Trogdor1123
Member
Not sure what standards 10 years removed have to do with anything
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
After Nvidia introduced the 8GB 4060/Ti, get ready for a new narrative push: some reviewers will show only "medium" or "high" settings on benchmarks.
- Thread starter ToTTenTranz
- Start date
Not sure what standards 10 years removed have to do with anything
lukilladog
Member
That they keep lowering the bar for midrange cards.
lukilladog
Member
If you tell him he might change his mind.
Knightime_X
Member
Maybe your monitor is bad at displaying 1440p?First off if your going to run 1440p then buy a 1440p monitor and if you think 1440p on a 4k monitor looks just as good you need your eyes checked
I agree with you to a large degree as I have a friend building a new PC upgrading from a 1060 and he is pretty excited about the 4060 and he only plays at 1080p.
Its like the bashing of the 4070ti I played some on my buddies 7700x 4070ti prebuilt at 1440p and that little machine kicks ass.
I play PC games in 1440p on my 75'' Samsung QN90A, as well as a dedicated 35'' 144hz 1440p pc monitor.
Looks great to me. I'm not one of those silly types who think it's the end of the world if I see a micro jaggy.
Image quality is crispy af on my end.
Last edited:
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
But you have to realize that the vast majority of basic consumers will visit a computer store. This will also be the card in a lot of low cost oem systems as well.
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
Exactly, and he's not likely to caring about ray tracing shadows. As to worse quality than ps4, let's not devolve into fantasy.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
According to DRAMeXchange, 1GB of GDDR6 is going for $3.4 nowadays, which means 8GB costs $27.
It's probably a lot lower than that because Nvidia buys in very large quantities, but at the very least they're taking a 270% markup on those extra 8GB of VRAM.
EDIT: fixed markup, thanks
supernova8
Last edited:
supernova8
Banned
I think you confused markup with margin.According to DRAMeXchange, 1GB of GDDR6 is going for $3.4 nowadays, which means 8GB costs $27.
It's probably a lot lower than that because Nvidia buys in very large quantities, but at the very least they're taking a 370% margin on those extra 8GB of VRAM.
Margin in this case would be 73% ( (100-27 = 73)/100 =73%) (hint = margin can never be over 100%, which you'd only get if the cost was zero)
Markup would be 270% ((100-27 = 73)/27 = 270%)
Last edited:
HerjansEagleFeeder
Member
Don't know what your viewing distance is, or about your eye sight, but on my 27" LG UltraGear 4K monitor it makes a hell of a difference in sharpness (I also don't wear glasses), no matter what graphics settings I choose or how far away I roll my chair from the desk.
Rudius
Member
Now that's an exaggeration. For $100 and 8GB it would would be a fantastic deal and an enormous success, even if you have to lower settings on newer games.
Last edited:
Buggy Loop
Member
Well, he’s right
Not to protect Nvidia or anything with low VRAM as a product in 2023 but, who doesn’t optimize a bit the settings?
I was on a 1060 for the longest time and I tweaked settings. DF optimized settings are really good to follow.
With a 3080 Ti I think about it less as epic or max will likely eat through 98% of games.
But let’s not kid ourselves, while peoples complain about ray tracing tanking performances but actually providing LEGIT differences, here we can have 30% boost from ultra to very high sometimes for virtually the same pixels on screens.
Ultra settings are most often really dumb. Medium might be a stretch, depends on the setting I guess, but high I don’t think I would even blink an eye on the difference unless I had a screenshot slider.
If it’s the difference between putting $1k on table or $399 and you can live with the difference? Why not?
(Still don’t pick 8GB in 2023)
Last edited:
ToTTenTranz
Banned
The statement about Ultra settings often having little return for the performance deficit they create is true.
It's when people use it to excuse and justify a wrongly priced (and ultimately badly designed) product that I consider it to be immensely dishonest.
Besides, "Ultra" settings is a moving target. "Ultra" textures in 2025 is probably going to target higher memory capacity than early 2023.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Possibly but I know his budget is tight and I don't want to push him out of his comfort zone and honestly I think coming from a prebuilt PC centered around a 1060 anything he gets with a 4060 in it will be a nice leap forward for him
TheTony316
Member
This is what it should be, imo. Early - mid 10's was a great time for PC building.
Gp1
Member
They did the same with the 1060 3gb. A lot of reviews praising the card's performance and saying that 3gb was enough. Turns out that 3gb wasn't enough to maintain that card in the same league as the 6gb ones.
The 1060 (at least the good ones) had 6gb card. In 2016... 7 years ago.
What they are doing now with the 4060 is even worse. It's something similar to what they did with the 960, one of the worst x6x cards in their history. At least at the time they were sincere and marketed the card as a MOBA GPU.
