Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Review: 1080p Gaming for $399

Memory capacity and bus width can hamstring performance at higher resolutions.

Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Founders Edition photos and unboxing
(Image: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

The RTX 4060 Ti lands with truly mainstream pricing starting at $399. It's a lesson in compromise, barely outperforming the previous-gen 3060 Ti and limited in what it can do by the narrower 128-bit memory bus and 8GB of VRAM. DLSS 3 Frame Generation helps, but it can only do so much.


  • +

    Efficient and good for 1080p gaming

  • +

    Potent Ada features like ray tracing and AI

  • +

    Inherits the previous generation's $399 price point


  • -

    Only manages to trade blows with RTX 3070

  • -

    Mostly pointless 16-pin connector and adapter

  • -

    8GB and 128-bit bus limit the long-term utility

  • -

    DLSS 3 inflates FPS while increasing latency

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.

The Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 Ti brings true mainstream pricing to the Ada Lovelace architecture and RTX 40-series GPUs, starting at $399 for the Founders Edition and reference-clocked models. Unfortunately, it also brings a lot of potential compromises into play, chief among them being the 128-bit memory interface and 8GB of VRAM. Nvidia has a potential solution for the capacity problem with a 16GB model planned for release in July, but it won't address any concerns with the memory interface.

Is the RTX 4060 Ti one of the best graphics cards? That largely depends on how many games you play support DLSS 3 and whether you're willing to trade latency for AI-interpolated FPS. Looking at native performance in our GPU benchmarks hierarchy (which will be updated later today), the RTX 4060 Ti comes in just ahead of the RTX 3070 at 1080p, but falls behind the RTX 3060 Ti at 1440p and 4K.

So the good news is that the RTX 4060 Ti is generally faster than the previous generation RTX 3060 Ti at the same price while using less power. It also supports new Ada features like DLSS 3 Frame Generation, SER, DMM, and OMM. The bad news is that it barely surpasses its predecessor overall, and design decisions made years ago are certainly at play.

Let's dive into the spec sheet to see what the Nvidia RTX 4060 Ti offers.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Nvidia RTX 4060 Ti and Other GPU Specifications
Graphics CardRTX 4060 TiRTX 4060 Ti 16GBRTX 4060RTX 4070RTX 3070RTX 3060 TiRX 6750 XTRX 6700Arc A770 16GB
ArchitectureAD106AD106AD107AD104GA104GA104Navi 22Navi 22ACM-G10
Process TechnologyTSMC 4NTSMC 4NTSMC 4NTSMC 4NSamsung 8NSamsung 8NTSMC N7TSMC N7TSMC N6
Transistors (Billion)22.922.918.93217.417.417.217.221.7
Die size (mm^2)187.8187.8158.7294.5392.5392.5336336406
SMs / CUs / Xe-Cores343424464638403632
GPU Cores (Shaders)435243523072588858884864256023044096
Tensor Cores13613696184184152N/AN/A512
Ray Tracing "Cores"343424464638403632
Boost Clock (MHz)253525352460247517251665260024502100
VRAM Speed (Gbps)181817211414181617.5
VRAM (GB)81681288121016
VRAM Bus Width128128128192256256192160256
L2 / Infinity Cache3232243644968016
TFLOPS FP32 (Boost)
TFLOPS FP16 (FP8)177 (353)177 (353)121 (242)233 (466)16313026.622.6138
Bandwidth (GBps)288288272504448448432320560
TDP (watts)160160115200220200250175225
Launch DateMay 2023Jul 2023Jul 2023Apr 2023Oct 2020Dec 2020May 2022Mar 2021Sep 2022
Launch Price$399$499$299$599$499$399$549$479$349
Current Price$399N/AN/A$599$442$377$379$269$349

That's a crowded table, but the first column is the most pertinent. The RTX 4060 Ti uses Nvidia's new AD106 GPU — the same chip found in the RTX 4070 Laptop GPU, incidentally. You can also see the block diagram for the AD106 chip and the 4060 Ti below, which we'll get to in a moment.

The result is fewer GPU cores than the RTX 3060 Ti, but Nvidia makes up for that with significantly higher core clocks — 2535 MHz boost versus 1665 MHz. As usual, real-world clocks will exceed those values, but in terms of theoretical compute from the shaders and tensor cores, the 4060 Ti delivers 22.1 teraflops versus 16.2 teraflops for FP32, and 177 teraflops versus 130 teraflops for FP16 (with sparsity). The 4060 Ti also supports FP8 mode on its tensor cores, so if/when AI applications add support for that, it can deliver a potential 353 teraflops.

