RTX 4060 vs RTX 3060 12GB GPU faceoff: New versus old mainstream GPUs compared

[Admin]

The RTX 4060 takes on the RTX 3060 12GB in this faceoff between current and previous generation Nvidia GPUs. The lowest tier 40-series card got a lot of flak for cutting the memory configuration, so let's see just how close these two GPUs are in performance and other areas.

RTX 4060 vs RTX 3060 12GB GPU faceoff: New versus old mainstream GPUs compared : Read more

 

[jordanbuilds1]

imo, the 3060 is better value, especially on the used market. at the 4060s current $300 price, there are alot of better and cheaper alternatives online such as: rtx 3070, rx 6600, rx 6650, rtx 2080 super, intel arc a750, and the list goes on. the 4060 is trashed on for a reason, but that doesnt mean it doesnt have its place in "someones" pc.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

Not worth it at all IMO unless your dying for frame generation.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

imo, the 3060 is better value, especially on the used market. at the 4060s current $300 price, there are alot of better and cheaper alternatives online such as: rtx 3070, rx 6600, rx 6650, rtx 2080 super, intel arc a750, and the list goes on. the 4060 is trashed on for a reason, but that doesnt mean it doesnt have its place in "someones" pc.

This is precisely the sort of mindset that I was hoping to disprove. A used 3060 12GB will cost, on average, about $220. A used 4060 can be had for $260. That's a $40 difference, and anywhere from $5 to $15 per year (estimating use) in power use for the 3060, while getting 17% less performance. All for what? 12GB VRAM, basically, which theoretically helps at 4K ultra in some newer games, and even fewer games at 1440p ultra.

RX 6600 and RX 6650 are cheaper, as new cards, but also much slower than a 4060 across a broad test suite. The 4060 beats the RX 6650 by around 40% across our test suite, and it's around 60% faster than the vanilla 6600. And it uses less power than either card as a bonus, plus gives access to Nvidia tech like DLSS.

RTX 2080 Super costs about the same, used, as the RTX 3060 12GB. It's a "win some, lose some" competition with the 4060, basically a tie... while using twice as much power and with the same 8GB VRAM. And you're getting a card that came out five years ago, which was 99% certain (probably) used for mining and could have some issues because of that. I definitely wouldn't buy or recommend anyone buy a used 2080 Super at $225 over an RTX 4060. Okay, maybe if it's $100, but I'd be very skeptical of stability and quality if that's from an eBay or Facebook seller (considering the going rate is over twice that).

But this isn't about all the alternatives to an RTX 4060, or whether you should upgrade from one of the above mentioned cards to a 4060. It's about how the 4060 and 3060 comparison is often portrayed as being a big step back for the new card. You have to really cherry pick your tests to make that even close to being true. Mostly, it's just screaming "8GB is terrible!" and then ignoring all the use cases where 8GB is still totally fine.

Out of 76 different tests, across 19 games and four settings, the 3060 12GB was faster in just three cases (4% of the time), and only in one case (1.3% of cases) was the difference more than 10% — all at 4K, naturally. And even then, it was a case of 17.3 vs 15.6 fps. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for either GPU at such settings. Even looking at the 1% lows, where there were five instances that the 3060 offered higher minimum fps, and three cases where it was more than a 10% lead, the 3060 only hit a playable result in one of those games (Spider-Man: Miles Morales, which I called out).

So edge cases that happen maybe 1% of the time could give the 3060 a performance lead. At 1080p, where such cards are likely to be used, I haven't run or encountered a single "realistic" test that where the 3060 was ahead or even close to being tied. And by "realistic" I mean a game where people would actually use the specified settings on the 3060 12GB to get a playable result.

 

[valthuer]

Not worth it at all IMO unless your dying for frame generation.

Agreed. Especially, considering the fact we 're just months away from the release of the RTX-50 series.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Agreed. Especially, considering the fact we 're just months away from the release of the RTX-50 series.

Budget "RTX 5060" cards likely won't be out for about a year, though. The people in the market for a 4060 aren't even thinking about buying a 5090 or 5080 this fall I suspect.

 

[Notton]

Going off of Nvidia's historical release sequence, If RTX 5080 launches in 2024 September/October, the RTX 5060 won't arrive until 2025 July/August.
If it launches before March/April, it's most likely going to be an 8GB card.

Having tried out frame-gen and up-scaling on an RTX 2050 and RTX 4070Ti, it's definitely worth running it.

The early implementation wasn't good, but the technology feels mature, now that it works with ray-tracing.
It's a buttery smooth 120fps using 1440p all max/ultra graphics with ray-tracing enabled... 99% of the time.

