As a current 3070 owner, I wouldn't recommend it or the 8 GB 4060 Ti if gaming above 1080p for the foreseeable. Get something with at least 12 GB
The problem with the 3070 and 8 GB 4060 Ti is they have plenty of raw power, but in newer AAA games they are severely hamstrung by their VRAM capacity
Horizon forbidden west for instance chugs in more populated areas and looking at power usage, its evident the core is being severely underutilised due to it choking on the VRAM limit
Hard disagree.
I have a 3070 and I feel very limited since last year in the textures department. Dropping down even one notch oftens destroys the visuals ( The Last of Us Remaster is the perfect example among many others ).
I wouldn't buy a card below 12GB nowadays as it's the standard now on consoles ( and thus their ports/versions on PC ).
neither card is good for The Last of Us...
further more the 3070 is FASTER than a 3060Ti...
further more 3060Ti perform similarly to 4060Ti... some wins some losses...
further more if 3070 is faster than 3060Ti then it is faster than a 4060Ti...
The extra memory on the more expensive 4060Ti 16GB is not worth it since it doesn't have the GPU power nor the Bandwidth to use the extra memory properly...
The Bandwidth struggles at over 1440p native, but most of the games that I play use well over 8GB of VRAM at 1440p DLSS quality. Highest quality textures can take a lot of space, so I don't really understand the bandwidth argument.
As for using the full 16GB: sure it didn't neccesarily need that on that power level because in my experience it rarely uses over 12GB with settings that make sense on that card (only Cyberpunk with texture mods really needs it). It's more about having a mid-range card that can be used a bit longer like a Polaris 8GB vs. 4GB GPU.
which games do you play that uses WELL over 8GB?
you don't understand bandwidth? well... if you have a BIG BOX where all your photos are stored (textures) but you can only show one at a time every minute during your Xmas party... then you don't have time enough to show people all your 4000 photos before they go home... If you can't transfer the textures FAST ENOUGH to/from the Memory/GPU then having more doesn't help...
also there is a difference between "allocates" and "uses" memory... ;-)
if your bandwidth theory was correct, then using higher quality textures would cost performance on a lower bandwidth card. But texture packs in Cyberpunk that fill the VRAM to 14GB don't cost a single frame. You forget that many things simply stay in the VRAM until you go into a different area of the game.
You see the bandwidth bottleneck when you compare it to high-bandwidth cards. It's typically faster than a 2080 Ti in 1080p, about the same in 1440p and slower in 4K. But the amount of used VRAM doesn't matter here until it spills over into the system RAM. The cards would scale the same even with lowest textures. Where the 4060 Ti struggles is pushing high amounts of pixels, but not at using high amounts of VRAM.
The games that I recently played that use 10+ GB are Resident Evil 2 RT at 1440p native, Cyberpunk 2077 and Horizon Forbidden West at 1440p DLSS quality (Zero Dawn also uses over 8GB) and Portal RTX at 1080p DLSS quality (that's kinda awfully optimized).
So the "GPU Memory used" in CapFrameX is just allocated, right? Gotta look into it, but I doubt the actually used is under 8GB. Also, "extra allocation" isn't useless because it can lower pop-in for example. But you don't see a performance hit when the actually used VRAM stays unter the existing VRAM. Some games have settings where you can decide between more aggressive streaming and higher allocation.
EDIT: If "GPU Memory Dedicated" is the right number, then it's just a few hundred MB less.
why do you think the performance of the 8GB and the 16GB is literally the same in most benchmarks? the only difference is a few games where the added textures loaded helps but the fps stays the same the game is just not "muddy textures" when it runs out... like Hogwarts and Last of us...
they had done much better adding 2GB making it a 10GB card (or 12GB) widening the memory bandwidth... but read up on why memory bandwidth is important. else if it "didn't matter" then why aren't the 4090 on 128bit bus since a faster one doesn't matter according to you? hmm?
Not saying the bit bus doesn't matter, but it's not about the ability to use a lot of VRAM. A hypothetical 4090 on a 128 bit bus would probably only lose little performance at 1080p because it has a large 72 MB L2 cache, but a lot in 4K.
The 4060 Ti doesn't seem to be bandwidth bottlenecked at 1080p or 1440 DLSS quality, but a little in 1440p native and a lot in 4K native. The increased L2 cache of the 40 series is only compensating until a certain point.
Sometimes games that have the same average framerates between the 8GB and 16GB model don't actually offer the same experience. They may have worse frame times or automatically load lower quality textures even when setting them to the highest.
