Nvidia uses just data they collected or something but if majority of Nvidia card users play on 1080p then this card has no headroom and consumers don't want to upgrade/spend money unless they have to. I don't think they include consoles and mobile games in these statistics. I have 4k TV to enjoy movies and TV shows, now also series X, almost no cable TV in my country is in 4k so vast majority of people have just full HD TVs and if they bull console they don't upgrade (cable TV stations quality is the starting point for buying new TVs here). When parents buy consoles for their kids they usually don't want to spend another 350-400€ or more on top of that for 4k TV, they give their kids cheapest option. If I wanted to upgrade my PC to 1440p it would cost me around 1500€ with new monitor, 1080p with old monitor just upgraded is maybe half of that.

Perhaps speaking for myself, but I suspect a lot of people interested in upgrading to the 4000 series (especially the entry-mid range) probably aren't as interested in comparisons with the previous gen (since they don't have those), but rather the gen before that (look at Steam hardware survey to see how many 2000 series boards are out there vs 3000 series). I'd like to see benchmarks comparing these to the 2060 and 2060 Super. Especially wrt to raytracing performance, which is virtually useless on these cards at any resolution.

The "problem" is that games change over time, there is a mixture of old and new games simply to show whether the card could even run these new games but all old cards would have to be retested for new games and I don't know if anyone does that. Actually more people have even older cards than 2000 series, 6 years and older but for very old cards it doesn't make much sense to retest them when they are already below minimal requirements for games like Hogwarts. Best estimated comparison of GPUs is probably in techpowerup GPU database.

 

[DRagor]

I would absolutely recommend buying a 4060 Ti for $400 over a previous generation card with similar performance for the same price. Now, what about a "lightly used" RTX 3060 Ti for $300 or less? That's where it gets fuzzy.

It does not get fuzzy when you consider that you can buy new RX 6800 for 400$.

4060ti is not "not a bad card" at bad price. It is bad card. If NVidia would sell it as 4050, at 4050 price, we could call it fine (for a 4050). If it had 192 bit bus and 12GB VRAM we would call it fine as 4060ti (even at higher price I guess). As it stands now it's just a bad card.

 

[digitalgriffin]

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.

And you can do a lot of that on Linux, the web, or a Chromebook, android for a lot less.

You know what I us my computer for besides gaming? Watching and listening to YouTube and reading forums. All capable from my phone too.

At this rate yep , it's I am just going to go console for gaming soon.

 

[digitalgriffin]

All the reviews are slamming this card hard.

If AMD keeps making the 16GB 6800 for $480 Nvidia is screwed.

AMD also needs to also make a next gen as fast as the 6800 without significantly raising the price above $480, or they will earn the same ire of a now savy crowd who is tired of getting shafted with price increases for less.

If AMD says "Nvidia is charging $700 for crap performance, we will give them a 5% discount on next gen" they will get eaten alive by Intel's arc 770. Intel will happily fill that void and gain mindshare as they have TONS of inventory.

They s creates quite the pickle for both companies who want big margins in a down economy.

AMD and NVIDIA if they want to admit or or not added a little too much straw to the paying camels back. Basically they burned good will, and we could care less about them. Poor sales show this.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

It does not get fuzzy when you consider that you can buy new RX 6800 for 400$.

4060ti is not "not a bad card" at bad price. It is bad card. If NVidia would sell it as 4050, at 4050 price, we could call it fine (for a 4050). If it had 192 bit bus and 12GB VRAM we would call it fine as 4060ti (even at higher price I guess). As it stands now it's just a bad card.

Nope. RX 6800 new, right now, starts at $485. That's a 20% jump relative to RTX 4060 Ti. Limited quantity fire sales might drop it below that, and time might do so as well, but I can't recall seeing any RX 6800 cards for anywhere near $400. RX 6750 XT is at $380, so that's more of a reasonable comparison. And against that card? Well, it's the same old story: Buy Nvidia for ray tracing, DLSS, efficiency. Buy AMD for rasterization. That's not a 100% clear choice that everyone should make.