 

[AtrociKitty]

There's one test I would have liked to see that isn't here, and that's transcode performance. I'm fairly sure that's the one place the 3060's VRAM advantage actually does make the card come out ahead.

 

[valthuer]

Budget "RTX 5060" cards likely won't be out for about a year, though.

If that comes to pass, it will be too bad. There's a lot of people out there, waiting for the mid-range RTX-50 GPUs, as well as the subsequent price decrease in RTX-40 series.

 

[hotaru251]

So it doesnt say in article (at least i didnt see any) but was it pure rasterized or using the "gimmick" of dlss and the like? (yes that gimmick is likely future goign forward given how game devs dont optimize anymore but if you enjoy older games thats not an option)

As main issue of 4060 was not the lower vram (that sucked but not main issue) it was the memory bus reduction which can have real impact ( why the 3060 at times could beat 4060 in stuff that didn't have those gimmicks available) when it became the limiting factor.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

40-series demand was decent but I don't think a massive success either. It was mostly artifical shortages. Considering the 50-series will probably cost even more (and still use the dumbass 12VHPWR connector), I don't think people will be flocking to them.

 

[NedSmelly]

This is precisely the sort of mindset that I was hoping to disprove.

I think you'll find the creative crowd is a bit more open minded regarding the 4060, where it's demonstrated worthwhile productivity gains at modest expense - and where the clams saved on a higher spec GPU can go towards more RAM and storage.

Good article, by the way.

 

[peachpuff]

We've seen plenty of people lamenting the "weak" performance of the RTX 4060, claiming that it's often not even faster than its predecessor. This is a generally false statement. Overall, across our full test suite, the RTX 4060 is around 20% faster at 1080p and 1440p, and still over 10% faster even at 4K ultra

If the 4090 was only 20% faster than the 3090 we'd call that weak performance.
The "just buy it" motto is still going strong I see.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

The other issue for the 4060 however if people are even considering this, is that the 6750xt is still available and sitting at Newegg right now with some models right at 299.

The 6750xt is clearly faster and let’s be honest if you are saying the 4060 is better at ray tracing, maybe…but is the 4060 actually strong enough to do any serious ray tracing?

I suppose the use case for the 4060 is if you don’t have a great power supply or you need the nvidia encoder. Sure dlss is decent but fsr is getting better so in a generation or two may be about on par. Even the older nvidia cards can use it as well which would ironically help the 3060 also.

 

[35below0]

imo, the 3060 is better value, especially on the used market. at the 4060s current $300 price, there are alot of better and cheaper alternatives online such as: rtx 3070, rx 6600, rx 6650, rtx 2080 super, intel arc a750, and the list goes on. the 4060 is trashed on for a reason, but that doesnt mean it doesnt have its place in "someones" pc.

How did you get to this conclusion? It's obvious that in every comparison the 4060 outperforms the 3060 12Gb
It's like we read two different articles.

Also, all the alternatives you're suggesting kinda suck. They are all older cards and not one is better, so they're cheaper for a reason.
If you look beyond benchmarks you will find that 4060 has a lot to offer from efficiency to price/performance, to gimmicks like livestream background removal, and so on.

The Arc 770 is a fair alternative, but some computers do not support it and it's drivers are going to be a problem.

As main issue of 4060 was not the lower vram (that sucked but not main issue) it was the memory bus reduction which can have real impact ( why the 3060 at times could beat 4060 in stuff that didn't have those gimmicks available) when it became the limiting factor.

nvidia is straightforward on this. If you want more than 8Gb VRAM, pay for it. And people do. It's not possible to demand an entry level GPU come with a luxury such as 8+ VRAM.

The bus reduction would ruin a higher tier 4070 but for an entry level 4060, nvidia calculated it's performance loss would be minimal and in line with it's price and place in the pecking order.
Nobody should be trying to fill out the PCIe bus with a 4060. It's not a 1440p Ultra GPU, and nvidia won't give it to you at this price.

It's an unusual GPU in that it is very powerfull for a low end card but it is also completely hopeless in mid-to-high end gaming demands.
Why should it have a full bus? This is the most lucrative of the 40XX series and i would not be surprised if this was a cost cutting measure that has a huge impact on profit margin but minimal impact on gaming (unless you try to overwhelm a cheaper GPU by running more demanding games than it can drive).
It's not nvidia's pockets getting filled here either, because the AIB partners are the ones selling tons of 4060s and 4060 Tis.

The other issue for the 4060 however if people are even considering this, is that the 6750xt is still available and sitting at Newegg right now with some models right at 299.

