News Nvidia's RTX 4060 Ti 16GB Price Drops $50 at Retail, Ahead of AMD Launch

[Admin]

The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB wasn't well received at launch due to a $100 markup over the 8 GB version. But the price difference has now been cut in half.

Nvidia's RTX 4060 Ti 16GB Price Drops $50 at Retail, Ahead of AMD Launch : Read more

 

[digitalgriffin]

It's been said 10,000 times by 10,000 reviewers. This is really a 4050, not a 4060 with its gimped bus and memory.

Prices should have been $300(8GB)->$350 (16GB). That price more than accounts for inflation.

Excluding the Arc 750, all the cards are still a horrid buy. Although, the 7800XT will likely be the best bang for buck value of the middle tier cards.

If early benchmarks of Starfield are any indication, we are in a lot of trouble. It shouldn't take a 7900XT with FSR to get 60FPS @ 1440p

 

[PEnns]

No amount of lipstick would help that pig of a card.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

Regarding the 4060ti, the fact they dropped the price 50 bucks before amd launches tells you what you need to know. Whenever was the last time nvidia dropped pricing on current gen cards after all?

 

[peachpuff]

Just buy it!

 

[Rakanyshu]

Still overpriced.

 

[hotaru251]

Whenever was the last time nvidia dropped pricing on current gen cards after all?

didnt the 20 series get a price cut in middle end of its life cycle?

 

[atomicWAR]

didnt the 20 series get a price cut in middle end of its life cycle?

Yes they did. I picked up my old MSI 2080Ti Sea Hawk EK $1099 which was three hundred less that MSRP for a bog standard founders editions at launch. So yeah they dropped alot. I got lucky on that price for a card that came with a custom loop water block, oddly it was one of the cheapest cards at the time.

But yeah I upvoted him because the last time Nvidia did price cuts I recall, was the last time EVERYONE was outraged at the price increase with the 20 series as they were barely better in raster than previous gen and more expensive.

 

[NeoMorpheus]

t's been said 10,000 times by 10,000 reviewers. This is really a 4050, not a 4060 with its gimped bus and memory.

Yet the same reviewers will also say "You should still buy because of the amazing lock-in tech DLSS that only works on this brand!".

And here we are, enjoying a nice monopoly.

 

[Amdlova]

the 3060ti v2 need to be 300us for 8 gigs and 330 for 16gb version...

 

[ohio_buckeye]

But now you can tell them amd fsr 3 will still work on their old nvidia card that nvidia didn’t care enough to support so they could make more sales….

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

While an extra $100 for a 16 GB version of the RTX 4060 Ti might have been very hard to swallow, a $50 premium might tempt more buyers with a bit more flexibility in their budget.

Not when a card with the 60 designation is over $400.

 

[nitrium]

The RTX 4070 12GB (not Ti) is the first 4000 series GPU that just barely manages to double the speed and double the VRAM of the well over 4 year old RTX 2060 (6GB). And it costs twice what that RTX 2060 GPU cost 4 years ago. After 4 years of development we have managed double the speed for double the money.... this is the state of the 2023 GPU market.

 

[thisisaname]

I wonder if AMD will also drop their price in response!

 

[qwertymac93]

How can they afford to do this? Having RAM on both sides of the card is just so expensive! Those poor partners must be losing money on every card. 😉

It's amazing what having competition does to prices. The sad thing is, AMD's prices aren't even good, they're just less insane than Nvidia's.

 

[InvalidError]

How can they afford to do this? Having RAM on both sides of the card is just so expensive! Those poor partners must be losing money on every card. 😉

They really are though. Years ago, AIBs used to get 20-30% margins on GPUs, now they are in the sub-10% range where even a relatively small marketing or QA mistake can potentially wipe out their GPU profits. Then you have the issue of AMD and Nvidia treating their AIBs like garbage by not telling them the intended launch MSRP and final specs until launch-day, which means AIBs end up over-designing their products and be unable to recover costs anywhere near MSRP or with a product that cannot meet launch-day specs.

It is only a matter of time until more AIBs follow EVGA's footsteps and bail out of GPUs. The handful of manufacturers who have returned to the GPU arena with Alchemist-based products despite the low chance of commercial success likely indicates Intel is offering significantly more favorable terms.

 

[scottslayer]

The handful of manufacturers who have returned to the GPU arena with Alchemist-based products despite the low chance of commercial success likely indicates Intel is offering significantly more favorable terms.

Don't forget to mention that Nvidia allegedly threatened all of the manufacturers over them making Intel GPUs

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

But now you can tell them amd fsr 3 will still work on their old nvidia card that nvidia didn’t care enough to support so they could make more sales….

I suspect FSR3 will not work or look as good as DLSS 3, and when it's not an an AMD GPU it will add significant latency. Requiring DLSS 3 games to support Reflex was a very smart move, almost a requirement, because even with Reflex the increase in latency can often be felt.

AMD has a similar Anti-Lag+ requirement for FSR3, but that only works with AMD GPUs, so while FSR3 may work on non-AMD hardware, it remains to be seen if it's worthwhile. It will probably feel a lot like enabling frame smoothing / interpolation on a 120Hz TV while playing games (bad, in other words).

How can they afford to do this? Having RAM on both sides of the card is just so expensive! Those poor partners must be losing money on every card.

Having RAM on both sides does cost more money, though. The question is, how much more? $5, $10, or $25? Probably closer to $5, but I don't have any inside sources to tell me precise amounts. That approach (dual sided RAM) used to be pretty common ten years ago, but potentially the tolerances for GDDR6 make it more costly today.

The extra 8GB of GDDR6 meanwhile probably costs about $25. So if BOM goes up $30, having retail price increase by double that amount is pretty typical.

But even if BOM is $50 higher, Nvidia has margins where it could eat that cost and offer the 4060 Ti 16GB at a $50 premium. Because the 4060 Ti really should have been a $300 part to begin with.

 

[qwertymac93]

...

Having RAM on both sides does cost more money, though. The question is, how much more? $5, $10, or $25? Probably closer to $5, but I don't have any inside sources to tell me precise amounts. That approach (dual sided RAM) used to be pretty common ten years ago, but potentially the tolerances for GDDR6 make it more costly today.

The extra 8GB of GDDR6 meanwhile probably costs about $25. So if BOM goes up $30, having retail price increase by double that amount is pretty typical.

But even if BOM is $50 higher, Nvidia has margins where it could eat that cost and offer the 4060 Ti 16GB at a $50 premium. Because the 4060 Ti really should have been a $300 part to begin with.

I was being tongue in cheek. If I had to guess, I'd say in absolute terms the profit is close between a $399 8GB card and a $449 16GB card, which means in terms of percentages the latter would look worse. ASP and gross margin both suffer with the price drop, even if sales bump up and total profits increase. Most of the people buying the 16GB 4060 TI would probably just buy the 8GB model if they didn't have both to choose from. In a way, the 16GB version cannibalizes sales of the 8GB model.

Now that there is new competition coming, Nvidia likely feels that the hit to margins is worth it, if it means fewer customers jump ship and go with AMD.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

It will be interesting to see how fsr 3 does. From what they are saying it will work with consoles as well.