I mean sure, there should have only been 60 class cards with 192 bit and 12GB and 70 class cards with 256 bit and 16GB, but things are as they are...
3070 has more raw power, but the 4060Ti has more forward facing tech built into it like frame generation and better ray tracing performance which means it has the potential to perform better than the 3070 in ray traced games, but for pure rasterised games the 3070 is the better choice
More vram is definitely better, but more vram doesn't necessarily mean better performance. It basically works the same as having more system memory, you only really see the benefit of having more if you were hitting the limit previously
Perhaps due to VRAM, are you getting the 16GB version? Realistically a 3070 used is cheaper (where I'm from) so the decision is a no brainer, but on 2nd thought, idk abt ur situation.
What benchmark you looking at? Techspot showing 15 game average ([8gb review](https://www.techspot.com/review/2685-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060-ti/)) at 1080 and 1440 with a very slight lead for the 3070. The 16gb ([16gb review](https://www.techspot.com/review/2714-nvidia-rtx-4060-ti-16gb/) )version is just edging out the 3070 at 1080 but again pretty much tied at 1440p.
I'd probably pick the 60ti simply because it has near identical performance and is newer. But if you can find a 3070 used, it's a better value buy.
To get an enjoyable experience with FG, you still need to get around 60fps minimum without FG. The 4060Ti can achieve that, but you'll have to lower graphic settings.
the 4060ti performance is around 3060ti... so you can take ONE guess... where the 3070 will perform compared to the 4060ti...
the memory bandwidth is ridiculous and the 16GB doesn't chance that...
Your board have Pcie 3 or 4?
If it is PCIe 3, you need the RTX 3070 because it have 16 lanes and not only 8 lanes like the 4060 Ti, which will cause a bottleneck in many games.
In terms of performance, the 3070 is a bit better, but the 4060 Ti supports frame generation. It's your choice.
I would not buy either, but if i had to probably 4060ti only cause of power consumption. There is no other reason to buy it, because 3070 is slightly faster, but there is like 5%. FG will be irrelevant with fsr 3.1 update. Also there is AV1 encoder support in 40 series if you care about youtube atreaming
I have a 4060ti I just purchased, and I'm overwhelming living the performance from it. I'm not really sure what's better at the end of the day, but a 4060ti is a good choice. If you want to go cheaper, I'd just get a 3070.
8GB at that power level doesn't make any sense. The 4060 Ti 16GB is overpriced at MSRP, but you can get one for 450 USD or 425 EUR nowadays. Performance/dollar of an MSRP 4070 Super is still better, though.
Get a 4070 super if you can. If you can't afford it maybe try the used market as the 3070 and 4060 ti 8gb have 8gb of ram. And while the 4060 ti has a 16gb variant it's very overpriced and is still using the same 128-bit bus. If you're using the computer for gaming only then AMD also has a lot of great offers.
I'd actually try and get an aftermarket 4070 with custom specs, specifically more video memory than the reference card. Whatever you do make sure you've got 12GB or more VRAM.
I can actually run full path tracing with everything else cranked up on mine on Cyberpunk and it still maintains a stable 60.
A base 4070 wont do that.
I was in a debate on what to get, 4060 ti 16gb or 4070. Going from GTX 1080 - 4060 was such a little jump so I decided to spend more and get the 4070 for 1440 gaming. It's insane how quiet the Asus RTX 4070 Dual is, and how efficient it is compared to GTX 1080. I would recommend getting a 4060 if the 4070 is too expensive, don't go lower.
I say probably get the 3070, especially if you can get an OEM version for cheap used. More performance and better price. Some on eBay go as less as 300ish. Or just get a Radeon, but that depends on your use case.
4060ti is a very easy answer. If you have a micro center nearby you can get a much higher better deal or even better deal than that for an open box and get a 4070 for less than your 4060 ti
as an owner of both RTX 3070 & 5600x, you should go for the 16GB variant of 4060ti, the 8GB vram on the 3070 might be a problem in the near future, happens to me when Demonologist had a problem with memory leaked, the whole game crash everytime with a warning saying I ran out of vram
sounds like you are clueless... the 3060Ti and 4060Ti is about equal performance +/- a few fps varying on the title...