 

[ilukey77]

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.

sorry keep dreaming its not going to happen the cost of everything has gone up so have GPU's hanging out for that budget / price point GPU's is a waste at this point their not magically come down next gen or the one after or the one after that ..
while you ( all the power to you ) are protesting the rising cost of GPU's 100s of thousands of people are buying them at the current prices ..
7900xt is one of the best buys around at them moment unless you want the best of the best 4090 ..
7900xt because of its 20gb v ram will stay relevant for a few more gens !!
and basically anything 16 gb is better than the 4060 the 6800xt is the go to because it beats the 4060 and will be cheaper than the 4060 16gb !!

 

[ilukey77]

Nope. RX 6800 new, right now, starts at $485. That's a 20% jump relative to RTX 4060 Ti. Limited quantity fire sales might drop it below that, and time might do so as well, but I can't recall seeing any RX 6800 cards for anywhere near $400. RX 6750 XT is at $380, so that's more of a reasonable comparison. And against that card? Well, it's the same old story: Buy Nvidia for ray tracing, DLSS, efficiency. Buy AMD for rasterization. That's not a 100% clear choice that everyone should make.

RT is a moot system anyway on anything less than a 4090 !!
Not much benefit from RT on a 4060 to nerf it then DLSS it to get playable frame rates !!
I really believe at the lower tier cards Vram and raster is king of which the 6800xt is better than the 4060 8gb and the from what ive seen from GN and hard ware unboxed they both seem to say that squeezing that higher 16 Vram thought the smaller bus size on the 4060s is not going to give it much better performance anyway !!

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

while you ( all the power to you ) are protesting the rising cost of GPU's 100s of thousands of people are buying them at the current prices ..

are they?

856×800 jpg
105,3 kB

 

[ilukey77]

are they?

860×1628 jpg
301,1 kB

Yes the 4090 sold out at release the 7900xtx sold out the 7900xt not so much the 4070ti sold reasonable then when they dropped the 7900xt it been selling well the ARC770 not so much because people are scared to invest in them but they are fine ive got one..
the 4080 and 4070ti slumped because Nvidia was really pushing their good will luck !!
nobody was thrilled in paying double of the 3080 without 2x performance !!
This info is simply saying people are holding out for hope that the gpus are going to come down in price soon..
ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ..
sure there will be sales here and there but if youre looking for that magical 16gb last gen beating next gen card at a decent price youre in for a rude awaking !!

the 4060 is rubbish the 7600xt is going to be rubbish with its 8gb ram

At this point the only hope budget gamers have is waiting for Intel's next gen cards and most are scared of there drivers and being a new player in the market!!

AMD cpu's have had a bit of unlucky run this gen for a few reasons
1. people complained about the higherAM5 cost !! i understand but it life span is much better than intel so there is saving to be had and wait for 14th gen Intel ddr5 only boards the same bunch of people complaining about AM5 will be complaining about the z890 boards !
2. stupid AMD announced the x3d cpu's were coming before the run of x cpu's so people were holding off buying them for the better X3d CPU's
3. then when the x3d cpu's arrived the 7900x3d was a waste of sand the 7950x3d is kind MEH at best people wanted the 7800x3d !!
4. then AMD and Asus were hit with exploding X3ds / 7000 series cpus scaring consumers away from their products !!

 

[evdjj3j]

LMAO FANBOY JARRED TRYING TO SAVE THIS COMPLETE FAILURE 😂😂😂

It just matches the 3060Ti and 6700XT , the later a 12GB card and currently selling at ebay for $250

I've been a daily reader of this site since 1998 and it looks like I need to go elsewhere for my computer hardware information. After watching the GN review of this card, this review is a joke. The 3060ti outperforms this card in several instances, that's insane. It's also insane that Toms gave this a 3 1/2 star rating, that's above average. It's obvious we're not getting objective reviews on this site now.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

I think the best description comes from Gamers Nexus:

The 4060ti is a waste of sand since you can pretty much match its performance in everything but DLSS 3 by overclocking a 3060ti for 15 minutes. and $400 is way too much for just DLSS 3

 

[atomicWAR]

I think there's way too much sensationalism these days within the YouTuber and journalism realms. Everyone wants a huge <Mod Edit> rather than a reasonable take. I disagree, vehemently, with that approach.

