RTX 4060 vs RTX 3060 12GB GPU faceoff: New versus old mainstream GPUs compared

RTX 4060 vs RTX 3060 12GB Faceoff
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

The RTX 4060 is up to 20% faster than the RTX 3060 12GB at 1080p and as much as 10% faster at 4K ultra in our testing. The newer 4060 card is superior to the RTX 3060 12GB for content creation and professional application performance, as well. The only area where the 12GB 3060 leads its replacement is with AI workloads, where VRAM is a concern.

Both of these GPUs have been on our list of the best graphics cards at one time or another. The Nvidia RTX 40-series Ada Lovelace GPUs have been a bit of a mixed bag, particularly on the lower end of the price and performance ladder. The RTX 4060 was widely criticized for cutting back on the VRAM relative to its RTX 3060 12GB predecessor, resulting in a relatively minor increase in performance — or sometimes even a performance regression. Or at least that's the common wisdom you'll see floating around online these days. But how bad is it really?

This GPU faceoff aims to answer that question, and since it's Nvidia versus Nvidia we have something of a war of the (green) roses. We've seen people suggest that the RTX 3060 12GB, today, is a better buy than the RTX 4060. Of course, finding a brand-new 3060 12GB for sale is getting to be a bit difficult, but we'll look at used card prices (for both GPUs) as well, as we draw the battle lines and pit the two cards against each other.

The RTX 4060 represents the lowest entry point (on desktops at least) for the 40-series cards. The RTX 3060 on the other hand is a step above the base model RTX 3050 8GB. Nvidia also muddied the waters later in the product cycle with the RTX 3060 8GB card (which we haven't reviewed), plus the more recent RTX 3050 6GB (also not reviewed here) that came out after the RTX 4060 launched. Needless to say, the 4060 looks quite a bit better when compared with the lower class 3060 8GB card.

But our focus is on the two primary cards, so let's dig into the details, looking at performance, price, efficiency, and other features — in rough order of importance.

RTX 4060 vs RTX 3060 12GB: Performance

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Jarred Walton
Senior Editor

Jarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge '3D decelerators' to today's GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.

  • jordanbuilds1
    imo, the 3060 is better value, especially on the used market. at the 4060s current $300 price, there are alot of better and cheaper alternatives online such as: rtx 3070, rx 6600, rx 6650, rtx 2080 super, intel arc a750, and the list goes on. the 4060 is trashed on for a reason, but that doesnt mean it doesnt have its place in "someones" pc.
    Reply
  • SyCoREAPER
    Not worth it at all IMO unless your dying for frame generation.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    jordanbuilds1 said:
    imo, the 3060 is better value, especially on the used market. at the 4060s current $300 price, there are alot of better and cheaper alternatives online such as: rtx 3070, rx 6600, rx 6650, rtx 2080 super, intel arc a750, and the list goes on. the 4060 is trashed on for a reason, but that doesnt mean it doesnt have its place in "someones" pc.
    This is precisely the sort of mindset that I was hoping to disprove. A used 3060 12GB will cost, on average, about $220. A used 4060 can be had for $260. That's a $40 difference, and anywhere from $5 to $15 per year (estimating use) in power use for the 3060, while getting 17% less performance. All for what? 12GB VRAM, basically, which theoretically helps at 4K ultra in some newer games, and even fewer games at 1440p ultra.

    RX 6600 and RX 6650 are cheaper, as new cards, but also much slower than a 4060 across a broad test suite. The 4060 beats the RX 6650 by around 40% across our test suite, and it's around 60% faster than the vanilla 6600. And it uses less power than either card as a bonus, plus gives access to Nvidia tech like DLSS.

    RTX 2080 Super costs about the same, used, as the RTX 3060 12GB. It's a "win some, lose some" competition with the 4060, basically a tie... while using twice as much power and with the same 8GB VRAM. And you're getting a card that came out five years ago, which was 99% certain (probably) used for mining and could have some issues because of that. I definitely wouldn't buy or recommend anyone buy a used 2080 Super at $225 over an RTX 4060. Okay, maybe if it's $100, but I'd be very skeptical of stability and quality if that's from an eBay or Facebook seller (considering the going rate is over twice that).

    But this isn't about all the alternatives to an RTX 4060, or whether you should upgrade from one of the above mentioned cards to a 4060. It's about how the 4060 and 3060 comparison is often portrayed as being a big step back for the new card. You have to really cherry pick your tests to make that even close to being true. Mostly, it's just screaming "8GB is terrible!" and then ignoring all the use cases where 8GB is still totally fine.

    Out of 76 different tests, across 19 games and four settings, the 3060 12GB was faster in just three cases (4% of the time), and only in one case (1.3% of cases) was the difference more than 10% — all at 4K, naturally. And even then, it was a case of 17.3 vs 15.6 fps. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for either GPU at such settings. Even looking at the 1% lows, where there were five instances that the 3060 offered higher minimum fps, and three cases where it was more than a 10% lead, the 3060 only hit a playable result in one of those games (Spider-Man: Miles Morales, which I called out).

    So edge cases that happen maybe 1% of the time could give the 3060 a performance lead. At 1080p, where such cards are likely to be used, I haven't run or encountered a single "realistic" test that where the 3060 was ahead or even close to being tied. And by "realistic" I mean a game where people would actually use the specified settings on the 3060 12GB to get a playable result.
    Reply
  • SyCoREAPER said:
    Not worth it at all IMO unless your dying for frame generation.

    Agreed. Especially, considering the fact we 're just months away from the release of the RTX-50 series.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    valthuer said:
    Agreed. Especially, considering the fact we 're just months away from the release of the RTX-50 series.
    Budget "RTX 5060" cards likely won't be out for about a year, though. The people in the market for a 4060 aren't even thinking about buying a 5090 or 5080 this fall I suspect.
    Reply
  • Notton
    Going off of Nvidia's historical release sequence, If RTX 5080 launches in 2024 September/October, the RTX 5060 won't arrive until 2025 July/August.
    If it launches before March/April, it's most likely going to be an 8GB card.

    Having tried out frame-gen and up-scaling on an RTX 2050 and RTX 4070Ti, it's definitely worth running it.

    The early implementation wasn't good, but the technology feels mature, now that it works with ray-tracing.
    It's a buttery smooth 120fps using 1440p all max/ultra graphics with ray-tracing enabled... 99% of the time.
    Reply
  • AtrociKitty
    There's one test I would have liked to see that isn't here, and that's transcode performance. I'm fairly sure that's the one place the 3060's VRAM advantage actually does make the card come out ahead.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU said:
    Budget "RTX 5060" cards likely won't be out for about a year, though.

    If that comes to pass, it will be too bad. There's a lot of people out there, waiting for the mid-range RTX-50 GPUs, as well as the subsequent price decrease in RTX-40 series.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    So it doesnt say in article (at least i didnt see any) but was it pure rasterized or using the "gimmick" of dlss and the like? (yes that gimmick is likely future goign forward given how game devs dont optimize anymore but if you enjoy older games thats not an option)

    As main issue of 4060 was not the lower vram (that sucked but not main issue) it was the memory bus reduction which can have real impact ( why the 3060 at times could beat 4060 in stuff that didn't have those gimmicks available) when it became the limiting factor.
    Reply
  • SyCoREAPER
    40-series demand was decent but I don't think a massive success either. It was mostly artifical shortages. Considering the 50-series will probably cost even more (and still use the dumbass 12VHPWR connector), I don't think people will be flocking to them.
    Reply