Looking at the competition based on relatively similar pricing, we have AMD's RX 6750 XT with 12GB and Intel's Arc A770 16GB. It's a safe bet that Nvidia can match or exceed those cards when it comes to ray tracing performance and AI workloads — winning the latter by default since it's often the only GPU option supported. On the other hand, rasterization performance will be a lot closer and a more interesting comparison point.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are going to be major factors in performance. 8GB of VRAM shouldn't be a problem for most games running at 1080p, but 1440p and especially 4K could prove problematic. We talked recently about why 4K gaming requires so much more VRAM, and that applies here. Nvidia isn't marketing the RTX 4060 Ti as a 1440p or 4K gaming solution, probably precisely due to its lack of VRAM capacity and bandwidth. That's interesting, as the 3060 Ti and 3070 two years ago were both targeting 1440p.

Fundamentally, Nvidia had a design decision to make several years back when the Ada Lovelace architecture and chips were in the planning phase. There were plenty of other factors to consider, but the ones we're talking about here are simply this: How wide should the memory interface be, and how much L2 cache should there be?

For the RTX 30-series, Nvidia had up to a 384-bit width on GA102 (RTX 3090 Ti down to RTX 3080), up to 256-bit on GA104 (RTX 3070 Ti down to RTX 3060 Ti), up to 192-bit on GA106 (RTX 3060 and 3050), and up to 128-bit on GA107 (mobile RTX 3050 / 3050 Ti and later a desktop 3050) — all with a 1MB L2 cache per 64-bits of interface width. For the RTX 40-series, rather than sticking with similar widths, Nvidia opted for 384-bit on AD102, 256-bit on AD103, 192-bit on AD104, and 128-bit on AD106 and AD107. The L2 cache meanwhile received a big upgrade, up to 16MB per 64 bits of interface width.

The bigger caches certainly pay off in effective bandwidth. There's no question about that. AMD proved that larger caches were a viable tradeoff with the RDNA 2 architecture and Infinity Cache, and Nvidia is doing something similar with Ada. But bigger caches only alleviate the memory bandwidth issue. There's still a capacity constraint with using a narrower interface, and while using "clamshell" memory on both sides of the PCB can at least partly overcome that, it's a more costly approach and doesn't address the raw bandwidth aspect.

Let's be blunt: Nvidia made a cost-saving architectural design decision, and I think many gamers and enthusiasts fundamentally disagree with Nvidia's choices on everything except perhaps AD102 and AD107. If the RTX 4080 had come with a 320-bit interface and 20GB, then 256-bit and 16GB for AD104 and the RTX 4070 Ti/4070, we'd be looking at a 192-bit interface and 12GB on AD106 and the RTX 4060 Ti. And looking at prices right now, we can't even argue that the added cost of more VRAM and a wider memory interface would have been too high.

All indications are that the RTX 40-series GPUs aren't selling particularly well. Part of that comes from the changing economic environment, and part of it certainly comes from the end of GPU mining. But it's also fair to say that a big factor for many gamers and even AI researchers is the lack of tangible performance increases at various tiers, coupled with limited memory options and higher prices. Yes, there's an RTX 4060 Ti 16GB card coming in July. It will still have a 128-bit interface and it will cost $100 extra.

AMD hasn't been doing much better, but the 7900 XTX comes with 24GB, and the 7900 XT offers 20GB. Presumably, we'll see a 16GB 7800 XT and a 12GB 7700 XT at some point in the future. That will be more palatable on some levels than Nvidia's offerings, but then you'll lose out on AI performance and support and ray tracing performance. As the market leader, Nvidia can and really should have done better than this. We had GTX 1070 with 8GB for $379 back in 2016 — 12GB for a $399 graphics card should be the bare minimum we can expect in 2023.

Here are the block diagrams for the RTX 4060 Ti, the full AD106 chip, and the upcoming RTX 4060 / AD107. RTX 4060 Ti is nearly the fully enabled chip, with the only disabled portions being one NVDEC (Nvidia Decoder) block and two SMs (Streaming Multiprocessors). In addition, there's up to 8MB of L2 cache per 32-bit memory channel, for a total of 32MB on the 128-bit interface.