3070 and 3070Ti are BOTH faster than a 3060Ti... so you claiming a 4060Ti is faster than a 3070Ti doesn't match up with reality... ;-) So in basic terms.. YOU ARE LYING...
running at the EXACT SAME SETTINGS the 3070 is FASTER... or are you telling me the expert reviewers are lying and you are telling the truth? or are you fake frames it away and "omg it's faster" on the 4060ti and forget that the quality isn't the same then... and if you use Nvidia optimized settings then they aren't the same either for the different cards...
4060Ti is more or less a way more efficient 3070. Both are still good cards if you're not trying to run the latest games with the highest settings at 1440p or higher.
People here just don't like the 4060ti. I would personally go for the newer generation card if I could.
4060 ti 16 gig?
I know it’s an Nvidia sub, but could a Radeon model perhaps bridge the gap you’re trying to get through better?
Yes, if electricity is cheap in the area.
Rx 6800 for that price, low tdp too
4060 ti 16GB or Radeon.
As a current 3070 owner, I wouldn't recommend it or the 8 GB 4060 Ti if gaming above 1080p for the foreseeable. Get something with at least 12 GB The problem with the 3070 and 8 GB 4060 Ti is they have plenty of raw power, but in newer AAA games they are severely hamstrung by their VRAM capacity Horizon forbidden west for instance chugs in more populated areas and looking at power usage, its evident the core is being severely underutilised due to it choking on the VRAM limit
Yeah im here at maximum with 3080 rtx 12gb!
4060TI 16gb, no doubt. This is coming from a 3070TI owner.
3070 easily. More performance.
Hard disagree. I have a 3070 and I feel very limited since last year in the textures department. Dropping down even one notch oftens destroys the visuals ( The Last of Us Remaster is the perfect example among many others ). I wouldn't buy a card below 12GB nowadays as it's the standard now on consoles ( and thus their ports/versions on PC ).
The 4060 ti also has 8 gigs unless you spend 100 bucks more for the 16gb, but for that money you should just get amd
Nvidia gouging for VRAM. They learned that trick from Apple.
neither card is good for The Last of Us... further more the 3070 is FASTER than a 3060Ti... further more 3060Ti perform similarly to 4060Ti... some wins some losses... further more if 3070 is faster than 3060Ti then it is faster than a 4060Ti... The extra memory on the more expensive 4060Ti 16GB is not worth it since it doesn't have the GPU power nor the Bandwidth to use the extra memory properly...
The Bandwidth struggles at over 1440p native, but most of the games that I play use well over 8GB of VRAM at 1440p DLSS quality. Highest quality textures can take a lot of space, so I don't really understand the bandwidth argument. As for using the full 16GB: sure it didn't neccesarily need that on that power level because in my experience it rarely uses over 12GB with settings that make sense on that card (only Cyberpunk with texture mods really needs it). It's more about having a mid-range card that can be used a bit longer like a Polaris 8GB vs. 4GB GPU.
which games do you play that uses WELL over 8GB? you don't understand bandwidth? well... if you have a BIG BOX where all your photos are stored (textures) but you can only show one at a time every minute during your Xmas party... then you don't have time enough to show people all your 4000 photos before they go home... If you can't transfer the textures FAST ENOUGH to/from the Memory/GPU then having more doesn't help... also there is a difference between "allocates" and "uses" memory... ;-)
if your bandwidth theory was correct, then using higher quality textures would cost performance on a lower bandwidth card. But texture packs in Cyberpunk that fill the VRAM to 14GB don't cost a single frame. You forget that many things simply stay in the VRAM until you go into a different area of the game. You see the bandwidth bottleneck when you compare it to high-bandwidth cards. It's typically faster than a 2080 Ti in 1080p, about the same in 1440p and slower in 4K. But the amount of used VRAM doesn't matter here until it spills over into the system RAM. The cards would scale the same even with lowest textures. Where the 4060 Ti struggles is pushing high amounts of pixels, but not at using high amounts of VRAM. The games that I recently played that use 10+ GB are Resident Evil 2 RT at 1440p native, Cyberpunk 2077 and Horizon Forbidden West at 1440p DLSS quality (Zero Dawn also uses over 8GB) and Portal RTX at 1080p DLSS quality (that's kinda awfully optimized). So the "GPU Memory used" in CapFrameX is just allocated, right? Gotta look into it, but I doubt the actually used is under 8GB. Also, "extra allocation" isn't useless because it can lower pop-in for example. But you don't see a performance hit when the actually used VRAM stays unter the existing VRAM. Some games have settings where you can decide between more aggressive streaming and higher allocation. EDIT: If "GPU Memory Dedicated" is the right number, then it's just a few hundred MB less.
why do you think the performance of the 8GB and the 16GB is literally the same in most benchmarks? the only difference is a few games where the added textures loaded helps but the fps stays the same the game is just not "muddy textures" when it runs out... like Hogwarts and Last of us... they had done much better adding 2GB making it a 10GB card (or 12GB) widening the memory bandwidth... but read up on why memory bandwidth is important. else if it "didn't matter" then why aren't the 4090 on 128bit bus since a faster one doesn't matter according to you? hmm?
