Sponsor: Arctic Liquid Freezer II ARGB on Amazon https://geni.us/8BokJ & P12 MAX fans on Amazon: https://geni.us/zhAMEbWe're recapping the best & worst GPUs ...
Thanks to the crypto/AI price gouging, nVidia have been allowed to up tier their GPUs. If the 4060 was released as the 4050 that it probably should’ve been then the 4060 Ti could’ve lost the “Ti” part and they could’ve sold the 16GB version as the plain Ti - with the corresponding price corrections.
4060 Ti is much more efficient + that frame generation. The difference in performance is not material, really. I know imagining is hard for some people but please do try. If you can’t judge chips on merit without marketing names and prices, just imagine it would cost $100 cheaper and be called 4060. Wouldn’t it be impressive then? So much more perfromant, so much more efficient.
the reduced memory bandwidth is already baked into these performance figures, and apart from some edge-cases like emulated PS3/wii at 16K resolution the 4060 Ti is still generally a faster card. not that much faster, but, it’s not slower either.
that’s what I said, the memory bandwidth is already baked into the numbers you see. the cache increases mean that you don’t need as much actual memory bandwidth - it’s the same thing AMD did with RDNA2.
AMD reduced the memory bus by 25% on the 6700XT relative to its predecessor and 33% on the 6600XT relative to its predecessor, so, if you think that will cause those cards to age more poorly…
4060 Ti is objectively a bad product.
Nope, again just priced badly. All of the Ada Lovlace chips are efficient and performant for what they are.
3060 Ti is literally better.
Thanks to the crypto/AI price gouging, nVidia have been allowed to up tier their GPUs. If the 4060 was released as the 4050 that it probably should’ve been then the 4060 Ti could’ve lost the “Ti” part and they could’ve sold the 16GB version as the plain Ti - with the corresponding price corrections.
4060 Ti is much more efficient + that frame generation. The difference in performance is not material, really. I know imagining is hard for some people but please do try. If you can’t judge chips on merit without marketing names and prices, just imagine it would cost $100 cheaper and be called 4060. Wouldn’t it be impressive then? So much more perfromant, so much more efficient.
So, again, a great product but a bad pricing.
it literally is not, 4060 Ti is 11% faster at 1080p, 9% faster at 1440p, and 6% faster at 2160p.
the reduced memory bandwidth is already baked into these performance figures, and apart from some edge-cases like emulated PS3/wii at 16K resolution the 4060 Ti is still generally a faster card. not that much faster, but, it’s not slower either.
4060 Ti has 128-bit bus width, meaning it will age poorly in the long term. 4060 was designed to be planned obsolescence.
3060 Ti will last you longer as future games will demand more memory bandwidth.
that’s what I said, the memory bandwidth is already baked into the numbers you see. the cache increases mean that you don’t need as much actual memory bandwidth - it’s the same thing AMD did with RDNA2.
AMD reduced the memory bus by 25% on the 6700XT relative to its predecessor and 33% on the 6600XT relative to its predecessor, so, if you think that will cause those cards to age more poorly…
RDNA 2 is dogshit as well, lmao. I’m not defending them either.
The cache increase didn’t do shit since the previous generation Ampere performs better at 4K than Ada Lovelace.