The 6750xt is clearly faster and let’s be honest if you are saying the 4060 is better at ray tracing, maybe…but is the 4060 actually strong enough to do any serious ray tracing?

That's a good point, and no the 4060 is not strong enough. They still test it but it's not. They also do tests in 4K which are completely pointless. It can support that resolution, but cannot do 4K gaming. That demands a much higher computer + monitor budget, and a 4060 is not even a consideration.

I suppose the use case for the 4060 is if you don’t have a great power supply or you need the nvidia encoder. Sure dlss is decent but fsr is getting better so in a generation or two may be about on par. Even the older nvidia cards can use it as well which would ironically help the 3060 also.

I look at it a different way. It's not about the PSU being great or rubbish, it's about saving on energy use. A 115w max power draw is one of the 4060's strongest points.

If you want gaming power, look further up the 40xx series, or at a RX 7800XT/7900GRE.
If you don't need much gaming performance, just some lightweight stuff or occasional demanding game, and if you want a modern GPU then this is one of the most efficient choices.

 

[Amdlova]

The budget, the friendly price there is no more...
Amd drop the graphics card market to pursuit a dream of new.
If you are waiting for a new graphics from nvidia just buy a 4070 or 4070 super will be next geforce 5060 with same price.
Friendly price of tomorrow start at 500us!

 

[tristanx]

8GB VRAM is hurting 4060. There are more games eating more than 8GB VRAM. Visual quality can be affected. Stutters from Resident Evil 4 at 1080p Ultra is an example. Bad visuals from Forspoken and Halo Infinite is another example for you to test.

 

[jordanbuilds1]

This is precisely the sort of mindset that I was hoping to disprove. A used 3060 12GB will cost, on average, about $220. A used 4060 can be had for $260. That's a $40 difference, and anywhere from $5 to $15 per year (estimating use) in power use for the 3060, while getting 17% less performance. All for what? 12GB VRAM, basically, which theoretically helps at 4K ultra in some newer games, and even fewer games at 1440p ultra.

RX 6600 and RX 6650 are cheaper, as new cards, but also much slower than a 4060 across a broad test suite. The 4060 beats the RX 6650 by around 40% across our test suite, and it's around 60% faster than the vanilla 6600. And it uses less power than either card as a bonus, plus gives access to Nvidia tech like DLSS.

RTX 2080 Super costs about the same, used, as the RTX 3060 12GB. It's a "win some, lose some" competition with the 4060, basically a tie... while using twice as much power and with the same 8GB VRAM. And you're getting a card that came out five years ago, which was 99% certain (probably) used for mining and could have some issues because of that. I definitely wouldn't buy or recommend anyone buy a used 2080 Super at $225 over an RTX 4060. Okay, maybe if it's $100, but I'd be very skeptical of stability and quality if that's from an eBay or Facebook seller (considering the going rate is over twice that).

But this isn't about all the alternatives to an RTX 4060, or whether you should upgrade from one of the above mentioned cards to a 4060. It's about how the 4060 and 3060 comparison is often portrayed as being a big step back for the new card. You have to really cherry pick your tests to make that even close to being true. Mostly, it's just screaming "8GB is terrible!" and then ignoring all the use cases where 8GB is still totally fine.

Out of 76 different tests, across 19 games and four settings, the 3060 12GB was faster in just three cases (4% of the time), and only in one case (1.3% of cases) was the difference more than 10% — all at 4K, naturally. And even then, it was a case of 17.3 vs 15.6 fps. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for either GPU at such settings. Even looking at the 1% lows, where there were five instances that the 3060 offered higher minimum fps, and three cases where it was more than a 10% lead, the 3060 only hit a playable result in one of those games (Spider-Man: Miles Morales, which I called out).

So edge cases that happen maybe 1% of the time could give the 3060 a performance lead. At 1080p, where such cards are likely to be used, I haven't run or encountered a single "realistic" test that where the 3060 was ahead or even close to being tied. And by "realistic" I mean a game where people would actually use the specified settings on the 3060 12GB to get a playable result.

Listen, im not saying that the 4060 is bad, but (also on amazon rn the 4060 is at $310) again at the price its listed at, you can get alot more or same preformance at the $300 price. sure, 300$ with raytracing and dlss its a fairly good buy, but older rtx cards (70-80 series cards), considering dlss 1-2.1 is still supported in games, are excellent buys at that price. we also have to take account in the arc series, specifically the a770, and if preformance doesnt faze you theres still the Fiery 12 vhp cable . but again as i said at the end of my last post, that all doesnt mean it doesnt belong in SOMEONES pc.

How did you get to this conclusion? It's obvious that in every comparison the 4060 outperforms the 3060 12Gb
It's like we read two different articles.