Low performance, low bandwidthwith low VRAM or low performance, low bandwidth with enough VRAM.
The only selling point of this is dlss3. Which as someone already said, ends consuming more VRAM.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
No, i wouldn't. When i got my 1060 6GB i was never VRAM limited at 1080p even at highest settings, for the whole PS4/One generation. That's what, 4-5 years of use?
Now you are saying i'll be thrilled to have a card that will be VRAM limited at 1080p before this very year ends?
Maybe i would be thrilled if i could get a 3060 12GB a year ago if the prices were sane. And now its too old and still too expensive to get, maybe drop the price to 200$ and i will be thrilled to upgrade my 1060 with one, yes.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
I was replying to someone else saying that. Just using his hypothetical and saying it doesn't make folks looking at the card in the here and now "snobs".
nkarafo
Member
I replied as a 1060 owner. The 60 series jumps become smaller and the cards themselves far more expensive. All the 4060 cards are the worst deals in the series yet.
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
Lol, I literally ran a 3gb 1060 for years and my son who inherited it up until about a month ago and it was just fine. My other son has a 6gb 1060 and shockingly it's fine too for roblox and minecraft. Nobody gave 2 craps that it was 3gb, and they won't care about 8gb on this card that's easily 4 times the 1060. Your totally clueless about who 95% of the buyers are for this card. It's not for the hardcore gamer.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
Not at all. But i expect to play at "high" settings/1080p on a console port, with a 300/400$+ GPU that's 2x as powerful compared to that console, without bottlenecks.
Trogdor1123
Member
That’s fair. I guess I just have trouble comparing them that far apart.
Games are so different now.
kvltus lvlzvs
Member
I guess that is what happens when there isn't any real competition.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when the Taiwan geopolitical drama heats up, that should shake up the market a bit.
Gp1
Member
Aaa
Negative. Serie 6 was and still is the 1080p max setting card for Nvidia. It's their mainstream enthusiast card. It was always, by far, their best deal in frame/$. Which looks like it isn't going to happen in this generation.
I'm running my 1060 6gb for 4+ years now. And even if I was upgrading every generation I would rather have bought another series 6.
It's a way better deal than the series 8.
That's the problems in you logic. Your son's did not care because they didn't bought it. You are the consumer and you upgraded it long before that 3gb became a hassle.
ps. For Roblox and Minecraft you can even pass with a even weaker card like the 1050/1650 etc.
Negative. Serie 6 was and still is the 1080p max setting card for Nvidia. It's their mainstream enthusiast card. It was always, by far, their best deal in frame/$. Which looks like it isn't going to happen in this generation.
I'm running my 1060 6gb for 4+ years now. And even if I was upgrading every generation I would rather have bought another series 6.
It's a way better deal than the series 8.
That's the problems in you logic. Your son's did not care because they didn't bought it. You are the consumer and you upgraded it long before that 3gb became a hassle.
ps. For Roblox and Minecraft you can even pass with a even weaker card like the 1050/1650 etc.
lukilladog
Member
I was talking about how much I value 8 gb nowadays, from personal experience I know it is already falling short, so I dont want it on my PC, even if the 4050 was free, I would rather pay for something else with more memory. I learned my lesson with the gtx 950, games moved on and for example, I ended playing Project cars 2 with far worse texture liveries than the several years old Shift 2 from the same devs... Just because the game went 500mb over 2gb at some tracks. Devs could have handled the number of textures differently but when Nvidia and AMD give them high end cards to develope their games (a given for "high profile" games as they call them), they design their texturing on that and then go full batch automatic texture slashing to make the game run on smaller cards and dont care if the game ends up looking worse than their previous game developed years ago. That is how things work and that is why we are seeing worse textures in newer games under 8gb than lets say, SW Battlefront 2 that hardly needs 5gb... And now RT makes things even worse as it wont work well, at all, with filled buffers busy swapping textures in and out. Shoot yourself in the foot if you wish, but the advice is there.
DemonGamerTTT
Member
They are preparing for the local AI explosion.
Most useful models requires something I. The order or 12GB of ram to run at all, so they making sure that people that buys cards today won't be able properly run local AIs in the future.
Then they will just anounce higher ram cards with a greater pricetag "aimed" to those uses... That would burst theirs dales through the roof.
AMD must step up it's AI processing capabilities game, right now Nvidia is the only player the effects of it is finally starting to bleed into the end consumer space.
Most useful models requires something I. The order or 12GB of ram to run at all, so they making sure that people that buys cards today won't be able properly run local AIs in the future.
Then they will just anounce higher ram cards with a greater pricetag "aimed" to those uses... That would burst theirs dales through the roof.
AMD must step up it's AI processing capabilities game, right now Nvidia is the only player the effects of it is finally starting to bleed into the end consumer space.