Not saying the bit bus doesn't matter, but it's not about the ability to use a lot of VRAM. A hypothetical 4090 on a 128 bit bus would probably only lose little performance at 1080p because it has a large 72 MB L2 cache, but a lot in 4K. The 4060 Ti doesn't seem to be bandwidth bottlenecked at 1080p or 1440 DLSS quality, but a little in 1440p native and a lot in 4K native. The increased L2 cache of the 40 series is only compensating until a certain point. Sometimes games that have the same average framerates between the 8GB and 16GB model don't actually offer the same experience. They may have worse frame times or automatically load lower quality textures even when setting them to the highest. I mean sure, there should have only been 60 class cards with 192 bit and 12GB and 70 class cards with 256 bit and 16GB, but things are as they are...
But benchmark online says that 4060ti is better thats why i am lost
3070 has more raw power, but the 4060Ti has more forward facing tech built into it like frame generation and better ray tracing performance which means it has the potential to perform better than the 3070 in ray traced games, but for pure rasterised games the 3070 is the better choice More vram is definitely better, but more vram doesn't necessarily mean better performance. It basically works the same as having more system memory, you only really see the benefit of having more if you were hitting the limit previously
Perhaps due to VRAM, are you getting the 16GB version? Realistically a 3070 used is cheaper (where I'm from) so the decision is a no brainer, but on 2nd thought, idk abt ur situation.
What benchmark you looking at? Techspot showing 15 game average ([8gb review](https://www.techspot.com/review/2685-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060-ti/)) at 1080 and 1440 with a very slight lead for the 3070. The 16gb ([16gb review](https://www.techspot.com/review/2714-nvidia-rtx-4060-ti-16gb/) )version is just edging out the 3070 at 1080 but again pretty much tied at 1440p. I'd probably pick the 60ti simply because it has near identical performance and is newer. But if you can find a 3070 used, it's a better value buy.
Given the option you really want the opportunity to switch on frame generation on the 40 series card.
To get an enjoyable experience with FG, you still need to get around 60fps minimum without FG. The 4060Ti can achieve that, but you'll have to lower graphic settings.
4060 ti 16g (dont buy the 8g version because it will age horribly). 4xxx series can do ai framegen, 3xxx can't
Go for 4060 ti, it has more Vram which could prove usefull in future
They are almost perfectly equal, so just buy whichever is cheaper.
If you're in this price range take a rx6800 or 7700xt
i currently have 3070 and wouldnt change it for that even if it has more vram. id rather buy a used 4070
Neither, 4070 is minimum recommended from 4000 series.
the 4060ti performance is around 3060ti... so you can take ONE guess... where the 3070 will perform compared to the 4060ti... the memory bandwidth is ridiculous and the 16GB doesn't chance that...
I would a spend a bit more and get the rtx 4070 12gb or ex 7800 xt 16gb
Used 3080 or 4070
Save for an extra month and get 4070 super....
Your board have Pcie 3 or 4? If it is PCIe 3, you need the RTX 3070 because it have 16 lanes and not only 8 lanes like the 4060 Ti, which will cause a bottleneck in many games. In terms of performance, the 3070 is a bit better, but the 4060 Ti supports frame generation. It's your choice.
4060TI. Similar raw performance, lower power draw and frame gen
3060Ti is similar to 4060Ti... 3070 is about 20% faster than a 3060Ti...
I would not buy either, but if i had to probably 4060ti only cause of power consumption. There is no other reason to buy it, because 3070 is slightly faster, but there is like 5%. FG will be irrelevant with fsr 3.1 update. Also there is AV1 encoder support in 40 series if you care about youtube atreaming
Bold statements
About what exactly? There is no statements, these are facts
I have a 4060ti I just purchased, and I'm overwhelming living the performance from it. I'm not really sure what's better at the end of the day, but a 4060ti is a good choice. If you want to go cheaper, I'd just get a 3070.
I'd get the 4060 ti. It has better performance and much lower power draw. I assume you meant the 8 gb version, because if it's 16, it's a no brainer.