Also, all the alternatives you're suggesting kinda suck. They are all older cards and not one is better, so they're cheaper for a reason.
If you look beyond benchmarks you will find that 4060 has a lot to offer from efficiency to price/performance, to gimmicks like livestream background removal, and so on.

The Arc 770 is a fair alternative, but some computers do not support it and it's drivers are going to be a problem.


nvidia is straightforward on this. If you want more than 8Gb VRAM, pay for it. And people do. It's not possible to demand an entry level GPU come with a luxury such as 8+ VRAM.

The bus reduction would ruin a higher tier 4070 but for an entry level 4060, nvidia calculated it's performance loss would be minimal and in line with it's price and place in the pecking order.
Nobody should be trying to fill out the PCIe bus with a 4060. It's not a 1440p Ultra GPU, and nvidia won't give it to you at this price.

It's an unusual GPU in that it is very powerfull for a low end card but it is also completely hopeless in mid-to-high end gaming demands.
Why should it have a full bus? This is the most lucrative of the 40XX series and i would not be surprised if this was a cost cutting measure that has a huge impact on profit margin but minimal impact on gaming (unless you try to overwhelm a cheaper GPU by running more demanding games than it can drive).
It's not nvidia's pockets getting filled here either, because the AIB partners are the ones selling tons of 4060s and 4060 Tis.


That's a good point, and no the 4060 is not strong enough. They still test it but it's not. They also do tests in 4K which are completely pointless. It can support that resolution, but cannot do 4K gaming. That demands a much higher computer + monitor budget, and a 4060 is not even a consideration.


I look at it a different way. It's not about the PSU being great or rubbish, it's about saving on energy use. A 115w max power draw is one of the 4060's strongest points.

If you want gaming power, look further up the 40xx series, or at a RX 7800XT/7900GRE.
If you don't need much gaming performance, just some lightweight stuff or occasional demanding game, and if you want a modern GPU then this is one of the most efficient choices.

i didnt exactly mean to say the 3060 was better value, but considering its like 40-80$ less if you look in the right places, it still preforms fairly good. thats not to say its better, but the value is there. as to the alternatives most of them are pretty fair (especially the rx cards which are 100+ dollars less and work at 1440p), the one you pointed out, the a770, even though intel is still fixing the driver problems, seeing what intel improved on for the last 2 years, i think that wont be a major problem.

 

[35below0]

i didnt exactly mean to say the 3060 was better value, but considering its like 40-80$ less if you look in the right places, it still preforms fairly good. thats not to say its better, but the value is there. as to the alternatives most of them are pretty fair (especially the rx cards which are 100+ dollars less and work at 1440p), the one you pointed out, the a770, even though intel is still fixing the driver problems, seeing what intel improved on for the last 2 years, i think that wont be a major problem.

Yeah i think the A770 is pretty compelling, esp. if 16Gb VRAM is an advantage. To their credit, Intel seem to have gotten a grip on the drivers. It's still not a great gaming card but neither is the 4060. For that level, they can do the job.

Ok, i guess your idea is that the 4060 isn't worth the money, but i think it exactly is. It uses less power than the 3060 and outperforms it. The difference between them is about $40-80, maybe less. So for say, $260 the 3060 is a money saver that isn't going to be that far behind. Esp. since they're both going to struggle at 1440p Ultra or with the most demanding games.
So i agree the 3060 deserves consideration if the price is low. 4060s don't sell for less than $285, and even that price is rare.

But the other GPUs are much older. I don't think i would advise anyone to buy older gen GPUs, and buying used is a gamble. A 2070 or 2080 is a higher tier GPU but in the two gens since, the 4060 has closed that gap considerably.

On the AMD side, i don't think they're competitive at this price point. Only if you're team Red.
The 4060 is the best choice for ~$300. AMD is a great choice in the higher tier, with the RX 7800XT and 7900GRE. Those are both such a good choice right now, it's a no-brainer for anyone that can spend that much on a GPU.
In my opinion anyway.

Ultimately, the RTX 4060 is the least overpriced of this generation of nvidias, and for a modest gaming system it's a great choice. The fact that it beats the 3060 12Gb with less VRAM and a short bus kinda seals the deal.

 

[kb7rky]

Did they fix the overheating/melting power plug issues with the 4060? If not, hard pass.

I'm not gonna drop that kind of scratch on a GPU that's going to constantly overheat, or potentially cause a fire. I'll stick with my 3060 for as long as Nvidia will support it.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

i didnt exactly mean to say the 3060 was better value

imo, the 3060 is better value, especially on the used market

I mean, it's literally in your post. "The 3060 is [a] better value." That you follow that statement with, "especially on the used market," implies that not only is it a better value in generally, but it's a much better value on the used market.