RTX 4060 Ti is not a bad card. It's not awesome, but to suggest it's a failure is hyperbole of the worst form. I wouldn't suggest everyone rush out to buy it, but I would absolutely recommend buying a 4060 Ti for $400 over a previous generation card with similar performance for the same price. Now, what about a "lightly used" RTX 3060 Ti for $300 or less? That's where it gets fuzzy.

I'm know there are select workloads where the 4060 Ti can perform a bit worse than a 3060 Ti, but my experience is that those are far from the norm. And while I don't love DLSS 3, it's not actually horrible. It's just overstating things, for lack of a better way of putting it.

As hotaru251 puts it, the idea that we should get 30 to 50 percent more performance each generation thanks to Moore's Law has long since died. TSMC N4 is expensive. Only Nvidia and TSMC know for certain exactly how much it costs for the GPUs, and Nvidia also has all the other components that go into the card to consider as well. Meanwhile, the economy is doing very poorly right now.

Nvidia could theoretically charge less money for the RTX 40-series cards and still earn money, but that's only if you look at hardware costs. What about all the R&D going on? What about previous generation GPUs that still need to be sold? I don't believe for a moment that Nvidia's CEO and executive team are blind to everything that's going on. Quite the opposite. I think they know far better than anyone on the web exactly what their portfolio looks like, how much inventory they have, how much they should charge, etc. Heck, they're probably running financial models that are smarter than all of us on their supercomputer to optimize profits.

This all reminds me a bit of my 13-year-old, where when he wants something, that's all that matters. Gamers want a faster, cheaper, better graphics card. Great! Wanting that and a company actually managing to create it are completely different things.

If you want another example... well, maybe check back in the morning. But AMD, the proverbial champion of the budget gamer, has abandoned the budget sector just as much as Nvidia. It's not making much money on previous generation RX 6000-series parts, RX 7000-series are only at the very top (and soon bottom) of the performance ladder, and pricing is basically right in line with what Nvidia is doing. There are tons of unsold last-gen GPUs as well, which is why AMD isn't pushing out RX 7800/7700 yet and instead is pointing at RX 6900/6800/6700-class GPUs.

I don't disagree. I think some outlets will have to 'reframe' their reviews. I wouldn't be the first time this had to happen. Though in the past it was usually a bad bios setting or something of that nature but still.

Most outlets are picking up on gamers disatisfaction and dialing the clickbait to 11 for views. Its a bit unethical if you ask me. Don't get me wrong I am generally not happy with the 4060 ti but I do think its a okish product for the price considering. This card should have ideally been the 4060 imho and as Fran put it 'everyone would have looked past its short comings to become a best seller' (still might). Yet as you stated we gamers don't always get what we want nor should we. Still this product could have been so much better with a wider memory bus or as stated been released as the 4060 non ti and priced lower accordingly. At the end of the day the 4000 series has PO'd gamers, fair or not (mostly fair for 70/80 class). I wish he had a BOM for these 4000 series cards so we could either put 'Nvidia over charged this gen' to bed or find out we do indeed need to grab pitch forks and make 'our' gripes known. My guess is its some where in the middle as things usually are.

Thanks for you detailed reply and again sorry for the hate you've been getting on this review. It unfair and un-Tom's like. People need to be reasonable but in the mean time thanks for your review and extensive involvement in the forum. You do more than most writers on Tom's in the forums and it han't gone unnoticed or unappreciated by me.

 

[Amdlova]

Its wrong model number if it has the 4050ti with lower price will sell like hotcakes. But what nvidia will give to you on the 4050ti place is a 4030 with 64 bits. I'm waiting to see that abysmal perfection.

 

[evdjj3j]

The one where the reviewer claimed the card was utterly unfit for anything other than 1080p ... while standing in front of a graph showing the card running a 4K game at 117 fps?

Anything for a click eh?

Youre being intellectually dishonest. The problem is that the 3060ti ties or beats the 4060ti in a lot of the benchmarks.

 

[digitalgriffin]

I don't disagree. I think some outlets will have to 'reframe' their reviews. I wouldn't be the first time this had to happen. Though in the past it was usually a bad bios setting or something of that nature but still.

