RTX 4060 Leaked 3DMark Tests Show 23 Percent Uplift Over RTX 3060 12GB
Reportedly up to 48% faster than the feeble RTX 3060 8GB.
Nvidia's GeForce X060-tier cards are usually among its most popular SKUs, so we are on tenterhooks for the launch of the RTX 4060, which poses to be one of the best graphics cards. Today, leak-centric video cards site VideoCardz says it managed to obtain some 3DMark scores from reviews in progress, being prepared for "the official embargo lift on June 28th." It has shared extensive comparative scores featuring several near-neighbor SKUs, purportedly taken from 3DMark Speed Way, Port Royal, Time Spy, and Fire Strike synthetic tests.
Before sharing and discussing some of the scores, it is essential to point out that our headline highlights the apparent 23% gen-on-gen uplift delivered by the upcoming RTX 4060 8GB against the established RTX 3060 12GB. The relatively recent addition of the RTX 3060 8GB is left much further behind by the new Ada Lovelace architecture entrant. According to the figures gathered by VideoCardz, the new RTX 4060 is reportedly 47.9% faster than the RTX 3060 8GB version. The source also highlights that both 8GB cards mentioned have a 128-bit memory bus and PCIe Express 4.0 8x interface making them likely unsuitable for modern 1440p (2560x1440) gaming.
We have reproduced an abridged set of results from VideoCardz sources. Remember to add a pinch of salt to these numbers, but also that they are synthetics. UL designs its 3DMark benchmarks to resemble games people play across generations and APIs. Still, with the variety of 3D engines, the correlation between these scores and gameplay FPS isn't always powerful.
Graphics Card |
Port Royal DX12 RT 1440p |
Time Spy DX12 1440p |
Fire Strike DX 11 1080p |
---|---|---|---|
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB | 8,034 | 13,448 | 34,636 |
GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB | 6,966 | 11,723 | 29,504 |
GeForce RTX 4060 8G | 6,023 | 11,385 | 26,723 |
GeForce RTX 3060 12GB | 5,140 | 8,732 | 22,298 |
Radeon RX 7600 8GB | 5,471 | 10,859 | 31,514 |
Radeon RX 6600 8GB | 3,800 | 8,149 | 23,682 |
Table data via VideoCardz
We would have liked to see an RTX 3070 and RX 6700 comparing the results. For bang-for-buck reasons, PC enthusiasts and DIYers might look sideways at old-stock and used GPUs instead of products like the RTX 4060 / Ti 8GB. Our upcoming review will be much broader than these results and feature many of the most popular games and display resolutions in 2023.
Remember that Nvidia is also preparing GeForce RTX 4060 Ti models with 16 GB of VRAM on board starting in July. Models with doubled VRAM will still be hindered by the 128-bit memory bus, so we will have to try and see if and when they are worth considering.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Mark Tyson is a news editor at Tom's Hardware. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.
-
Remember that Nvidia is also preparing GeForce RTX 4060 and 4060 Ti models with 16 GB of VRAM on board starting in July.
No, they are not preparing 16GB SKU of the plain non-Ti RTX 4060 GPU. Only the Ti variant will come in a 16GB flavor. The plain RTX 4060 will only sport 8GB VRAM. No other changes in specs.
So we will have 2 RTX 4060 Ti cards, one with 8 GB VRAM which has already been released, and the other sporting 16 GB (coming out in July). -
This gen's XX60-class video cards are actually 50-Tier SKUs in disguise. What was expected to be an RTX 4050, has now landed on RTX 4060's GPU core die.Reply
These specs suit more on an RTX 4050-class GPU, 8GB VRAM, 128-bit mem bus width, and PCIx4 lanes. -
hannibal Metal Messiah. said:This gen's XX60-class video cards are actually 50-Tier SKUs in disguise. What was expected to be an RTX 4050, has now landed on RTX 4060's GPU core die.
These specs suit more on an RTX 4050-class GPU, 8GB VRAM, 128-bit mem bus width, and PCIx4 lanes.
Does not matter when 4050 will be even more cut down… -
baboma @opReply
Last two entries in table are mislabeled. Should be Radeon RX 7600 & 6600.
If these numbers translate to gaming perf, 7600 looks competitive against 4060--at least if we discount DLSS/framegen/CUDA.
At $250 w/o said "enhancements," or $300 with, bang/buck is roughly same.
Looking forward to Jarred's piece on Wed. -
And how much of a difference can that 23% faster performance make, when games like Resident Evil 4 demand more than 12 GBs of VRAM, in order to run at 1080p?Reply
And we 're talking about an upcoming GPU?
Jesus!
PC users, will do well to save their money and stay away from such crappy cards.
Products like these, shouldn't even be on the shelves.
Goes on to show exactly how dominant nvidia is at the moment. They just don't care. -
hotaru251
i mean excluding this one even the 1060 3gb (as bad as it was for the cost) still had a 192bit bus.Metal Messiah. said:These specs suit more on an RTX 4050-class GPU, 8GB VRAM, 128-bit mem bus width, and PCIx4 lanes. -
nitrium
That's not really true. I'm running RE4 Remake on my RTX 2060 (6GB), and it uses just 4GB of VRAM with just about everything maxxed (or high) except textures and of course raytracing (something that never really worked on the RTX 2060). Why would you run 4K textures at 1080p? Can you even tell the difference?valthuer said:And how much of a difference can that 23% faster performance make, when games like Resident Evil 4 demand more than 12 GBs of VRAM, in order to run at 1080p? -
Well, yes, IMHO, RayTracing and high resolution textures, can make a huge visual difference.nitrium said:That's not really true. I'm running RE4 Remake on my RTX 2060 (6GB), and it uses just 4GB of VRAM with just about everything maxxed (or high) except textures and of course raytracing (something that never really worked on the RTX 2060). Why would you run 4K textures at 1080p? Can you even tell the difference?
And, to be honest, six years after the release of the 11 GB 1080 Ti, i would expect something more from the latest generation of GPUs.
8 GBs of VRAM, are just not good enough anymore.
But, then again, that's just me. -
sherhi
Nvidia is not promoting it as GPU for the future, just for "latest games" and then sprey reviewers' quotes like "excels at 1080p gaming" over it. There is no bad product, only bad price. Reviewers further marketing it as "midtier GPU" doesnt help either...let's fix it, who has the balls to label new GPUs correctly?valthuer said:And how much of a difference can that 23% faster performance make, when games like Resident Evil 4 demand more than 12 GBs of VRAM, in order to run at 1080p?
And we 're talking about an upcoming GPU?
Jesus!
PC users, will do well to save their money and stay away from such crappy cards.
Products like these, shouldn't even be on the shelves.
Goes on to show exactly how dominant nvidia is at the moment. They just don't care.
1) "legacy/retro gaming GPU" - anything with 8gb ram or less, just for older major titles, don't expect much longevity
2) "1080p tier" (low-end/entry level) - ultra/high settings, steady 60fps, 1080p, 12gb ram or more
3) "1440p tier" (midtier) - ultra/high, steady 60fps, 1440p, 16gb ram or more
4) "4k tier" (high-end) - ultra/high, steady 60fps, 4k, 20-24 GB ram or more