Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
Dropping to 1080p medium settings means the CPU and other system bottlenecks will become more of a factor, and of course, the added VRAM on the 4060 Ti 16GB really won't help here. These results are more for completeness than because we feel they're super important, so we'll limit our commentary.
As expected, the 4060 Ti 16GB and 8GB again deliver equivalent results, with the RTX 3070 dropping just slightly behind them. That's probably because the larger L2 cache on the 4060 Ti has even better hit rates when running lighter workloads, thus improving overall throughput.
AMD's RX 6800 is also right in the same ballpark overall, while the 6800 XT delivers 9% more performance overall. Let's move on to the rasterization and ray tracing suites for additional detail.
As we saw at 1080p ultra, AMD also holds an advantage at 1080p medium. The 6800 is 10% faster than the 4060 Ti 16GB, while the 6800 XT delivers 19% better performance — both of those margins are lower than what we saw at ultra settings, as other factors start limiting performance.
Looking just at the 6800 XT, since it's the closest competitor to the 4060 Ti 16GB, the performance advantage here ranges from 8% (Flight Simulator, Warhammer 3) to as much as 34% (Borderlands 3). The AMD lead in a few games, like Watch Dogs Legion, shrank a lot compared to ultra settings, though A Plague Tale: Requiem did increase AMD's lead to 30%. (That and Flight Simulator are the only two games where 1080p favored AMD more than 1080p ultra.)
Ray tracing still favors Nvidia GPUs, though overall, it's a margin of error (3%) difference between the RX 6800 XT and the RTX 4060 Ti 16GB. Nvidia does claim that win, thanks in particular to Minecraft, where it still holds on to a 34% lead — the other five games are less than a 10% lead for Nvidia, with half of the games favoring AMD's GPU.
There's still the matter of upscaling and DLSS, which skews things far more in favor of the Nvidia GPUs. Even if FSR2 could deliver equivalent quality (it doesn't), DLSS upscaling support is more prevalent, particularly in ray tracing games. Thankfully, the majority of new releases that support ray tracing also have FSR2 and even XeSS support, in addition to DLSS and DLSS 3.
Anyway, that's enough of 1080p testing. Let's see what happens at higher resolutions.
Current page: GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB: 1080p Medium Gaming PerformancePrev Page GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB: 1080p Ultra Gaming Performance Next Page GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB: 1440p Ultra Gaming Performance
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.
This card is good if you want to edit movies and need more VRAM .Reply
I just want to clarify something here: The score is a result of both pricing as well as performance and features, plus I took a look (again) at our About Page and the scores breakdown. This is most definitely a "Meh" product right now. Some of my previous reviews may have been half a point (star) higher than warranted. I've opted to "correct" my scale and thus this lands at the 2.5-star mark.Reply
I do feel our descriptions of some of the other scores are way too close together. My previous reviews were based more on my past experience and an internal ranking that's perhaps not what the TH text would suggest. Here's how I'd break it down:
5 = Practically perfect
4.5 = Excellent
4 = Good
3.5 = Okay, possibly a bad price
3 = Okay but with serious caveats (pricing, performance, and/or other factors)
2.5 = Meh, niche use cases
The bottom four categories are still basically fine as described. Pretty much the TH text has everything from 3-star to 5-star as a "recommended" and that doesn't really jive with me. 🤷♂️
This would have been great as a 3060 Ti replacement if it had 12GB and a 192-bit bus with a $399 price point. Then the 4060 Ti 8GB could have been a 3060 replacement with 8GB and a 128-bit bus at the $329 price point. And RTX 4060 would have been a 3050 replacement at $249.
Fundamentally, this is a clearly worse value and specs proposition than the RTX 4060 Ti 8GB and the RTX 4070. It's way too close to the former and not close enough to the latter to warrant the $499 price tag.
All of the RTX 40-series cards have generally been a case of "good in theory, priced too high." Everything from the 4080 down to the 4060 so far got a score of 3.5 stars from me. There's definitely wiggle room, and the text is more important than just that one final score. In retrospect, I still waffle on how the various parts actually rank.
Here's an alternate ranking, based on retrospect and the other parts that have come out:
4090: 4.5 star. It's an excellent halo part that gives you basically everything. Expensive, yes, but not really any worse than the previous gen 3090 / 3090 Ti and it's actually justifiable.
4080: 3-star. It's fine on performance, but the generational price increase was just too much. 3080 Ti should have been a $999 (at most) part, and this should be $999 or less.
4070 Ti: 3-star. Basically the same story as the 4080. It's fine performance, priced way too high generationally.
4070: 3.5-star. Still higher price than I'd like, but the overall performance story is much better.