To which I say the 3060 isn't a bad card, and if you already have one then you should be okay at lowered detail settings and/or 1080p. The 4060 also isn't a bad card, and is good for 1080p or 1440p at lowered detail settings. Which would I buy or recommend, for under $300 (but more than $220), today — new or used? The 4060, no question.

As far as Arc goes, while it's often pointed to as a good value (and it is), all indications are that very few people are actually buying Arc GPUs. Maybe that's just among Steam gamers, or maybe the Steam Hardware Survey is intentionally not showing any Arc results.

But the thing you need to understand with Arc is that there really are driver concerns if you play day one releases or indie stuff. Even Diablo IV with ray tracing is still a mess, last time I looked. Something else I've noticed is that VRAM tends to be a much bigger issue on Arc — meaning games where 8GB works on Nvidia might tank on the A750 and A580. Even then, A770 16GB only has limited cases where it can beat a 4060, and overall it tends to be much slower at settings people are likely to use (re: 1080p and maybe 1440p).

 

[jordanbuilds1]

I mean, it's literally in your post. "The 3060 is [a] better value." That you follow that statement with, "especially on the used market," implies that not only is it a better value in generally, but it's a much better value on the used market.

To which I say the 3060 isn't a bad card, and if you already have one then you should be okay at lowered detail settings and/or 1080p. The 4060 also isn't a bad card, and is good for 1080p or 1440p at lowered detail settings. Which would I buy or recommend, for under $300 (but more than $220), today — new or used? The 4060, no question.

As far as Arc goes, while it's often pointed to as a good value (and it is), all indications are that very few people are actually buying Arc GPUs. Maybe that's just among Steam gamers, or maybe the Steam Hardware Survey is intentionally not showing any Arc results.

But the thing you need to understand with Arc is that there really are driver concerns if you play day one releases or indie stuff. Even Diablo IV with ray tracing is still a mess, last time I looked. Something else I've noticed is that VRAM tends to be a much bigger issue on Arc — meaning games where 8GB works on Nvidia might tank on the A750 and A580. Even then, A770 16GB only has limited cases where it can beat a 4060, and overall it tends to be much slower at settings people are likely to use (re: 1080p and maybe 1440p).

View attachment 355

there is that, but again considering what intel has done over the past 2 years, its still prob a good competitor. +16 gigs will prob make it last a little longer. in terms of ray tracing preformance, the 4060 will win over most cards, but as someone mentioned it prob wont be an enjoyable experience. the fact it can play console ports at 40-60 fps is still impressive nonetheless.

 

[35below0]

Did they fix the overheating/melting power plug issues with the 4060? If not, hard pass.

I'm not gonna drop that kind of scratch on a GPU that's going to constantly overheat, or potentially cause a fire. I'll stick with my 3060 for as long as Nvidia will support it.

You're thinking of the 4090. The 4060 has a normal PCIe connector. Usually just one i think.

Upgrading from 3060 to 4060 is not a huge improvement. The money for the 3060 is already spent. Why not wait for a few generations? Usually gen to gen improvements are too small to be worth it.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

there is that, but again considering what intel has done over the past 2 years, its still prob a good competitor. +16 gigs will prob make it last a little longer. in terms of ray tracing preformance, the 4060 will win over most cards, but as someone mentioned it prob wont be an enjoyable experience. the fact it can play console ports at 40-60 fps is still impressive nonetheless.

I am, dare I say it, hopeful that Battlemage will deliver a much better showing from Intel. This is Intel's "take everything we learned from Alchemist and do it better" GPU. If Battlemage ends up disappointing, it's going to be a difficult road ahead for Intel's GPU aspirations.

 

[jordanbuilds1]

I am, dare I say it, hopeful that Battlemage will deliver a much better showing from Intel. This is Intel's "take everything we learned from Alchemist and do it better" GPU. If Battlemage ends up disappointing, it's going to be a difficult road ahead for Intel's GPU aspirations.

hopefully so, i think its just gpu drivers their team has to get used to doing. idk if they have the same people doing the drivers for integrated and gpus, but aslong as they dont rush the launch (like most of their cpus) i think they will be fine.

Budget "RTX 5060" cards likely won't be out for about a year, though. The people in the market for a 4060 aren't even thinking about buying a 5090 or 5080 this fall I suspect.

i agree, and seeing what nvidia has done in the past, its prob gonna be a much higher price. irc one leaker said it would prob be 350-400 dollars which would be wild. also the 4060 will most likely go down in price heavily and prob put it in a more competitive price range.