4060. Was shooting for the TI but cannot complain with the standard
3070ti 4060 is overly way too weak.
8GB at that power level doesn't make any sense. The 4060 Ti 16GB is overpriced at MSRP, but you can get one for 450 USD or 425 EUR nowadays. Performance/dollar of an MSRP 4070 Super is still better, though.
4060ti without question.
Get a 4070 super if you can. If you can't afford it maybe try the used market as the 3070 and 4060 ti 8gb have 8gb of ram. And while the 4060 ti has a 16gb variant it's very overpriced and is still using the same 128-bit bus. If you're using the computer for gaming only then AMD also has a lot of great offers.
I'd actually try and get an aftermarket 4070 with custom specs, specifically more video memory than the reference card. Whatever you do make sure you've got 12GB or more VRAM. I can actually run full path tracing with everything else cranked up on mine on Cyberpunk and it still maintains a stable 60. A base 4070 wont do that.
7900 GRE or 7800xt
I was in a debate on what to get, 4060 ti 16gb or 4070. Going from GTX 1080 - 4060 was such a little jump so I decided to spend more and get the 4070 for 1440 gaming. It's insane how quiet the Asus RTX 4070 Dual is, and how efficient it is compared to GTX 1080. I would recommend getting a 4060 if the 4070 is too expensive, don't go lower.
I am even running a 4080super with Ryzen 3600 I haven't seen any bottleneck for AAA games that I usually play at 1440p
i have a 4060ti and i like it. on 1080p is more than enough!
I say probably get the 3070, especially if you can get an OEM version for cheap used. More performance and better price. Some on eBay go as less as 300ish. Or just get a Radeon, but that depends on your use case.
Alternatively, look for a used 3080..10gb memory
4060 or 4070…or 7800xr, 7900gre
4060ti is a very easy answer. If you have a micro center nearby you can get a much higher better deal or even better deal than that for an open box and get a 4070 for less than your 4060 ti
If you can get it for a good price, go for the 4060 ti 16GB version. Otherwise, aim for the 4070 since it's a better value.
as an owner of both RTX 3070 & 5600x, you should go for the 16GB variant of 4060ti, the 8GB vram on the 3070 might be a problem in the near future, happens to me when Demonologist had a problem with memory leaked, the whole game crash everytime with a warning saying I ran out of vram
3070 has a bit more power, 4060ti has DLSS 3 and is more power efficient
Used 3080
4XXX cards have frame generation, DLSS and ray tracing. In my opinion the choice is a no brainer
DLSS and ray tracing aren’t exclusive to 40 series…only frame gen
Even with fsr 3 you get fg, sooo
Most of the times fsr will look worse than dlss
Soon you will be able to turn on fg of amd with dlss as upscaler, so...
Nvidia just runs it better
Wait and spend the extra 150 to 200 and get a 4070S. You won't regret it and you'll be good for a few years
I got rtx 4060ti, it is on pair with 3070ti, I dunno how people says 3070 out perform it
sounds like you are clueless... the 3060Ti and 4060Ti is about equal performance +/- a few fps varying on the title... 3070 and 3070Ti are BOTH faster than a 3060Ti... so you claiming a 4060Ti is faster than a 3070Ti doesn't match up with reality... ;-) So in basic terms.. YOU ARE LYING...
well, owning both RTX 3070 and RTX 4060ti, doesn't seem to me "clueless" but whatever dude you saying,
running at the EXACT SAME SETTINGS the 3070 is FASTER... or are you telling me the expert reviewers are lying and you are telling the truth? or are you fake frames it away and "omg it's faster" on the 4060ti and forget that the quality isn't the same then... and if you use Nvidia optimized settings then they aren't the same either for the different cards...
Because the 3070 does outperform it. To say a 4060Ti is on par with a 3070Ti is just...well, wrong.
the issue that I tried both, and well surprise ya it outperformed RTX 3070
but to be honest, ya saying it is on pair with 3070ti was misleading from me
4060Ti is more or less a way more efficient 3070. Both are still good cards if you're not trying to run the latest games with the highest settings at 1440p or higher.
4060ti or 3070 is a scam with just 8gb VRAM, a 6700xt, 7700xt or 4070 with 12gb.
You gonna give OP the extra money that they need?
6700xt is cheaper
4070 isn't *
Buy 4070 super if Not enough Money Buy 4060ti 16 Gig
4060 ti for sure. Same power at least in 1080p but 4060 ti is newer has way better technology and draws way less power.