4060 Ti 16GB: 2.5-star. Clearly a problem child, and there's a reason it wasn't sampled by Nvidia or its partners. (The review would have been done a week ago but I had a scheduled vacation.) This is now on the "Jarred's adjusted ranking."
4060 Ti 8GB: 3-star. Okay, still a higher price than we'd like and the 128-bit interface is an issue.
4060: 3.5-star. This isn't an amazing GPU, but it's cheaper than the 3060 launch price and so mostly makes up for the 128-bit interface, 8GB VRAM, and 24MB L2. Generally better as an overall pick than many of the other 40-series GPUs.
AMD's RX 7000-series parts are a similar story. I think at the current prices, the 7900 XTX works as a $949 part and warrants the 4-star score. 7900 XT has dropped to $759 and also warrants the 4-star score, maybe. The 7600 at $259 is still a 3.5-star part. So, like I said, there's wiggle room. I don't think any of the charts or text are fundamentally out of line, and a half-star adjustment is basically easily justifiable on almost any review I've done.
Jarred, thanks for this review. I do wonder if there is more silver lining on this card we might be missing though. Could it act as a good budget 4K card? What happens if users dial back settings slightly at 4K (eg no Ray tracing, no bleeding edge ultra features ) and then make the most of DLSS 3 and the extra 16GB VRAM? I wonder if users might get something visually close to top line experience at a much lower price.Reply
If you do those things, the 4060 Ti 8GB will be just as fast. Basically, dialing back settings to make this run better means dialing back settings so that more than 8GB isn't needed.Lord_Moonub said:Jarred, thanks for this review. I do wonder if there is more silver lining on this card we might be missing though. Could it act as a good budget 4K card? What happens if users dial back settings slightly at 4K (eg no Ray tracing, no bleeding edge ultra features ) and then make the most of DLSS 3 and the extra 16GB VRAM? I wonder if users might get something visually close to top line experience at a much lower price.
Damn, @JarredWaltonGPU went hard! Appreciate the review and the clarification of your scoring system.Reply
More memory doesn't do you much good without the bandwidth to put it to use. The 4060(Ti) needed 192bits to strike the practically perfect balance between capacity and bandwidth. It would have brought the 4060(Ti) launches from steaming garbage to at least being a consistent upgrade over the 3060(Ti).Reply
Jarred, I'm building with the 4090 but love reading your GPU reviews, even the ones that are far below what I would build with because I learn something every time.Reply
I am not a gamer but a GFX Medium Format photographer and have multiple TB of high-res 200MB raw files that I work extensively with in LightRoom and Photoshop. I build every 4 years and update as I go. I build the absolute top-end of the PC arena, which is way overkill, but I do it anyway.
As you know. Lightroom has many new amazing AI masking and noise reduction features that are like magic but so many users (photographers) are now grinding to a halt on their old rigs and laptops. Photographers tend to be behind the gamers on PC / laptop power. It is common knowledge on the photo and Adobe forums that these new AI capabilities eat VRAM like Skittles and extensively use the GPU for the grind. (Adobe LR & PS was always behind on using the GPU with the CPU for its editing and export tasks but now are going at it with gusto.) When I run an AI DeNoise on a big GFX 200MB file, my old rig with the 3080 (I'm building again soon with the 4 090) takes about 12 seconds to grind out the AI DeNoise task. Others rigs photographers use take several minutes or just crash. The Adobe and LightRoom forums are full of howling and gnashing of teeth about this. I tell them to start upgrading, but here is my question.... I can't wait to see what the 4090 will do with these photography-related workflow tasks in LR.
Can you comment on this and tell me if indeed this new Lightroom AI masking and DeNoise (which is a miracle for photographers) is so VRAM intensive that doubling the VRAM on a card like this would really help alot? Isn't it true that NVidea made some decisions 3 years ago that resulted in not having enough (now far cheaper) VRAM in the 40 series? It should be double or triple what it is right? Anything you can teach me about increased GPU power and VRAM in Adobe LR for us photographers?
Good card for the OEM masses. No one else need worry about it.Reply
4060ti should of been closer to a 4070.Reply
the gap between em is huge and the cost is way too high. (doubly so that it requires dlss3 support to not get crippled by the limited bus)
JarredWaltonGPU said:Some of my previous reviews may have been half a point (star) higher than warranted. I've opted to "correct" my scale and thus this lands at the 2.5-star mark.
Thank you for listening Jarred. I was one of those claiming on multiple recent gpu reviews that your scores were about a half star off though not alone in that sentiment either. I was quick to defend you from trolls though as you clearly were not shilling for Nvidia either. This post proves my faith was well placed in you. Thank you for being a straight arrow!