Knightime_X
Member
I know some monitors can't do 1440p so it drops the resolution to 1080p and upscales it.
Actual 1080p on 4k looks ok, but unsupported 1440p can look really bad.
Denton
Member
4060 will likely be capable of that.
Beastclaw Raider
Banned
Don't regret swapping my 3070 for a 6800xt. This low VRAM on cards is ridiculous
Ultra settings across the board is dumb but maxing out texture settings usually has a pretty good IQ to performance tradeoff since the only performance tradeoff is when you run out of VRAM.
It will be funny when the 3060 is faster in some titles due to vram. Let's see if reviewers trailer their benchmark suites to avoid games with high vram usage.
It will be funny when the 3060 is faster in some titles due to vram. Let's see if reviewers trailer their benchmark suites to avoid games with high vram usage.
lukilladog
Member
I'm using "high" textures on RE4 remake with an 8gb 3050, there are crappy textures all over the place, not all but lots. The thing with settings, is that they are arbitrary.
Last edited:
Dirk Benedict
Member
1440p is nice, but when your face is seeing native 4k content every day of the week, 1440p will begin to look fuzzy because your(my eyes, really) have been trained to see that many more pixels. It looks fuzzy to me, any which way I see it(1440p)
kiphalfton
Member
I don't disagree.
The GTX 1080 Ti for $650 was a phenomenal value. And the 970 and 1070 were an incredible value at their respective price points.
Spyxos
Member
Sarcasm? I did play on ultra settings with a 1060 6gb same with 2060 6gb, and now with a 3060ti until the beginning of 2023.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I wasn't going to keep going back and forth with
Knightime_X
because I have nice 4k monitors and turning on 1440p is indeed fuzzy until your eyes adjust and you think it looks great at least until you go back to native 4k and see the difference again.Plus displaying 1440p on a 4k does not look near as good as displaying it on a 1440p display
kiphalfton
Member
If the settings for a particular game aren't the same across different cards being compared by reviewers... what use are benchmarks? Since it's not even an apples to apples comparison at that point.
If you wish to tweak settings with your setup, that's fine and makes sense. However, if we're talking about a bar chart that a review outlet uses to visually show the difference between different graphics cards, and there's a footnote underneath the graph and it says "[insert game name(s)] is at medium/high settings on the RTX 4060 Ti 8GB version", that is pretty much useless.
Last edited:
Also needs a note regarding texture swapping. Sometimes the frame rate will seem fine but the IQ is awful.
lukilladog
Member
There are already several new games that wont allow it to use max settings. We will see how good its value is compared to non 4000 series in the market.
Gp1
Member
But not a good one.
I doubt that this card would offer better raw performance than the 3070/near 3080 which is something that a good serie 6 card should do.
Like the 560ti, 660, 1060 even 2060 did.
And I'm not even considering the VRAM problem.
Edit. I would LOVE to be wrong on this. If this card by some miracle get close to a 3080 in performance I would definitely pick one, albeit the 16gb with some discounts
.
Last edited:
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
Considering the value of money, a $299 card is not an enthusiast card. An ethusiast in most cases can and will spend more.
Perhaps thier best deal. And it is mainstream, but the part that you are missing is that for the mainstream, this is sufficient power to keep them happy for a long time. In this case, what $299 card out today will offer you 15tf performance with dlss 3.0?
My son's not caring had nothing to do with who bought it, it had to do with what it was being used for. I upgraded it more for non gaming reasons than gaming, I barely used it, it was fine.
As far as "deals", the higher end cards are always a diminishing value proposition.
Last edited:
Buggy Loop
Member
But has it happened?
I seriously don’t think it will happen. Actually most likely is that peoples will find the setting that crushes 8GB VRAM with bad ports and put that on a pedestal. Thinking that everyone will bend to Nvidia is fear mongering. There’s more clicks to throw Nvidia under the bus than being their bitch and the site that does that kind of reviews as OP suggest will likely have a tough time afterwards with legitimacy.
kiphalfton
Member
Technically yes:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/afte...settings-on-benchmarks.1656703/post-267957685
Granted, in that particular case it's "not an issue" unless you compare the two charts. What I mean by that is each chart is comparing JUST games on each respective graphics card. However, if you compare the information in the two charts, you can't really do so for RE4 Remake and Plague Tale, since they're not at the same setting.
I don't think it will be an issue for most legitimate reviewers, like Guru3D, but the fact Nvidia is doing it themselves is scummy.
Last edited:
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
No 4060Ti should have about a 10% benefit in raster and more in games using heavy RT.
8GB is mostly fine for now, apart from a few badly optimized console ports, but not very future proof. 12 would have been safer, for sure.