Most outlets are picking up on gamers disatisfaction and dialing the clickbait to 11 for views. Its a bit unethical if you ask me. Don't get me wrong I am generally not happy with the 4060 ti but I do think its a okish product for the price considering. This card should have ideally been the 4060 imho and as Fran put it 'everyone would have looked past its short comings to become a best seller' (still might). Yet as you stated we gamers don't always get what we want nor should we. Still this product could have been so much better with a wider memory bus or as stated been released as the 4060 non ti and priced lower accordingly. At the end of the day the 4000 series has PO'd gamers, fair or not (mostly fair for 70/80 class). I wish he had a BOM for these 4000 series cards so we could either put 'Nvidia over charged this gen' to bed or find out we do indeed need to grab pitch forks and make 'our' gripes known. My guess is its some where in the middle as things usually are.

Thanks for you detailed reply and again sorry for the hate you've been getting on this review. It unfair and un-Tom's like. People need to be reasonable but in the mean time thanks for your review and extensive involvement in the forum. You do more than most writers on Tom's in the forums and it han't gone unnoticed or unappreciated by me.

The 4060ti is objectively worse in many metrics for the same money. This is especially true at higher resolutions.

And it's not many outlets jumping on a bandwagon. They are calling a spade a spade. Nvidia for years have been trying to up their margin. Giving us less by paying more. And this card is actually a step backward.

This card is just awful. I would have rated it a 2.0 because the 3060ti was better with 12gigs and a wider bus and a wider pcie lane x16. No special motherboard there.

To me dlss is moot because of fsr. (Even if dlss is objectively sharper). And RT is worthless at this level. Energy difference is pennies per year for average gamer.

 

[atomicWAR]

The 4060ti is objectively worse in many metrics for the same money. This is especially true at higher resolutions.

And it's not many outlets jumping on a bandwagon. They are calling a spade a spade. Nvidia for years have been trying to up their margin. Giving us less by paying more. And this card is actually a step backward.

This card is just awful. I would have rated it a 2.0 because into the 3060ti was better.

I don't totally disagree. I think some deep dives into the 4060 Ti is needed. I said outlets might need to reframe their reviews, i never said who. I am not sure who is correct here but we need to find out.

Regardless the hate I am seeing is a bit much. Critical comments are great but calling Jarred a shill seems a bit much.

 

[digitalgriffin]

I don't totally disagree. I think some deep dives into the 4060 Ti us needed. I said outlets might need to reframe their reviews, i never said who. I am not sure who is correct here but we need to find out.

Regardless the hate I am seeing is a bit much. Critical comnents are great but calling Jarred a shill seems a bit much.

I do believe in his integrity. But I know he works hard. I just don't agree with him here.

 

[atomicWAR]

I do believe in his integrity. But I know he works hard. I just don't agree with him here.

Oh I am not 100% behind his review either. I still think he was too kind (3 stars imho) I just don't think it rises to the hanging offense some are treating it like. Glad we agree though Jarred works hard even if we don't agree on outcome his 4060 ti review. Regardless I stand by a deep dive is needed. I would love to see Jarred or someone else on Toms address the different outcomes we are seeing in reviews and why they do or don't line up with Toms/other outlets.

 

[user7007]

Wow, such hatred. And a vast technical misconception too. If the card averaged 60 instead of 58 fps, it'd still have just as much tearing -- unless of course you have a syncing monitor, in which case it won't tear in either case. A multi-game average of "58 fps" doesn't mean that even one game runs precisely at 58 fps all the time, much less all of them ... and running slightly above your monitor's refresh rate causes tearing just as slightly below it does.

You probably know this, but if you have v-sync on and don't have a freesync/gsync monitor there is a big difference between 58 and 60 fps as it will drop you to 30 fps and create input lag and other issues. But if you're buying a new video card and pairing it with a non freesync/gsync monitor I'd suggest you get a new monitor.
Still I agree that arguing over 58 vs 60 fps average isn't that big a deal when most games have video quality and resolution scaling options that can make 60 fps achievable.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

Youre being intellectually dishonest. The problem is that the 3060ti ties or beats the 4060ti in a lot of the benchmarks.

Makes you wonder why Nvidia made the 4090 such a quantum leap in performance improvement over the 3090 while doing the bare minimum with the rest of the 4000 series.

As said upthread though… no point in competing against yourself. AMD has a big opportunity here.