Review: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB (Founders edition)

Agreed but in my book, there is no worthy upgrade like for like for consecutive generations. the jump between 980Ti to 1080Ti, or 1080Ti to 2080Ti, or 2080Ti etc etc was never worth it.
Personally i think its more cost effective to buy the fastest card of a generation and ride it out for two or even three generations.
Buying a new waterblock is also taken into account here.
My 1080Ti was awesome on release day and still awesome when i replaced it with a 6900xt.

 

To some extent that would make sense if the mid range become unprofitable.
I suspect they might go top end and also something in the 4030 - 4050 ultra low TDP range.

 

Is this why 3060ti now equals 6700xt in GPU performance roundups while it lost on 6700xt release ? It also has a great dlssq mode, very decent dlss balanced and playable dlssp for 2x performance.

 

Yup, about 30-35% for very little premium. I'll never understand why people prefer a much weaker 3060 that has 12g and leave this much performance instead of lowering texture quality slightly for a handful of games. I literally only had problem in doom, where ultra textures look like ultra nightmare anyway.

 

Now that i can talk about price:
most expensive one: Asus TUF gaming oc: 580 Euro (omg it should be made in gold)
less expensive one: Zotac twin edge: 440 Euro
Very high price when the 7600 are from 330 to 350 Euro... with Asus making the exeption at 399 euro for it.

I don't think that the Ti is nice at that price despite a bit better. let's wait the non Ti to see if it change something.

 

Yeah along with the prices of MOBOs and DRR5, a low power 1080p gaming rig is not cheap unless you go Previous gen.

 

Agreed, and good analogy.
I'd say the 750 Ti was almost equally as good. Very decent price and punched well above its weight for many years. From what I recall, it took about 4 or 5 years until the performance-per-watt and performance-per-cost of the 750 Ti was handily superceded.
The 1080 Ti stood out because it was very fast and became a very good value.

That's never how it worked though, because:
A. Flagship processors have traditionally been more expensive because of supply. They take up more space on the wafer, and any errors in the die compromises the entire thing. That's why AMD surged ahead with their chiplet design, because they could not only make smaller dies (where you get proportionately more useful product per-wafer) but they could combine multiple good dies to make a big powerful one. But flagship GPUs still require a gargantuan die, and that's crazy expensive.
So, when you have a small die like the 4060Ti, it literally is worth proportionately less, especially when you factor in demand (which apparently is very low).
B. A GPU series isn't in a vacuum - you have to compare to previous models too. That's where the 4060 Ti really falls flat. It might be a proportionately "decent" value compared to a 4090, but you're better off getting a 3070 or 6700XT.

That analogy starts to fall flat when you consider the whole 4080 12GB rebrand situation, which I should remind you: wasn't just a name, as it affected price too.
Unlike "Dave" or "Bill", these product names don't just exist to distinguish from each other, which you yourself acknowledged when you talked about how Ti has lost its meaning. They tell us where they fall in the rankings and what market they're supposed to target. For Nvidia, the 60s were typically the upper end of entry level, yet, this is priced like a last-gen mid-range card. So it's really like a fake ID, as was the 4080 Ti. Or in another perspective: it's like a teenage girl putting on a lot of makeup to seem a lot older than she really is, but that's not fooling anyone.

 

Just one consideration I'm going to make about 750Ti, is was the architecture, it was not a Kepler but is was the first Maxwell chip coming to the market. And in fact, the 750 Ti still have official drivers to this day because of that, when the rest of Kepler lineup is already discontinued.

 

Sorry if OT/hypothetical question but:

Would a 3060Ti benefit from a 16GB model vs 8GB...would it be enough to overtake this 4060Ti or is the architectural processing power just not there?

Looking forward to seeing the 4060Ti 16GB review.

 

HU did the review of 3070 vs A4000 16gb which is the same card for professional use and it sure did. Every game that had isues with 8gb vram now worked.

 

everything would work on 8G too if it wasn't for the studios configuring 8G to run out.

 

Its running out in so many games now that i would not blame the game studios but the companies that put 8gb vram on a 400$ graphics cards.

 

Yeah, let's not progress game graphics, just because GPU maker is greedy and gimps their products.

I guess DOOM (1993) engine should be enough for all games, to infinity and beyond

 

there is progress, just not in the particular games that run out of vram because the studio set a 80% vram limit in the config files.
ray/path tracing is progress, crappy Hogwarts Legacy and Jedi ports are not.
Hogwarts looks dated imo. AC Unity looked better in 2014.

 

I blame both.

AMD and Nvidia specially should put more VRAM but game makers should also optimize their games because the graphics they offer shouldn`t require so much memory.

 

Yea, I must admit the power draw on the 4xxx Series is astounding though.

The power draw + FPS with a 4070Ti is mind-blowing vs a 3090.

 

If only it was reasonable priced.

 

Yep!...start @8:00 minutes and the 3060Ti vs 4060Ti is not worth it via power power consumption versus frames per second.

However....a 4070Ti vs 3090 is on a different level altogether.

Massive Improvement in power draw/fps/regardless of maximum resolution/settings.

 

I would not agree. 3090 will hold better on 4k than 4070ti using maximum settings + raytracing where even 12gb can become a limit.