As with other Ada Lovelace chips, AD106 includes Nvidia's 4th-gen Tensor cores, 3rd-gen RT cores, new and improved NVENC/NVDEC units for video encoding and decoding (now with AV1 support), and a significantly more powerful Optical Flow Accelerator (OFA). The latter is used for DLSS 3, and while it's "theoretically" possible to do Frame Generation with the Ampere OFA (or using some other alternative), so far, only RTX 40-series cards can provide that feature. Given the marketing hype around Frame Generation, we also suspect we will never see it on previous-generation GPUs — it's one of the few selling points for the 4060 Ti.

As noted already, the tensor cores now support FP8 with sparsity. It's not clear how useful that is in all workloads, but AI and deep learning have certainly leveraged lower precision number formats to boost performance without significantly altering the quality of the results — at least in some workloads. It will ultimately depend on the work being done, and figuring out just what uses FP8 versus FP16, plus sparsity, can be tricky.

But the VRAM capacity comes up again with AI workloads. Many large language models (LLMs) benefit from lots of memory, and 8GB isn't enough for even some "medium" sized models. So the 4060 Ti 16GB will probably find some uptake by AI researchers just because of its memory capacity — the same as the RTX 4080, for less than half the price.

Jarred Walton

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.

  • lmcnabney
    3.5 stars for what is a fairly negative review.

    Who is the target for this product? A console will perform better for the same money and eliminate the cost of the rest of the computer.
  • HKTacticblade
    RX 6800 16GB from previous gen is already better.
  • DSzymborski
    lmcnabney said:
    3.5 stars for what is a fairly negative review.

    Who is the target for this product? A console will perform better for the same money and eliminate the cost of the rest of the computer.

    Presumably people who want a computer that can do the stuff a console can and still do the other things that a console doesn't do all that well.
  • bourgeoisdude
    HKTacticblade said:
    RX 6800 16GB from previous gen is already better.
    It also costs more :)

    Seriously though, I keep waiting for a card around this price point to upgrade to, as I have the 1070 ti, but I keep getting disappointed. I am considering AMD as a protest to what I consider the NVIDIA name tax, but frankly I am skeptical that they will do much better with their 7600 (XT) or 7700 (XT). I play enough older games that I also lean away from Intel. I guess I'm just hanging on to Pascal for a bit longer.
  • J_E_D_70
    WTH is going on. The $500 2070 Super 8GB from four (!!!) years ago crushes 1080p and is highly competent at 1440p. Two generations later a 4060ti should be equivalent to what... a 2080 or higher? Guess they really have hit a wall.
  • dk382
    FYI, the professional/content creation portion of the review is for the 4070. Looks like you forgot to replace it with the 4060 Ti's data in the template.
  • evdjj3j
    lmcnabney said:
    3.5 stars for what is a fairly negative review.

    Who is the target for this product? A console will perform better for the same money and eliminate the cost of the rest of the computer.
    I came here to say the same thing.

    "RTX 4060 Ti comes in just ahead of the RTX 3070 at 1080p, but falls behind the RTX 3060 Ti at 1440p and 4K."

    "Being faster than the RTX 3070 is at least something, but the lead is very slim, and the RTX 3060 Ti isn't far behind either. Gen on gen, we're looking at native performance that's only 13% faster with the RTX 4060 Ti."

    That's not 3 1/2 starts worthy.

    I'm getting the impression that Tom's doesn't want to bite the had that feeds it.
  • peachpuff
    lmcnabney said:
    3.5 stars for what is a fairly negative review.
    Maybe it's out of 10 stars? 🤔
  • bit_user
    dk382 said:
    FYI, the professional/content creation portion of the review is for the 4070. Looks like you forgot to replace it with the 4060 Ti's data in the template.
    I also noticed that, but the article text explains it:
    Note: We're still retesting some of the cards and so the ProViz and AI results aren't quite ready yet. Check back later today... the charts and text below are placeholders from the RTX 4070 launch.
  • btmedic04
    So more or less 3070 performance for $100 less now, or 3070 performance with double the vram for the same launch price as the 3070 next month. Yeah no thanks. Insane that nvidia thinks they can charge essentially the same price on 3 year old performance